1973-01-16

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege concerning the announcement made yesterday by the Secretary of State having to do with an $85.4 million youth package called Summer 73.
I feel that my privileges as an elected member of the House have been infringed because the announcement of this new program, involving a huge expenditure, was not made in the House. It was made to the press outside the House before any member possessed any information at all as to the scope and thrust of the program. This somewhat unparliamentary procedure on the part of the Secretary of State interfered with the privileges of hon. members inasmuch as by his action he effectively denied those who are interested in following the program the opportunity to make observations and comments in the House.
I call upon the Secretary of State to desist from this practice of issuing press releases on such occasions and to correct his initial insensitivity to the rights of parliament by making a statement on motions today, fully explaining to the House the nature of the program, Summer 73.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Hellyer:: A shocking affront to parliament.


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I note that the member for Trinity smiled when he made that remark. Perhaps I might comment briefly on what was said by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West. It seems Your Honour is not likely to rule that there is a question of privilege here, but there may be a question of propriety which I should like to clarify. I considered very carefully whether or not I should announce this program in a statement on motions. I would remind hon. members that this is the third year in which this program has been pursued and that no substantial changes have been made. Essentially, it is the same mix as in previous years. In these circumstances, I proceeded by way of an announcement.
The hon. member says he was not given notice. I went out of my way to provide him with notice two and a half hours before meeting with the press. At about 12.30 p.m. the documents were in his office, and at roughly the same time they were in the offices of the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi and of the spokesman for the Social Credit party in order that the spokesmen for all the political parties might have a chance to comment. There was no attempt made to affront parliament The rationale was that this was the third year in which this program has
been introduced and I felt that a statement on motions was not justified.


An hon. Member:: And the third year the announcement was made outside the House.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy. Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2) I should like to lay on the table the annual report of the Permanent Engineering Board under the Columbia River Treaty.


FISHERIES
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 43 to seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion in a case of urgent and pressing necessity, namely, the steady increase, one which has reached fantastic proportions, of the species of fish called dogfish off the west coast. If unanimous consent is given I would ask that we not engage in a debate on this motion, so we would not be cutting into the time otherwise available to hon. members to debate other matters.
The motion I seek to move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) is as follows:
This House expresses its concern about the exceptionally large schools of dogfish in waters off the west coast and in an effort to control this predator and enhance the position of commercial fishermen we urge the establishment of an immediate dogfish control program implemented in consultation with all segments of the B.C. fishing industry.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Skeena. This motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
326

January 16, 1973
Oral Questions


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


Frank Howard: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I heard the "no" as well as you did. It was very faint and it was from that quarter. Inasmuch as the Minister of the Environment who deals with these matters is not in the House at the moment I wonder whether we might not allow the question to stand and raise it again tomorrow in order that we may have the benefit of his views.


Mr. Speaker:: There is nothing in the rules to prevent the hon. member raising the question again tomorrow. I might add that the rules do not allow for a distinction between loud "noes" and faint "noes".



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs who some ten days ago, in a statement to the House, outlined the conditions and criteria which the government was setting in connection with Canadian involvement in any new international commitment or commission in Viet Nam. Can the minister now tell the House whether there is any indication that these conditions are satisfactory to the combatants, or to the belligerent parties as I think the minister described them, or whether Canada is being pressed to modify any of those conditions?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I assume the Leader of the Opposition is raising the question because of the progress that seems to be being made in the Viet Nam talks-progress which I am sure all members of the House welcome. However, we have received no further communication from any of the parties to the negotiations indicating whether or not we shall be asked to participate, or as to the condition.


VIET NAM-PROPOSED PEACEKEEPING FORCE-SIZE OF POSSIBLE CANADIAN ELEMENT
Robert Lorne Stanfield: have a supplementary question arising out of reports attributed to the Department of National Defence that some 400 officers and men are ready for duty in Viet Nam. Can the Secretary of State for External Affairs indicate whether this is the maximum force the government contemplates may be involved in Viet Nam, and has there been a condition laid down in this regard involving a maximum of some 400 officers and men?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the question is no. We have not had an indication yet of the numbers involved. We did agree, and I am very happy that the Minister of National Defence gave the necessary instructions, that a certain number of men should be innoculated in case they are required so there would be no unnecessary delay. If in fact we agree to participate we will be in a position to put people on the spot with a minimum of delay.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Do I understand from the minister that he has not on behalf of the government prescribed any maximum number of personnel that would be involved as a condition?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker, we have not prescribed any maximum. The numbers that were first suggested by the United States were known to us. We do not know whether these suggestions are acceptable to the North Vietnamese, for example, or to the other parties to a possible agreement. We are not yet aware of the numbers that might be involved.


VIET NAM-PROPOSED PEACEKEEPING FORCE-COMMUNICATION WITH BELLIGERENTS OTHER THAN UNITED STATES    PROVISION FOR REPORTING TO INTERNATIONAL BODY
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask one or two supplementary questions. Since the request first came from the United States, has the government been directly in touch with the other belligerents in the area or has it relied entirely on the request from one side?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we were informed by the Secretary of State of the United States during the election campaign that the name of Canada was being used in connection with a supervisory force or a supervisory commission. That was the first information we had. We understood that our name was acceptable to the other groups who were being consulted. Subsequently, we have been in touch with the North Vietnamese and they have said that Canada would be acceptable as a member of the commission. Needless to say, however, we have not been negotiating. We are not preaching for a call.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that previous peacekeeping operations in which Canada participated were performed under resolution of the United Nations and therefore there was an international body under which the peacekeeping operations were carried on, will the minister inform the House whether there has been any discussion as to some international supervisory body to which Canadians and others would report on their activities in the area?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The leader of the New Democratic Party may recall that in my statement at the opening of this session when we were dealing with the bombing of Viet Nam I set down a history of our statements and redefined our position. One of the conditions we consider absolutely essential is that there should be
January 16, 1973

some international body, other than the contending parties, to which the peacekeeping force would report. This is an essential condition of our participation.
I also said, however, that it might not be possible to establish this international body until after the international conference which is contemplated had been held, and therefore we might agree to some interim arrangement pending the outcome of that international conference.


VIET NAM-PROPOSED PEACEKEEPING FORCE- CONSULTATION WITH OTHER SUGGESTED PARTIES TO WORK OUT ARRANGEMENTS
Hon. George Heea (Prince Edward-Hastings):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As Canada may be called on any day now to take part in a cease-fire supervisory force in Viet Nam, has the government now given consideration to getting in touch immediately with the three other countries that have been suggested for this role, namely, Indonesia, Hungary and Poland, to work out satisfactory arrangements for carrying out such a difficult task?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we have been in touch with the governments of these countries but we do not know, of course, whether they intend to participate and they do not know whether we intend to participate. We cannot make that decision until an agreement has been signed between the United States and North Viet Nam and we can have a look at the agreement itself. So it would not be practical to follow the suggestion of my hon. friend. Moreover, it would involve us committing ourselves now in advance of knowledge of the agreement itself.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A number of hon. members wish to ask supplementary questions-the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe and the hon. member for York South. I suggest to hon. members that perhaps we might complete the first series of questions and then return to this very important matter for further supplementaries.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Paddy Neale (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Labour arising out of the strike of Wardair stewardesses. In view of the fact one of the issues appears to be that the stewardesses are required to work as many as 32 hours at a time, is the minister taking steps to mediate the dispute so that a quick and just settlement may be reached?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. An appropriate officer of my department is involved in an endeavour to assist the parties in coming to a settlement.
Oral Questions


Charles Patrick (Paddy) Neale: Is the minister investigating the situation to ensure that the Canada Labour Code is not being breached by the company?


John Carr Munro: My information is that at the moment that is not a relevant consideration in this dispute, but I will check it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Patrick (Paddy) Neale: Will the minister immediately appoint an industrial inquiry commission to investigate and report on working conditions for stewardesses and others employed by Wardair?


John Carr Munro: I will certainly take that matter under consideration.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
Taking into account the government's policy on bilingualism, could the minister inquire about complaints made by Canadian citizens now in Florida who were unsuccessful in trying to get services in French on board Air Canada aircraft between Toronto and Miami and Montreal and Miami?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: I would be prepared to inquire provided complaints are sent to me.


Mr. Speaker:: We will return now to the first matter, and I will recognize the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe on a sup plementary.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Does the minister feel that Canada's role within the Viet Nam peacekeeping control commission should be considered immediately by the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence as soon as it is set up, that is in a few days?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, if we are asked to participate on the basis of an agreement reached between the United States and North Viet Nam and we have to reach a decision on
25714-22i

January 16, 1973
Oral Questions
this matter quickly, it would be my intention to bring the matter before the House of Commons at least for debate.


VIET NAM-PROPOSED PEACEKEEPING FORCE-SOURCE OF FUNDS TO COVER COST OF CANADIAN PARTICIPATION
[Stage Direction]
Mr. ]. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East): Mr. Speaker, I wish to address my supplementary question to the Minister of National Defence. Could he advise the House whether or not the cost of such a peacekeeping venture would come out of the current estimates or budget of the Department of National Defence or are other arrangements being worked out?
Hon. lames Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, we have been involved in a number of contingency plans, but we do not know what will be required of the Department of National Defence. Generally speaking, the only expenditure that we would be involved with would be salaries of personnel; as far as I know there has been no talk of any other expenditure. However, as I say, until we know what the requirements are it is very difficult to be precise about the cost.


VIET NAM-PROPOSED PEACEKEEPING FORCE-REQUEST FOR DEBATE BEFORE CANADIAN TROOPS DISPATCHED
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I heard the answer of the Secretary of State for External Affairs about bringing the matter to parliament. Would he undertake to do so before any personnel are dispatched from Canada to Indochina so that parliament and the people of Canada may know the precise arrangements, the body to which these people will be responsible, and what our commitments and undertakings are?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as soon as the government had made a decision I would make it known in the House, and I would also hope there would be an opportunity for debate on the matter in the House. Whether it would be practical to hold back men who might be needed to implement the truce, which I am sure all of us would like to see successful, is a question I would not like to answer directly now. For example, it may be that all the parties would like to have a body of men available on the spot so that the truce is effective immediately. I am sure the House would want that to happen whether or not we are committed for a long or short period.


OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-REASONS FOR ANNOUNCEMENT OUTSIDE HOUSE
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, the urgency of my question arises because yesterday the Secretary of State announced to the press the forthcoming summer programs in many divisions of his department, involving an expenditure of $85 million. I would

specifically ask the minister why he proceeded by way of a press conference, since these programs are so allembracing, and did not make his announcement in the House? Further, will the minister be announcing to the House the continuation of and changes in these programs that he announced to the press yesterday afternoon?


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, I think I partly answered that question in my earlier remarks. The details of the program, the various component parts of the Summer 73 program, are in the hands of every Member of Parliament. There was a certain difficulty yesterday and I apologize to the hon. member who was not well and did not arrive until later, although I had expected him to attend. I tried to get in touch with him two and a half hours before the meeting with the press so that he would have ample time to study the document. It was my understanding that the hon. member for Fraser Valley West would also have time to comment on the program as I did. It was not an attempt to affront parliament or to avoid their comments, because I would be most interested in having their support.


OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-CONSULTATION WITH LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND OTHERS-EVALUATION REPORT-EARLY APPROVAL OF PROJECTS
William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question specifically involving the opportunities for youth program. Will there be more consultation with local authorities, more involvement of low income people, and the immediate publication of an evaluation of the program to date? Further, can the minister assure the House that approval of specific programs will be given early enough to encourage employment among students next spring when they start coming on the labour market?


James Hugh Faulkner: On the latter point, Mr. Speaker, I can give that assurance. In answer to question Nos. 1 and 2, there will of course be consultation with local authorities. A letter will be going out from my office to all Members of Parliament inviting them to give us the names of people in their constituencies whom they feel we should consult, resource people with whom our field staff can work. Further, this year there will be an extension of the experiment we carried out last year with local advisory committees. Last year there were local advisory committees in Cornwall and Sault Ste. Marie. We are going to try to expand that to involve as many places as possible in the country so that we may get the views of local people.


OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT
Mr. lames A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, since the minister, rather uncharacteristically showing a certain contempt for parliament, made his statement outside the House, thereby depriving members of the House of the traditional opportunity to respond to his statement on a program which involves a substantial expenditure of public funds, will he undertake to make a statement on
January 16, 1973

motions at the earliest possible opportunity? In fact, I am sure consent would be given to him today for that purpose.


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, I certainly have no intention of making a statement on motions, having issued previously a press release. I did not conduct a press conference. I think the hon. member has misunderstood the facts. I made a statement to the press and well in advance of that I alerted members of the other political parties. I did not speak to the press until well after that and I did it by way of responding to their questions. If there are questions which the press would like to put to my hon. friends, I am sure they can do the same.


OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-REQUEST FOR INDICATION OF CRITERIA FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF LOCAL SELECTION COMMITTEES
Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Without pursuing further the remarkable doctrine the minister is suggesting that a press release outside the House is somehow a substitute for a statement on motions, may I ask the minister whether he wil1 table tomorrow some indication of the criteria that will be followed for establishing these local selection committees in order to assure some of the more suspicious members here that the only criteria will not be fealty to the Liberal party?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows that a question asked in those terms is not in order.


OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF ANALYSIS FOR 1972-PROVISION FOR LOW INCOME AREAS
Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the minister in rebuttal of my question of privilege was frank enough to admit that the program is pretty much the same old program. Arising from that, I wonder whether the minister has in his possession a document entitled "Analysis of the Opportunities for Youth Program 1972" and, if so, when he plans to make it available to members of the House and to the press, incidentally, for comment?


James Hugh Faulkner: I do not
have that document before me right now, Mr. Speaker, but I would be interested in seeing it.


Mark Willson Rose: In view of the fact the minister's press release mentioned programs for unemployed youth from low income areas as distinct from the student employment program, can the minister tell the House what specific programs he has in mind and when the details will be revealed?


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, full disclosure was made yesterday. The content of Summer 73 is before hon. members. It was before them yesterday. One of the reasons the amount for the opportunities for youth program was
Oral Questions
increased over last year was its success in getting at low income groups, particularly in remote areas. The flexibility of the program has enabled us to do that and is one of the reasons we are giving that program more support this year than in the past.


OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-ELIGIBILITY OF UNITED STATES DRAFT DODGERS
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I have a short supplementary for the Secretary of State. Will United States draft dodgers be eligible under the program?


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, anyone who is legally admitted to Canada and is here under those terms is eligible regardless of whether or not he left the United States as a draft dodger. That is not a criterion and the hon. member knows it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-INQUIRY AS TO PROVISION OF STATUTORY BASIS
Paul Theodore Hellyer: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Now that these programs are becoming habitual and in view of the fact that they will probably be needed as long as the miserable economic performance of the present government-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member resume his seat. The hon. member is an experienced member of the House and he knows that a question asked in those terms is not in order. I would invite him to consult the precedents. With respect, I suggest to the hon. member for Trinity that hon. members cannot make statements along those lines. I would invite the hon. member to ask a question.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that that phrase slipped in. Now that the program seems to be becoming a permanent part of the national scene, is the minister giving consideration to the possibility of introducing a statute for approval by parliament which would provide authorization for this sort of program in future?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am
not trying to do that, Mr. Speaker. I would remind the hon. member that the reason these programs are becoming habitual is that it is the practice in this country for schools-CEGEPS, community colleges and universities- to close in May and recommence in September and the government, like the private sector and all other levels of government, has an obligation to find jobs for these students.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to the Secretary of State which I have been rising for some time to

January 16, 1973
Oral Questions
ask. Is not the reason the program the minister has announced is much larger this year the greatly increased unemployment, and the program is to fill the gap?


James Hugh Faulkner: No, Mr. Speaker. It is because of the outstanding success-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


REPORT OF BOARD ON NEEDS AND REQUIREMENTS- RECOGNITION OF PROVINCIAL NEEDS IN NATIONAL POLICY
Mr. Keith Taylor (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In light of the recent report submitted to the Ontario government in which serious difficulties are forecast with respect to satisfying that province's growing energy needs, will the minister now advise the House when the updated report of the National Energy Board concerning energy needs and requirements will be received by him?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I stated to the House earlier in the session that I expect to be putting some reports on the table of the House with regard to a national energy policy.


Charles Keith Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Recognizing the many problems inherent in the geographic distribution in this country of energy markets and energy supplies, and further recognizing that discussions are currently under way between this country's largest energy producer and energy markets, what assurance can the minister give the House that provincial needs will gain complete recognition in his national energy policy, if such a policy is ever to appear?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that the needs of both Alberta and Ontario will be closely regarded in this connection.


DISCUSSIONS WITH ALBERTA ON ACCELERATION OF DEVELOPMENT OF ATHABASCA TAR SANDS
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Has the minister had or is he contemplating the holding of any talks with the province of Alberta with a view to accelerating development of the Athabasca tar sands in view of a possible energy crisis developing?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I have had a discussion with the responsible ministers of the government of Alberta at the commencement of this month. As the hon. member knows, the development of the Athabasca tar sands is under the jurisdiction of the province. I was

advised at that meeting that the Alberta government would bring out its policy with regard to the tar sands in, I think, August of this year. Very naturally, those interested in the further development of that area have been waiting for a decision by the provincial government.


POSSIBILITY OF TAX AMENDMENTS TO ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT OF ATHABASCA TAR SANDS
Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Minister of Finance. Will the minister consider making appropriate amendments to the tax structure which will have the effect of encouraging a more accelerated development of the Athabasca tar sands?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the amendments to the tax structure which followed the budget I had the honour to introduce last May would encourage the development of further processing of mineral resources in Alberta. I would hope the House would take that into consideration.


DATE OF STATEMENT ON NATIONAL POLICY
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Since both his predecessor and he have repeatedly promised a statement to the House on the government's national energy policy, may I ask the minister whether he can now be more specific and tell us when he intends to make that statement to the House outlining Canada's national energy policy?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Late winter, Mr. Speaker.


INQUIRY AS TO COMMUNICATION FROM BIOMASS ENERGY INSTITUTE ON ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON RENEWABLE BASIS
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Has the minister been able to get the correspondence which I suggested last Wednesday was available from the Biomass Energy Institute about producing energy on a renewable basis?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, inquiries have been made. It has not yet come to my desk.


ROYAL VISIT
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the right hon. Prime Minister.

Have the Quebec authorities made provisions to receive Her Majesty the Queen on her next visit to Canada?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: To receive .. . I lost the words which followed, Mr. Speaker.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, as the right hon. Prime Minister did not quite understand my question I shall repeat it.
Have the Quebec authorities made provisions to receive Her Majesty the Queen on her next visit to Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to either the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion or the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In light of the countervailing duties recently imposed by the United States on Michelin tires and the tariffs imposed on the products of other companies receiving DREE grants, has the government been in touch with the various pulp and paper companies in British Columbia which are receiving DREE grants and face a graduated tariff because of Britain's entry into the Common Market? Also, has the federal government been in touch with EEC or British officials to determine the stance on whether regional development subsidies are in fact a legitimate form of help to industry without fear of facing a countervailing tariff?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I will do my best to answer this rather complicated question. On the first portion of it with regard to the Michelin case and others flowing from it, steps have been taken and others are being contemplated about which I hope there will be more publicity within a few days. As to whether we have had discussions with specific companies in British Columbia, I will have to look at the record on that. I know we are discussing the matter with the pulp and paper industry in general along with other matters related to the industry. The last part of the question regarding the EEC might be more appropriately addressed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.


IMPOSITION BY UNITED STATES OF DUTY ON MICHELIN TIRES IMPORTED FROM CANADA-REQUEST BY CANADA FOR EXPLANATION
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Can the minister inform the House whether he has sent his request for an explanation of the special duty to the United States? If so, has he yet received a reply?
Oral Questions


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first question is yes. The answer to the second question is no.


IMPOSITION BY UNITED STATES OF DUTY ON MICHELIN TIRES IMPORTED FROM CANADA-INQUIRY AS TO MEETING WITH PROVINCIAL PREMIER
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister inform the House whether he will soon be meeting with one of the premiers of the Atlantic provinces on this question? If so, what action will he take or what proposals will he make to the premier? Also, is the Prime Minister considering sending a protest to GATT concerning the American action on the special duty they have imposed against Michelin?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have no meeting scheduled with the premiers of the provinces collectively, but I do see them individually. As a matter of fact, I am seeing Premier Regan this afternoon. On the second question, we have, of course, protested to the United States. We made our views known before the action was taken and since.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the submission made by the Public Service Staff Association for amendments to the two statutes respecting employment of public servants and that amendment was mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, and in view of the statement of Mr. Claude Edwards and the concern of their membership about further delays, will the minister advise the House whether the amendments proposed in the Speech from the Throne will be introduced into the House by February 1, 1973?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot do more than give assurance that amendments will be introduced this session. I will discuss the precise timing, with the House leader.


Walter David Baker: Will the minister undertake to consult with the government House leader to ascertain whether, with respect to priorities for legislative action, these amendments can be put in an improved position in relation to the position they apparently are in at this time?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I am not too sure of the impression the hon. member may have with regard to the position in which they are, but I will talk to the House leader.

January 16, 1973
Oral Questions


AUTHORITY FOR COMPULSORY RETIREMENT OF EMPLOYEES BEFORE AGE 65
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the President of the Treasury Board. Will the minister indicate to the House what authority the government has to retire employees compulsorily prior to the normal retirement age of 65?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated the other day, there are a number of provisions under which public servants can be retired in advance of age 65. To cite one example, it can be done on medical grounds. There are a great many. I will advise the hon. member by letter on the others.


Donald MacInnis: The minister missed the key word in my question. My question referred to compulsory retirement or arbitrary dismissal prior to the normal retirement age of 65. What authority has the government to do this?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the government has any authority to dismiss any public servant arbitrarily.


Donald MacInnis: I understand from the minister's reply that the regulation under which people were retired compulsorily before the age of 65 has been completely withdrawn?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, the regulation permitting deputy heads of departments to retire public servants on the sole ground of age between the ages of 60 and 65 has been completely withdrawn.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I direct my supplementary to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Inasmuch as the government no longer has the authority to retire employees compulsorily prior to the age of 65, on what ground can a man brought into this country who is here for two months pass a regulation, upheld by the government, requiring Cape Breton miners to retire before that age?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I should like to look into all the details. The hon. member and I have had a number of discussions on this question. As soon as I have the answer I will let him know.


CANADA EVIDENCE ACT
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. In view of the fact that there has been an alarming increase in the incidence of child beating by parents, would the minister seek to amend the Canada Evidence Act to make spouses compellable and competent witnesses in trials involving this most heinous of crimes?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the question of amendments to the Canada Evidence Act and the criminal law is under study at present by the law reform commission but in a broader context. I shall certainly study the report of the commission with interest and will perhaps bring amendments before the House at that time.


Mr. Woolliams:: What is your own attitude?


HOUSING
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. In light of the growing need for municipalities to become involved in discussions on housing between the provincial and federal governments, does the minister intend to urge the provinces to invite municipal officials to attend the conference arranged for January 20 so that there may be tri-level discussion of housing legislation?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, when I wrote to the provincial ministers on December 14 and earlier, in September I suggested to them that municipal representation should be included in their delegations.


AMENDMENTS TO NATIONAL HOUSING ACT-TIME OF INTRODUCTION
Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. On January 9 the minister indicated he would introduce certain amendments to the National Housing Act before the federal-provincial conference on housing scheduled for next week. Can the minister now tell us when these necessary amendments will be introduced?


Stanley Ronald Basford: stated that I hoped to introduce such amendments. It still remains to be seen whether I am able to meet that deadline or not. If I am not, they will be introduced as soon as possible.


CAPACITY OF MUNICIPAL REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, would the minister tell us whether the representatives of the municipalities will be at the conference as observers or will have a meaningful role and able to express their views and take full part in the talks? I ask this question because they are so involved in public housing and very often projects are simply dumped on them and they are left with the expense.


Stanley Ronald Basford: might quote the letter I wrote to the provinces in which I

January 16, 1973

said: "... For this reason I would welcome any municipal representative which you may wish to have in attendance." To the extent that municipalities are represented, they would be part of provincial delegations. A number of provincial delegations have indicated that they will include municipal representation.


PARTICIPATION IN CONFERENCE BY DELEGATES FROM YUKON AND NORTHWEST TERRITORIES
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister whether he has made suitable arrangements for representation at, and participation in, these discussions by delegates from the Yukon and the Northwest Territories where housing problems are just as serious as they are elsewhere?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (St. Boniface):: Can the minister tell us whether an invitation has been extended to the Federation of Mayors and Municipalities, which, after all, would certainly cover the entire question.


Stanley Ronald Basford: The invitations were extended by me to provincial ministers.


An hon. Member:: That makes the whole thing a farce.


Mitchell William Sharp: It makes it constitutional, doesn't it?



HARBOURS


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport arising from a press release issued by the Department of the Environment on December 15 last in which it is stated that a new principal component has been set up in that department entitled "Fisheries and Marine Services", headed by an assistant deputy minister who, among other things, will be responsible for the administration of small craft harbours. Has responsibility for the administration of small craft harbours been transferred from his department? If so, when, and under what authority?


Jean Marchand: I am not
sure of the answer. I think it was transferred to the Department of the Environment five or six months ago, if my memory is faithful.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I should like to address a supplementary question to the Minister of the Environment since the Minister of Transport seems to be so vague about the subject matter of my question. May I ask the Minister of Environment whether he can shed any light upon the subject matter to which I drew attention?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of the Environment):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Responsibility for the administration of small
Oral Questions
craft harbours was transferred from the Department of Transport to the Department of the Environment in March of last year.



CANADA PENSION PLAN


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Would the minister undertake to make a statement on motions explaining exactly what is meant by the term "disabled" and the criteria to be fulfilled before a person is granted a pension on the grounds of disability? This is an urgent matter which has been causing a good deal of concern in the country.


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I apologize to the hon. member; I missed the first part of his question. Would he mind repeating it?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Certainly, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister undertake to make a statement on motions at the earliest opportunity describing the criteria to be fulfilled before a person can qualify for a disability pension under the Canada Pension Plan?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I should like to look into this matter further.	[DOT]


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I would appreciate it if the minister would give urgent consideration to this question because many problems are being created for a number of people. It seems that under the present criteria a person must have lost both legs and both arms in order to qualify as disabled.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



APPROVAL OF PILL TO CONTROL VENEREAL DISEASE

Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of a report that street nurses are being used to dispense information on contraceptives, birth control pills and a pill advertised as being 98 per cent effective in rapidly curing venereal disease, would the minister tell us the name of this pill and whether it has been approved by the Food and Drug Directorate to be used in this fashion?


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. It seems to me that this kind of question could very well be placed on the order paper. However, if the minister has the information readily available he might give it now.


Philip Bernard Rynard: I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether this drug has been approved by the Food and Drug Directorate?

January 16, 1973
Oral Questions


Marc Lalonde: I will check into the matter.



ARCTIC OIL AND GAS-CONCLUSIONS OF CONFERENCE ON OFFSHORE DRILLING-COMPREHENSIVE REPORT

Mr. Peter C. Bawden (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the great concern felt in our country on the subject of energy, and in view of the fact that some 50 billion barrels of oil and as much as 300 trillion cubic feet of gas, some 25 per cent to 50 per cent of our country's total reserves may lie in the Arctic Islands, may I ask whether the conclusions of the secret conference which was held here in December on the question of offshore drilling in the Arctic will soon be published and whether the minister is now prepared to give the go-ahead and allow holders of permits to drill in offshore Arctic waters, particularly in the deeper waters of the Beaufort Sea? Will the minister also indicate to the House the last possible date when we can expect a comprehensive energy report?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what secret conference the hon. gentleman is referring to. If he is referring to the discussions with United States officials, they were confined to the question of insecurity of offshore supplies.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Duncan M. Beattie (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that illegal immigrants are still pouring into the country, would the Minister of Manpower and Immigration indicate whether consideration is being given to having the primary examination of supposed visitors done by an experienced immigration officer rather than by a customs clerk?


An hon. Member:: Och aye.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the advice of the hon. member and I will certainly take his representation into consideration. While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have just about reached the end of the question period. Perhaps we might allow the hon. member to ask his supplementary question. I might point out that the minister has been seeking the floor since the beginning of the question period and I will recognize him afterwards.


Duncan M. Beattie: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to speak in neither of the official languages.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Duncan M. Beattie: Mr. Speaker, is the minister satisfied that the present procedure whereby doubtful visitors put up cash or conditional bonds is the best system? I ask this question as it appears the illegal immigrants are forfeiting these bonds in very large numbers.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister might like to comment briefly on the question. Perhaps the hon. member would allow me to suggest that a question asking for an opinion on the part of a member of the government is not quite regular. The minister might comment briefly and then he will have the floor for the purpose of raising the point of order he wants to bring to the attention of the House.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no, I am not satisfied with all the procedures relating to this matter. We are contemplating some changes and we will be bringing before the House at an appropriate time some recommendations for improvement in the laws and administration which deals with the permission of visitors to come to the country.



MANPOWER


Robert Knight Andras: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the other day in response to questions by the hon. member for Provencher and the hon. member for Meadow Lake I gave information which I now know, to my regret, was incorrect. I would like to remedy that error. It was in connection with the eligibility of local improvement districts for local initiative project grants. My information at that time was that they were considered to be extensions of provincial governments and therefore not eligible, and that this had been approved by all provinces in discussions before laying it down as a term. I am now informed that in both of the provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba by agreement between the federal government and the provincial governments local improvement districts are in fact eligible for local initiative project grants. I regret any inconvenience that this misinformation might have caused.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I believe the hon. member for Provencher is rising on a point of order.


Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, in light of the information just given the House by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration I should like to ask whether local improvement districts in Manitoba are now eligible, whether a public statement will be released to these local government districts that they are eligible and whether or
January 16, 1973

not their applications for local initiative programs are to be reconsidered?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, in respect of the answer to the first part of the question, I have just indicated that they are eligible and I regret, as I say, that the information I gave the other day was wrong. With regard to the second part of the question, I have already communicated with the appropriate provincial ministers of Manitoba and Saskatchewan within the last 24 hours. In fact, that is where the information and the correction arose, so they know. If a public statement beyond this statement in the House today would be of service or of benefit I would certainly be glad to make one. On the third point, projects that are in stream from local improvement districts, while eligible, will have to take their chances with other LIP applications of which we have, as I told hon. members before, very many.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce was about to reply to a question of mine, pursuant to the suggestion of his colleague. Perhaps he might reply briefly to my question about the European Common Market and whether the government has been in touch with it and what their stance is in respect of DREE aid?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is hardly a point of order but with the consent of the House the minister might be allowed to reply briefly to the question.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, with regard to DREE grants in the Michelin case, there has not yet been a discussion that I know of between my department and officials of the Common Market.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wanted to wait until orders of the day were called as I did not want to interrupt the question period. My point of order relates to the answer given by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration in respect of local initiative programs. A number of days ago I asked him why it was that applications from municipalities in British Columbia were postponed, put off and given the least consideration of any applications for LIP programs and the minister said he was not aware of that situation. I am wondering why he has not inquired into it and has not been able to give that information to the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is hardly a point of order. I suggest to the hon. member that this is a question which might have been asked during the question period if the hon. member had been recognized, but because of the number of questions that were asked he did not have
The Address-Mr. Ethier
the opportunity of being recognized. I will note the matter and give the hon. member some kind of priority so he may pursue the matter further tomorrow. Orders of the day.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, January 15, 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.
Mr. Denis Ethier (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, let me congratulate you on your nomination to this high and distinguished post of our parliamentary system. The mover (Mr. Blais) and seconder (Mr. Blaker) of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne have no doubt recognized the wisdom and impartiality of your decisions for the last two sessions in proposing that you be entrusted with the chair again.

I also wish to congratulate the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) on his nomination as Deputy Speaker and compliment the hon. members for Beauhar-nois-Salaberry (Mr. Laniel) and Mercier (Mr. Boulanger) on their reappointments.

I should be remiss, Mr. Speaker, should I fail to commend the mover and seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne.
I should also like to congratulate the new members of the cabinet and as agriculture in my constituency is very important I am very pleased with the nomination of the hon. member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Whelan) as Minister of Agriculture. I am convinced that he will discharge his duties so well that he will gain the respect and confidence of all Canadian farmers.
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to represent a constituency that was once represented by one of our greatest prime ministers, the Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King.
I should like to take this opportunity to express once more to my fellow citizens of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell how grateful I am for the trust they put in me.
As I said, my riding is almost entirely rural, made up of family farms, several of which cover only 100 to 150 acres.
It is common knowledge that farmers find it difficult to survive. Whether they are in the dairy, agricultural or cattle-raising fields, their problem remains the same. We strongly believe that the prices they have to pay for feed grain are much too high.
I have even been told that the prices of concentrates for balanced feed have increased to the point where our farmers have to cut down on concentrates in those to the detriment of the quality of their cattle.
We believe that brokerage firms are taking advantage of our farmers whenever there is a strong demand for those products, particularly the concentrates.

January 16, 1973
The Address-Mr. Ethier
I was pleased to hear in the Speech from the Throne that the government will be taking appropriate steps concerning feed grain which, I hope, will bring about better price control.
Concerning crop insurance, I also note that the government will assist provinces, which will allow farmers to benefit from a reduction in premiums.
I also appreciate that action will be taken to stimulate tourism in Canada. As my riding is situated between the St. Lawrence and Ottawa rivers and bordered by Quebec and the federal capital, space can readily be created there for development of tourist centres, in co-operation with the provincial government.
Mr. Speaker, with the present minimum wage it is almost impossible to bring welfare recipients back to work. In many cases they receive over and above what labour receives for a 40-hour week at the minimum wage. May I suggest as an incentive that the minimum wage be raised to $2.25 an hour.

Old age security pension plan improvements were announced and I hope that this will include a lowering of the retirement age to 60, especially for those who benefit from the guaranteed income supplement.

Since concern for the tourist industry was manifested in the throne speech, we would appreciate very much a helping hand for the organizers of the worldwide Glengarry highland games, for grants such as for the construction of additional seating capacity to accommodate the ever-increasing number of visitors at this annual event which takes place in Maxville, Ontario, either at the end of July or early in August and at which hundreds of pipe bands and athletes of Scottish culture from all over the world meet in competition. Record crowds of well over 25,000 witness this colourful event every year. May I take this opportunity to invite all of you to visit us at this great festival.

In short, I am amazed at the contents of the Speech from the Throne and I believe that all the other members of the House feel the same. Undoubtedly, some took the liberty of criticizing it, but I suggest that this is only from habit without even evaluating its contents and its beneficial effects for all Canadians.
I was under the impression that the duty of Her Majesty's loyal opposition was to criticize constructively, but I can only express my disappointment at seeing many members on the front benches notably the member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence), who dared speak without the approval of the Speaker, the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees) who continuously interrupts members speaking to the House, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), with all his parliamentary practice and former Prime Minister, who likes to waste the time of the House by speaking of phrenology, and of how he is proud and happy to have amongs them a 20-year-old member.

Mr. Speaker, the behaviour of the official opposition's veterans sets a very bad example for these young members of the House. I am persuaded that if Her Majesty had witnessed the behaviour of her loyal opposition, she would have asked that the word loyal be omitted.

After having witnessed all the unparliamentary behaviour on the part of the official opposition front benches I was greatly surprised to hear a radio commentator say that the Conservatives were really effective at the beginning of this twenty-ninth parliament. Either this commentator was not serious or there are two meanings to the word "effective", or else this is just a cover-up for their real ineffectiveness. On the same station I even heard the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) using strong language and demanding that the government introduce legislation before taking the customary time to debate the throne speech. Is the hon. member suggesting that we do away with traditions? [Translation]
On Sunday January 14,1 heard the leader of the Quebec wing of the Progressive Conservative party, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner), repeat that Quebec more than any other province needed help from the federal government. During his election campaign, why then did he not object when candidates of his party made political hay outside Quebec saying that province had been privileged by the former minister of DREE (Mr. Marchand)? Why did the hon. member not reply to the question he was so eager to answer during the election campaign, namely what would his attitude be were Quebec to be given a separatist government? On television he replied that the question was hypothetical, but during the election campaign he did say that if Quebec demanded separatism, as a Quebecer, he would submit to whe will of the people. There is an example of irresponsible politics, for the guidance of the hon. member who claims to be a federalist, for a single amendment to the constitution would allow a province to separate. I ask the hon. members of the NDP and the Social Credit to beware of such irresponsible people.
I wish to congratulate the hon. leader of the official opposition (Mr. Stanfield) for having acquired the young MPs I have had the pleasure of meeting. To my mind, they are true gentlemen. Might I suggest that he make room, in front, for those gentlemen and room, at the back, for irresponsible members?
Mr. Speaker, I close by saying that I am proud of all the people in my riding especially because, back home, unity truly exists.


Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of my speech I should like to congratulate you on having been elected to the high office which you hold. Having questioned your fairness in the past may I say now that at all times you were fair, that you honour your position, and that you lend great dignity and fairness to your rulings in the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
January 16, 1973


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I would also like to congratulate the Deputy Speaker, the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave). His respect for parliamentary debate and for this chamber will stand him in good stead in the difficult months ahead when he will have to preside over the House from time to time.
I would also like to congratulate the mover and the seconder, the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais) and the hon. member for Lachine (Mr. Blaker). It is an honour to them and to their constituents that they should be given this task and they did an admirable job.
Having said all that, may I say at the outset that the kind of speech I will make is one I really do not wish to make. It is one that brings me no real pleasure and, in fact, a certain amount of sadness because in my speech I will deal with western Canada. Why should I deal with western Canada? The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) made a number of references to western Canada in the Speech from the Throne. He spoke about having a conference with the four provincial governments, and he spoke about some kind of industrial growth that should and may take place in western Canada in the years ahead. He wondered in the Speech from the Throne why the Liberals lost the west. I will try to explain why they lost the west and how they could perhaps capture it if they rethought their whole policy.
During the campaign I said that with three major changes in the Liberal party program and policies they could succeed. None of them had anything to do with the Official Languages Act or the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is from Quebec. The surprising thing about the cabinet reshuffle, the Speech from the Throne, and remarks made by ministers in this debate is that they do not show any change of heart. The Liberals have really not learned anything about western Canada.
Shortly after the cabinet reshuffle there was an article in Time magazine on the Prime Minister, in which he was reported as saying that the government's policies were good but the salesmen were poor. Now they are bringing in better salesmen to sell the policies that they believe are good. Mr. Speaker, the west did not object to the salesmen. although indeed the Liberals did have poor salesmen. The policies were wrong.
The Prime Minister visited western Canada in 1970 and talked about a particular farm bill, one that he still seems to have on his mind. He said it was a good bill but "the problem out here is that you have been listening to false prophets." I did not like being called a false prophet and so I remember that remark.
Many times Canada is likened to a marriage between the French and the English, between Ontario and Quebec. Western Canada came along after 1867, and we are not the children of that marriage. We do not want to be treated like children, to be seen and not heard. We want to take our rightful place and have some say on the direction in which this country goes and should go. We believe that ours is the most vigorous growth area in Canada. We demand our right to have a say on the direction in which we should go. The change in salesmen will not help the Liberal party one bit.
The Address-Mr. J. H. Homer


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The Liberals must rethink their basic concepts of western Canada. They must rethink their policies, and they must do this before the provincial conference mentioned in the throne speech takes place.
Speaking about co-operation the Prime Minister once said, with reference to the government, that it should meet the obligation to consult and not merely to inform. I hope he remembers that when he goes to western Canada to attend that conference. But by his cabinet shuffle he has not demonstrated that he is learning or rethinking any of the three policies I will mention in a moment.
What are the three policies that ruined the Liberal party and caused them to lose the west? Mr. Speaker, western Canada is not too far away from the pioneer spirit. Many familes and young people in western Canada still have a great deal of admiration for their forefathers who came out west and fought nature and the other hazards of life. They are proud of their forefathers' fight to own their own land. What did the Liberal party do to cause them to lose votes all across the west? They brought in a capital gains tax which makes it pretty difficult for a farmer to hand down his land to the next generation.
The average farmer is proud of his father's work in harnessing nature for his benefit. He wants to pass on his land to the next generation. All kinds of warnings were given about the capital gains tax. It was pointed out that it would affect the cost of farm machinery, the transfer of land and the basic herd. But the government plowed ahead with that legislation. In fact it introduced closure. That legislation has hurt western Canada, a region which has a lot of land and few people, but those people are proud of their land. That was a mistake and it cost the Liberals thousands of votes all across the Prairies. Unless they rethink that concept they will be in for more difficult times in western Canada.
In case hon. members ask why I say this I suggest that they read the CCH Report entitled "Farmers and the White Paper on Tax Reform," in the foreword where it states:
Perhaps the single taxpayer group most dramatically affected by the government's white paper on taxation are the farmers of Canada. Whether by design-or through inadvertence-the farming community as it exists today faces virtual extinction-
Those are pretty strong words.
In the October, 1972, issue of Country Guide the president of the Agricultural Economics Research Council of Canada issued this warning about the tax changes:
Failure to become familiar with tax management generally, and to do some important things now, could result in a farmer's family farm being killed within ten years.
Those are not the words of idle politicians. They are the words of factual men who know what they are talking about. All this has caused great panic in western Canada.
The blame rests on the government, on the Prime Minister and the members of his cabinet from western Canada who did a poor job of convincing the Prime Minister that the capital gains tax was wrong. I may say that the electors did a lot better job on October 30.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

January 16, 1973
The Address-Mr. J. H. Homer


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The other basic thing people must understand about western Canadians is that those engaged in the agricultural industry love to produce. But before dealing with that I wish to mention one other thing not connected with the famous Bill C-176. One other concept that the Liberals failed to understand was that their tax reform legislation was hard on the oil and gas industries, on the resource industries in general. Mr. Mahoney, the former member for Calgary South, insulted the very people who sent him here. It is no wonder he did not come back. Any member of this House who forgets the people who sent him here should not come back. His was one seat that I could bet would be lost by the Liberals.
Another seat lost through Liberal ignorance was that of the former member for Medicine Hat and former minister of agriculture, a friend of mine who has a ranch in my constituency. Where did he make his mistakes? At the wish of the Prime Minister he attempted to pilot the famous Bill C-176 through the House. At that time, Mr. Speaker, I was accused of being a terrible person, a false prophet and everything else.
Was it I alone who blocked the passage of that bill? Recently the Prime Minister admitted on a radio show that even having got it through the House the Liberals suffered a defeat. They did not get what they wanted. They did not get the rigidity and the controls they wanted. As I say, western Canadians love to produce. They know they can produce. They want the opportunity to produce. It is born and bred in them. Hon. members opposite must understand that.
Westerners saw in Bill C-176 an attempt by somebody to harness their production, to regulate and control it, and perhaps even to hinder the free flow of their goods into the thickly populated area of eastern Canada in order to serve the 12 million people in Ontario and Quebec who should be able to enjoy their produce. Bill C-176 was wrong.
Was it a political move on my part? Some people have accused me of opposing the bill for political gain. Was it Jack Horner alone who opposed it? Mr. Runciman, who has accepted appointments from the government to serve on a number of committees, had great fears about that bill. He said so in his brief to the agricultural committee. The Liberals should have harkened. The late William Parker, a strong westerner, a strong Liberal, a former president of the Manitoba Pool, said the bill was wrong and, if passed as proposed, western Canada would be hamstrung.
The Liberals should have harkened to men like that. Debate on the bill dragged on for a year and a half. Some 50,000 coupons, the greatest coupon mailing ever, more than those received in connection with the white paper on taxation, landed in Ottawa from the three prairie provinces. The people there must have been stirred up about the bill. The Liberals should have dropped that bill in order to set aside the fears of western Canada. The late premier of Saskatchewan and his minister of agriculture, both Liberals, expressed fears about what the bill would do but the Liberals plowed on with it. The Prime Minister said it was a good bill and that the children out there had been listening to false prophets. That is what he said and

we did not like it, Mr. Speaker. We demonstrated that on October 30.
What about the former minister of agriculture? Can you imagine the possibility of his winning after having been elected at one time as a Social Crediter, that group which is supposed to be to the right in our political structure? In Winnipeg on March 13, 1972, he made a speech which was reported in the Regina Leader-Post under the heading "Market Structure Said Need". In the article the former minister is reported to have said:
Free trade is a great thing when it works, but unfortunately there aren't enough constraints within the free trade system for us to accept that this is the way marketing will be.
The article then mentioned the minister's recommendations and suggestions. That smacks of socialism to western Canadians. In Alberta we live next door to Saskatchewan and so we know what socialism has done there. We want no part of it, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: How could a former Social Crediter make such a suggestion? Had his basic philosophy changed? No, Mr. Speaker, he was a servant of those above him in the Liberal party-the Prime Minister and the hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt, our intellectual socialists.


Mr. Baldwin:: With a lust for power.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Olson was merely their servant and the people of Medicine Hat knew that and did not like it. They wanted him to serve them, not his masters in the Liberal party, so they rejected him on October 30. There were editorials like the one which appeared in the Free Press Weekly of April 17, 1971 headed "Cattle Double-crossed". There is still a bit of the old pioneer spirit left in western Canada, Mr. Speaker. A handshake is a handshake and a man's word is good. The people do not like someone who is suspected of double-crossing them so the former minister of agriculture was rejected.
I am sure there are many Liberals who have been tearing out their hair, wondering why the sales of wheat did not help them. In the 15 years I have been in Ottawa I have heard many easterners say that the man who sells the wheat reaps the political benefit, that all you have to do in western Canada is sell wheat. But why did the Liberals not reap the benefit? Why is it that the hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt came back from Saskatchewan alone, the only Liberal member representing the farmers there? One reason he came back was the $90,000 he spent; that sometimes helps. Part of his riding includes the city so perhaps those people were not aware of what was going on. What was wrong, Mr. Speaker? Surely this government want to know and is interested in changing its ways.
Two weeks before the election the hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt announced an increase of 30 cents a bushel in the initial price for wheat. The farmers were insulted, Mr. Speaker; that was their own money and they were going to get it anyway in the final payment. They said, "Does he think we are so stupid that he can bribe us
January 16, 1973

with our own money?" If the minister knew that the international price was about to increase-he should have known it three months before October 15 when he made that announcement-he should have had the courage and the confidence in the cabinet to take a stand and increase the initial price of wheat at that time. He lacked something; he certainly lacked any understanding of the farmers when he insulted them with an increase of 30 cents of their own money. Politically he would have been farther ahead to make the announcement after the election.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: He was just imitating the Prime Minister.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Yes, he is an intellectual socialist just like the Prime Minister. In my definition a socialist believes that someone has to make decisions for the masses and the masses will follow. An intellectual socialist believes he is so far above the masses that he can make the decisions and the masses will follow. But sometimes one who considers himself so far above the ordinary people forgets, and that is exactly what happened with the hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt and the Prime Minister in the last election.
What other mistakes did they make, Mr. Speaker? Yesterday the minister said that the Lift program had created freedom in agricultural marketing and that everything was now moving well because of it. In case anybody has forgotten what Lift is, it means "Lower Inventory For Tomorrow". When the election came along the price of grain was going up. At that time it was about $2.60 a bushel but the farmers did not have any wheat. Many of them had already delivered. During the campaign I drove to the elevators and the farmers told me that they had delivered the six-bushel quota and had nothing left to deliver except their seed for spring planting though they would have liked to be in a position to deliver wheat.
What did the Lift program cost the farmers? As the minister admitted yesterday, because of the restrictions placed upon them they grew 200 million bushels less wheat than previously. The price of wheat today is a little over $3 a bushel so any grade three student can calculate the loss to western Canada: it is $600 million through operation Lift.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Could the minister say that he did not know about the crop failures in Russia and China, that he thought Lift was a good program and now knows that he was wrong and ask for forgiveness? No, Mr. Speaker, he still says it was a good program. How can farmers be convinced of that when they have lost money on it? They are not so stupid, as the intellectual socialists found out on October 30.
What else did the minister do that was wrong? He attempted to bring in a grains stabilization bill. That was a failure and never got through the House. The whole concept was wrong; it began by trying to empty the elevators and to curb western Canada's desire to produce. The farmers did not like that at all. Operation Lift was a perfect example and they rejected it.
What does the Canadian Wheat Board have to say today? I have here a letter I received recently from the
The Address-Mr. J. H. Homer
Canadian Wheat Board which was addressed to all grain producers. The letter inquires how much grain I will have for sale in the coming crop year and states:
-every additional bushel of grain that can be made available will be needed.
The letter goes on to say that they do not have much confidence in the figures provided by Statistics Canada so they are approaching producers directly. I have been farming for 25 years but I never received a letter like this from the Canadian Wheat Board before. The letter states further:
-we need a reliable figure before we can determine how much grain we can commit for forward sales to take advantage of the higher price levels.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, they are turning down sales today because they do not know how much grain they will have. That is an alarming letter, Mr. Speaker, and points out the fact that the concept of cutting off production in western Canada was wrong. We do not want the minister to go out to western Canada saying it was right. It was wrong and we will continue to reject it.
In a news release which I issued in December I said that the fixed price of $1.95) should be the floor price and it should move upwards with the international price. I told the farmers that they were losing $30 million a year. The minister must have thought my statement was effective because the next day he issued a press release. It pointed out that the minister said the government is paying $57.5 million to assure that the farmer will receive $3 a bushel for his wheat. This was paid under an acreage payment.
There was a great deal of fanfare last January because the minister had finally made a tremendous breakthrough. This was suggested in an editorial in a western paper. The minister had now firmly established a two-price system for wheat and the farmers would get a fair return. What did this turn out to be? It turned out to be nothing more then an acreage payment. The minister fooled the weekly papers.
An editorial in the Western Producer headlined "Not Exactly A Reality" states:
It appears we were somewhat hasty when we wrote the headline "Two-price system for wheat a reality" ... in our February 3 issue.
What Mr. Lang did not say was that in an election year, there's a tendency to avoid any distribution of funds that takes in only part of a group, and that, we believe, would be the prime consideration when the decision was being made.
The minister fooled the wheat farmers. He did not help them at all. Another editorial was headlined "Two-price Or Two-face?". I said a while ago that in western Canada people still honour a man's word and a handshake. They cannot yet accept a doublecross or "two-price or two-face". We may be able to accept this some day, but not yet. I quote from this editorial:
The Minister responsible for the Wheat Board happily proclaimed that the government "has finally faced up to an issue which confronted successive governments for 20 years." ... This most recent announcement, however, shows that we are still following a policy of "Do nothing until you have to, then do anything to keep them quiet".

January 16, 1973
The Address-Mr. Whelan
Is that not the way you treat children? We in western Canada no longer want to be treated as children.
The Speech from the Throne refers to two other matters which are going to be dealt with, crop insurance and an equitable price for feed grain. I wish to issue a word of caution and warning. I have thoroughly studied the Canada Grains Council report on the pricing of feed grain and what they refer to as the fair formula. This is not a saleable product in western Canada. If anyone wonders why it is not, I suggest he read page 9, chapter 3. It clearly explains how the fair formula will work. It sets up a great bureaucracy which the average farmer will not take time to understand or figure out. He will feel that the price of his grain is being subsidized and that it is not going to work to his advantage.
I also wish to refer to development at Vancouver. It is a well known fact that when the minister in charge of the Wheat Board was in Calgary he said that the government was going to spend money in Vancouver. He did not say how much or how they were going to do this.
I have an article which states that Mr. Hope of the Canadian Wheat Board suggests that something must be done in Vancouver as more storage is required. The minister in charge of the Wheat Board does not realize that in the past years the expenditures in Vancouver have been curtailed, not enlarged. The government must come up with a policy for the development of a port at Vancouver which will allow our grain to move freely through that port. There are continuing reports in western papers calling for improved facilities at the port of Vancouver. The Canadian Wheat Board is having difficulty moving grain through that port because of strikes, including one that is still not settled. This is certainly a disturbing factor in western Canada.
As I said at the beginning of my remarks, I regret that after being here 15 years I must make a speech dealing with one region of our country. I have outlined three basic policies which went wrong and I hope the government will correct its ways. Maybe people in western Canada will then vote Liberal again. If the government does not learn to understand this better than they have in the past four years and continues to treat us as children, we will continue to reject their party, no matter from what area the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) may come or what official language he may use. It will not really matter. We will continue to reject anyone who treats us as children. We want to be equal partners and play a part in this great country of ours.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I first want to take this opportunity to congratulate Your Honour on being re-elected Speaker of the House, not only because of your knowledge of House procedure but also because I have learned since accepting this office of your knowledge of agricultural problems in the constituency you represent.
I also want to take this opportunity to congratulate the Deputy Speaker. I have known him as a man's man in this House. I know he will do a good job. I have also known for quite some time the other officials who have been elected and the same goes for them.

I wish to thank hon. members for the good wishes they have sent me on my appointment to the portfolio of Minister of Agriculture for Canada. In those thanks I wish to include the members of the opposition. Some, even Members of Parliament, may be amazed at the number of letters, calls, visits, etc. that I received from many members of the opposition. I believe they were most sincere in their congratulations and offers of help to make this portfolio and department a successful venture. I also wish to thank the members on the government side for their good wishes, of which there were many.
I received letters from people I have known in agriculture and parliamentary organizations all over the world. I was utterly amazed to know that people all over the world watch to see who is going to be responsible for agriculture in Canada. Too often we take it for granted that agriculture is not all that important, but this has brought it closer to home for me and made me realize in a different way how much importance people in other parts of the world place on agriculture in Canada because of the great industry it is and the leadership it provides for agriculture in other parts of the world.
More especially, I wish to thank the electorate in my constituency for having placed their confidence in me once more in the past election. I shall try my best to keep their interests at heart while attending to the obligations of a minister of the Crown. I also wish to give special thanks to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) for having had the confidence and, if I may say so, Mr. Speaker, the courage-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: -to entrust me with the task of Minister of Agriculture for Canada. I am still new enough to this portfolio to be able to think it is a big challenge and still new enough to thank the Prime Minister for giving me the opportunity to represent the farmers from one end of the country to the other. There may be some who may find it rather hard to accept the fact that the Minister of Agriculture does not come from western Canada. However, I must point out that I received messages from all across Canada, from farm leaders, provincial ministers of agriculture and some premiers. Only one premier, and I cannot remember which province he represents, was not complimentary.


An hon. Member:: Who was he?


Mr. Crouse:: That brother of yours?


Eugene Whelan: I think he migrated from Nova Scotia to Saskatchewan 14 years ago.
I have lived on the farm all my life and have been an active farmer for most of my life, certainly until I was elected to the House of Commons. Those who are engaged in agriculture and who are also Members of Parliament know that being a member is a full-time job. One has no time left in which to engage in actual agricultural production if one is really doing the job demanded of a representative here. The part of Canada from which I come is the most productive of any in Canada. This is a fact of
January 16, 1973

which many people are unaware; possibly we ourselves are at fault for not yelling it loud and clear.
Many people think of Ontario as being strictly an industrialized giant. It is an agricultural giant as well; one might call it the giant of agricultural production in Canada. Farm cash receipts in 1972 in the province are likely to amount to almost $1.5 billion. Saskatchewan, this year, will be second highest in this respect. The situation is changing, if I understand it correctly; Saskatchewan is displacing Alberta, it seems, though there may be some Alberta members who will wish to disagree. However, these are the figures given to me.
Back in Roman days, Mr. Speaker, one of their old boys who had done a good deal of travelling round Europe came back to his capital and said "veni, vidi, vici". Well, I did some travelling around Canada at the end of last year. I did not conquer. I did something more. I listened and learned. Among the many things I learned was that farmers all across our land are basically the same. At the farm meetings I addressed in western Canada, when I said I was a minister of the Crown for Canadian agriculture, the Canadian Minister of Agriculture, they all responded in a more amazing fashion even than I had anticipated. They did not want me as an eastern Minister of Agriculture nor as a western Minister of Agriculture. They wanted me as a Canadian Minister of Agriculture working for the benefit of Canadian farm producers no matter in what part of the land they reside. They have more in common than the few differences which are continuously played up. They have more marketing problems in common, more production problems in common. They are competing, often, for the same domestic markets or for the same overseas markets. Differences which are brought about by circumstance or which are connected with historical habits have long since died, as far as I am concerned. All our farmers have the same desire for a stable income and they all face the same risks because of weather, disease and fluctuating markets. They are beginning to realize that some of their difficulties can best be solved by national planning, cooperation and mutual support through the assistance of their provincial governments and with the help of Ottawa.
I want to take this opportunity to thank my provincial counterparts for the courtesy they showed me on my first visit to them. I must say I found them extremely responsive and helpful, as I confirmed when I telephoned their offices to ask some of them for their opinions. It might surprise some hon. members to learn how many ministers in provincial governments answer their own telephones. I think it surprised the provincial people just as much when this minister dialed his own telephone to talk to them. I learned this from a businessman in control of a large corporation; he told me that when anyone got too big to dial his own telephone he was too big to hold the position he was occupying. As far as I am concerned, our calls in the future will be many. I intend to keep up this rapport with my provincial counterparts as long as I am Minister of Agriculture because I believe in working with them for the betterment of agriculture in Canada. Without exception they showed a good grasp of the agricultural situation in their own provinces. I feel we shall all be in a better position to improve the welfare of the farmer as a result of my having met not only the provincial ministers of agriculture but also a good number of representatives
The Address-Mr. Whelan
of farm organizations in the west, in central Canada and in the east.
I am pleased to report that the agricultural industry has experienced one of the most prosperous years on record. The trend began in 1970. It was strong in 1971, even stronger last year, and is continuing through 1973. I am also pleased to report that the farming community has made some gains in moving the industry closer to our goal of putting farm income on an equal footing with the rest of the economy over the past few years. We set a $2 billion trade export record in 1971; we set another record last year, and it looks as though we are going to set still another in 1973.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: Our agricultural industry has not only met the challenges of tougher competition, international monetary problems and stiff trade restrictions but it has actually improved on its own record.
We must recognize the importance of marketing and be bold enough to say so at a time when the industry sometimes tends to be inward-looking, paying most of its attention to domestic issues. The present government has begun this task with evident success. The statistics speak for themselves. The government has helped the industry to take advantage of new and expanding agricultural product markets abroad. The result has been a dramatic improvement in prospects for the success and maintenance of our family farms. Those who have charged the present administration with being too inactive should check the record; when they do, I think they will be forced to admit they are chasing non-existent ghosts. We have set records for exports. We are continuing to increase our exports. Further, we are continuing to add new products and new customers while negotiating better trade terms for our farmers. For example, as of January 1 last year we have added 10 per cent to the number of items which could enter the United States free of tariff, bringing the total up to 30 per cent. We have negotiated an important agreement with Australia which has already opened up a money-making market for cattle semen, and we have opened the door for imports of new blood lines for our beef producers. During my discussions with cattlemen's associations and others I have found them to be as happy a group of producers as I have found in any part of our nation.
New initiatives have also been taken to send specialists abroad to help the agricultural industry open new markets. The industry is making increased use of the $10 million market development fund available to it for extending markets abroad. I think they could take even more advantage of the money provided for these groups which want to develop their own markets under our guidance and assistance by taking part in this fund. There are many examples of success but I mention only these few as an indication of what has been taking place.
I must also point out, Mr. Speaker, that ever since I have become Minister of Agriculture prices to the farmers have improved considerably. I may not have had much to do with these changes in price but, as Billy Shakespeare said,

January 16, 1973
The Address-Mr. Whelan
"There is a time and tide in the affairs of men, which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune".


Mr. Gleave:: You got your boat off the beach at just about the right time.


Eugene Whelan: That is what I encourage farmers to do this spring. I urge them to produce grain to beat the band this year, all types of grains. There is a word of caution which I put in at this point. I am purposely asking western grain producers to produce all the wheat they can produce, conscious of all this implies, and at the same time to make sure they produce even larger quantities of feed grains than they grew in previous years. Except for that reservation, my theme to producers, Mr. Speaker, is to produce grain for all they are worth and, by the way, I hope money lenders both east and west are listening. There is a clear message for them. The message is to have faith in Canada's agricultural producers and give them the backing they deserve, because I intend to do this as long as I am Minister of Agriculture.
Knowing the capacity and urge of Canadian farmers to produce, I feel it in my bones, Mr. Speaker, that farmers will grow and deliver record quantities of grain, both in the east and west. The government will sell record amounts of grain again this year. And let no one belittle the efforts made by this government to improve the meteoric rise in cash income gains made from grain sales these past two years.
Some Lady Zistras have looked into their crystal balls backward and suggested the country may lose future sales because our grain supplies have been reduced to manageable proportions. In the first place Mr. Speaker, those clairvoyants did not usefully forecast, for anyone, the drop in grain production in various countries round the world or the disastrous weather conditions in the USSR and India, or the calamities that took place in other nations last year.
Second, if anything, transportation of grain to markets has been our bottleneck and the record of improvement brought about by the assistance of this government speaks for itself. We set a shipment record in 1970, smashed that record in 1971 in spite of weather difficulties, and we are well on the way to doing even better this year. I have the utmost confidence but, as I stated before, some may say I am over-optimistic that they will do even better.
Third, these latter-day soothsayers condemn themselves out of their own mouths. They are actually suggesting that Canadian grain growers will not, indeed these soothsayers imply Canadian grain growers cannot, rise to the occasion of a market opportunity that is placed before them. That, Mr. Speaker, shows an appalling lack of knowledge of the productive capacity, the large capitalization, or the real, effective, down-to-earth, export confidence and knowhow our Canadian producers possess. But most important still, these people fail to recognize the strong urge within each farmer to produce for all he is worth, given the opportunity to do so.
I would point out here that there is hardly a nation in the world where one farm worker produces so much for his fellow man. We could make a comparison with one of the largest nations that buys so much grain from us. In

Russia, for instance, one farm worker only produces enough food for two of his fellow men. In Canada, one farm worker produces enough food for 50 of his fellow men. We take this for granted and we accept it. Many of these countries that do not have the system we have, do not have the creative ability we have and do not have the incentives we have, only wish that they could create some of these in their own nations so they would be in a better position as far as food for their own people is concerned.
Indeed, a farmer is leery of believing in the dream he may never be able to realize. Well, it is here, Mr. Speaker; his dream has come true, the opportunity to produce all the grain he can produce for good markets at acceptable prices. I know as a farmer that I do not need to tell fellow farmers all this. They sense the opportunity when it comes. But farmers like to be reassured and that is the first reason I am going on at length about this situation. I am also stressing the point in the House now because the legislators of this land should be spared the humility of underestimating the drive, initiative, optimism and resourcefulness of Canadian producers. I take my hat off to my fellow farmers for their courage, their endurance, ability and productiveness. God willing, Mr. Speaker, the harvest of 1973 in Canada will confound the critics who have little understanding of the farmer's urge to produce, even if the critics hail from rural or rural-town Canada.
The government has done a number of things to improve the quality of life in rural Canada. The Farm Credit Corporation loans policy has been changed with the proclamation of amendments to the Farm Credit Act. Young farmers under the age of 35 have benefited substantially by being able to borrow under the new conditions of Part III of the Farm Credit Act. May I call it one o'clock?
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, when we adjourned I was speaking about the Farm Credit Corporation. Under the supervised loans program, young farmers may borrow up to 75 per cent of the appraised value of land and chattels up to $100,000, and if their managerial ability is considered to be above average, loans may be drawn up to 90 per cent of their farm assets. Those are realistic loan conditions repayable over 30 years. These conditions are a witness to the faith that this government has in the ability of our new breed of young farmers today. The effort made by the Farm Credit Corporation to make loans available to younger farmers has borne fruit in the last crop year. There has been a shift, an increase, of 1J per cent in loans made to people under the age of 35 between 1970 and 1971, and 1971 and 1972. The shift is evident at the other end of the scale in that, out of a total number of loans made, there has also been a shift of 1J per cent decline in the number of loans made to people over 55 years of age.
January 16, 1973

I have some very strong views on the Farm Credit Corporation, on what it can do and what it has done as well as on what it should be doing. If any hon. members have suggestions as to what they think the Farm Credit Corporation can and should be doing to help young farmers and farmers in general, I would appreciate hearing from them. The changes will help Canadian farmers to develop more profitable family farms and I have under active consideration, as I stated, methods to improve still further the corporation's loan policy to the advantage of our producers, but I am willing to listen and accept good suggestions as to how this can be achieved.
Another program, the exhibition loans program to help agricultural societies to borrow money at very attractive interest rates over a long term payment period, is being continued. This policy has been much appreciated by those who wish to put up buildings that can be used at fall fairs and exhibitions and, equally important, which can be used for functions right through the entire year. I might add, for those who are interested in what is being done in some parts of Canada, that I met a group from western Canada this morning. They are putting up one of the best exhibitions of livestock that I have ever seen a new young organization put up. I think we should do everything we can to encourage this type of program. It helps the urban people realize what the rural people are doing in Canada.
An important new program to improve life in rural Canada is the small farms development program. The last of the programs I have signed on behalf of the federal government has been with the province of Nova Scotia. Alberta and Ontario have already implemented the program and British Columbia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and now Nova Scotia, have signed agreements.


Mr. Stewart (Marquette):: What about Manitoba?


Eugene Whelan: These programs may not be what everyone would desire, but again I am open to further suggestions on how we can improve them for all of Canada. I am hopeful that the remaining four provinces will join in the near future. If they do not, we have the authority to provide these benefits for those farmers under a federal program if their province does not wish to participate in the program. The discussions with the province of Quebec on this subject, which bogged down a little, have, I am pleased to say, been put back on the track with every indication that we will come to a mutual understanding. I might say that one of the best discussions I had on my trip across Canada was with my counterpart in the province of Quebec, Mr. Tuppin. He understood the problems, he presented his viewpoint in a factual way, and I am sure that we were not far apart in our positions on many issues that have confronted farmers in the province of Quebec.
The Canadian agriculture industry continues to become more specialized every year and, because of that, this government continues to support the industry and farmers through research programs in the Department of Agriculture which has the reputation for doing some of the finest research work in the agricultural world. I do not think that even our own citizens are aware of this. They are even some events taking place of which many mem-
The Address-Mr. Whelan
bers of the House are not aware, and every day I am learning something new that is going on in agricultural research, either in livestock, grains or horticulture. Many of us are not aware of what is going on because not enough is being said, and what is being said is not being said loudly and clearly enough.
As a result of our support, Canadians farmers have achieved a remarkable record of performance. They not only produce some of the best farm products in the world, but they do it more efficiently. All of us in the House, and hon. members from rural communities in particular, realize that it is not always smooth sailing and that in farming there are many problems which fall beyond the scope of any individual farmer, problems which can more properly be handled by government. It is for this reason that the government made hog deficiency payments of up to $1,000 per producer to offset the pork market glut of 18 months ago, caused mainly by heavy production in the United States.
Support for the dairy industry has been continued and was increased during this dairy year, taking into account the increasing cost of production and the improved market conditions. The leadership of the federal government, in stabilizing the dairy industry, has been very successful and this program has paid off both for Canada and for dairy farmers. It has held production and incomes at reasonable levels. Without this support, our industrial milk producing industry would have been bankrupt long ago, thus creating a severe loss not only for our dairy farmers but for all Canadian consumers. There are some who complain about the 17 days supply of butter that we will have to import this winter to supply the Canadian consumer, but I would remind those people that it is better to be in that position than to have a small surplus bearing down heavily on the price of all the dairy products and consequently on the total income of all producers across the country.
In my opinion, the National Dairy Commission is one of the most efficiently operated marketing organizations in Canada, and one of the things that I specifically like about it is its control over imports. I like the way it operates and the way in which it brings imports into Canada when they are needed and puts them on the market at a price that the consumers can afford to pay. At the same time, the actions of the Commission do not depress the price to the producers but provide stability to the industry. When one checks the price range of the dairy products in the last four years, one realizes that if all other parts of the agriculture industry were run in this fashion, inflation would not be as rampant as it is today.
The federal government intends to continue its support of the dairy industry. More than 90 per cent of our industrial milk production now comes from provinces which have entered the market sharing quota program because of the agreements with the prairie provinces this past year. I would also note, Mr. Speaker, that the Canadian Dairy Commission has been quick on the draw to take advantage of the situation of skim milk powder shortage in the United States. This quick action has allowed Canada to supply part of the American requirement at

January 16, 1973
The Address-Mr. Whelan
favourable prices to our milk producers. This was done by tender.
The disaster aid program, put together jointly with Quebec and Ontario, has added up to one of the biggest aid programs ever for farmers experiencing losses due to wet weather. The farmers of the Peace River area of Alberta and of British Columbia have been offered a similar program of help through the co-operation of their provincial governments. The programs of assistance are not entirely alike because in western Canada there are already such programs as the PFAA, the Grassland Incentive Program, and advance payments on unharvested grain, programs tailored for different circumstances.
Crop losses and disasters due to weather are not new to agriculture. They are a part of the natural risk of farming, and I think most farmers accept that fact. But just the same they are disasters, and every government in every nation tries to plan to offset the difficulties that these create. In Canada the federal and provincial governments have worked for many years to develop a crop insurance program to overcome these problems, and to offer some level of security to farmers. We have had several years of experience with the crop insurance program, and we have had recent experience with the disasters in the Peace River area, eastern Ontario and western Quebec.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the minister but the time allotted to him has expired. He could continue with unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Bell:: The minister can certainly take a few more minutes to finish. However, we are making an effort to have regular members finish in 20 minutes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Minister of Agriculture.


Eugene Whelan: These problems concerning crop insurance are hard to overcome. In view of these difficulties I believe it is time to re-examine the entire crop insurance program, to set out goals firmly in mind, and to develop a better program. During my trip across Canada, there was not one provincial minister of agriculture who did not bring this to my attention. They want the real principle of insurance embodied in crop insurance. They feel it is not in the program at the present time.
Again, I am open to suggestions from anyone who has any ideas on how we can improve the crop insurance program. I have already received some ideas from hon. members, and I intend to use them when bringing forward new legislation. As indicated in the throne speech, Mr. Speaker, the House will be asked "to amend the crop insurance act to allow the government to reimburse provinces to a maximum of 50 per cent of premiums paid under contracts of insurance, thereby reducing costs of insurance to individual farmers." As I have stated, I, and I believe the farmers are willing to go further. I am hopeful that an acceptable proposal can be worked out with the provincial departments of agriculture and with farmers so that we can come up with a crop insurance scheme which will be popularly acceptable to the farming community and will be along true insurance lines.

Because we have kept our ear to the ground and acted to help producers across the country, the government implemented the fowl slaughter program which quickly brought egg production back in line with demand, and allowed the establishment of the first national farm products marketing agency. We have also brought about changes in the rates of feed freight assistance to offset changes in cost, introduced a potato support program which helped the Maritime growers to overcome a difficult period of surplus production, and continued the federal government support for the sugar beet industry.
In the grain and oil seeds marketing system the number of changes introduced since 1968 have culminated in the success of our marketing effort, and have proven the wisdom of the changes made in the regulations. But we do not plan to sit still in the coming year. Although we already have a new set of wheat grades, a new quota delivery system, a grassland incentive program, improved transportation records at the Lakehead and Vancouver, and many other improvements, still further improvements are being considered for the coming year.
Hon. members who may not be familiar with the subject should check their old agriculture committee reports and see what we recommended six years ago to improve grain handling facilities both on the coast and in the St. Lawrence Seaway. If they do, they will realize that hon. members at that time had futuristic ideas and attitudes.
When talking about the export records that have been set, I do not wish to leave the impression that it was the government that set these records on its own. It took a great deal of co-operation between government and the entire grain producing, transporting, insuring, shipping and exporting industries. It required gumption to find the weak spots, identify them, acknowledge them, and then move to make the changes that brought about the desired improvements. I hope this co-operation will continue. Indeed, recognition of the validity of this approach has been indicated by the establishment of a new branch within the Department of Agriculture to try the same formula with other commodities, commodity groups, and sections of the agriculture industry.
One of the major tasks of the new food systems branch concerns the feed grain industry. Right now we are talking with the industry about the new feed grains policy for Canada, taking into account the many changes made in production, transportation, international markets, and our own domestic livestock industry needs. Again, as indicated in the Speech from the Throne, the government supports the principle of an equitable relationship of prices of feed grain to livestock feeders in various areas of Canada. It is the intention of the government to implement, before the next crop year, procedures that will insure the optimum development of the feed grain and livestock industries within Canada.
There are many things I could say about the agriculture industry, Mr. Speaker, but I realize that if I said all that I have written here, I would take up more than my fair share of the time of the House. However, I do wish to take a few more minutes to complete a few points.
One of the biggest changes in agricultural policy introduced by the government has been the passage of the National Farm Products Marketing Act. I am convinced
January 16, 1973

that national marketing agencies hold the key to major improvements within the agriculture industry, and will enable farmers to increase their income considerably. It is too early to judge the success of this legislation, but I am convinced that in years ahead we will look back and approve the persistence and foresight shown in having this idea put into the law of the land.
I want to take this opportunity to express my appreciation to the group of leaders who have been chosen to head the National Farm Products Marketing Council. Their leadership and tact have already done much to convince the doubters and sceptics that national marketing agencies can be a good thing and should be given a chance. The first national marketing agency, the one for eggs, is just now getting into operation. As this new group of men take up the challenge I am sure many farmers will find that national marketing agencies have a great deal to offer them, and that the trade as well as consumers will find these organizations to be to their advantage. I expect that we will have other national marketing agencies in operation before the end of the year. I have received notice from turkey and broiler producers that they wish to have a marketing plan, and before long they will want a national inquiry into the merits of such a plan.
In summary, Mr. Speaker, the agriculture industry is certainly in a much stronger position today than it was four years ago. The leadership, policies and programs initiated by my predecessors in this portfolio have had a great deal to do with the turn around, the better fortunes, and the good outlook for the industry and its producers. Problems and challenges remain to be tackled. I do not intend to rest on the achievements of my predecessors but will take up the challenge from here. There are great potentials for Canadian agriculture, and I am confident that we have the policies and programs which will help Canadian farmers to reach their full potential.
Because farming and the food industry form only part of the fabric of Canadian life, the Minister of Agriculture does not have a czar's influence even in his own area of jurisdiction. But I can assure hon. members that this minister will defend farmers' interests in this country with all the political skill that farmers are reputed to be able to muster, and as a member of the cabinet I will see to it that this is done within a framework of general conditions favourable to Canadian consumers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, this is the first time that I have had the honour of addressing the House of Commons, an honour that I am sure all Canadians would prize. Like many other members who have spoken in this debate, I should like to begin by joining in an accolade to you and your associates for the way in which you are presiding over the affairs of this House.
We are here to debate the Speech from the Throne and I should like to begin by complimenting its authors, both seen and unseen, for they have produced a remarkable document. However, I am sure they would agree if I were to suggest to hon. members opposite, that with a little
The Address-Mr. Stackhouse
imagination we could think of ways in which it might have been improved. This afternoon I should like to suggest a few proposals which might have been included.
For example, Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne might have said something such as this: "The government will try to reduce unemployment in Canada by giving a job to every defeated Liberal candidate." Or, it might have said something such as this: "As a contribution to Canadian culture, the government will commission a national film board documentary on the election. It will be called "How the West was Lost". Or, "The government will authorize a CBC television serial: one part to be about the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in 1968. It will be called; "How to Succeed in Politics Without Really Trying." The second part will be on the Prime Minister in 1972 and it will be called: "How to Try in Politics Without Really Succeeding".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Or, "The government will attempt a bold innovation in politics: Liberal ministers and Conservative policies."
Instead of "fuddleduddle" we now have "flip-flop". In the throne speech the government "flipped", because in the election the government "flopped".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: None the less, the throne speech is a remarkable document. It expresses the politics of "something for everybody"-or almost everybody.
It is not clear what the government intends for the kind of citizen about whom I want to speak mainly-the middle Canadians. I have the privilege of representing Scarborough East. With 87,000 electors it is one of the largest ridings in Canada and represents a "mix" of the great diversity one finds in the Canada of today. Scarborough East is totally within metropolitan Toronto, but it still has farms as well as high rise apartments and residential neighbourhoods. Most of its people are of British ancestry or origin, but it also has large numbers from every part of Europe, from Asia, from Africa, from the Middle East, from Latin America, from the Caribbean. Many of its people are young and over 25 per cent are in school, college or university. However, the riding includes a growing number of senior citizens.
With all this diversity, however, there is something that the people have in common. Most are what can be called "middle Canadians"; they are not affluent, not impoverished, but are earning enough to be self-supporting; they are not "fat-cats," not "bums," but are working people.
The Prime Minister has professed to be concerned, and rightly so, about alienation-alienation of the west-even as he has been about alienation of Quebec. I should like to put it to the House that we need to be equally concerned about another kind of alienation. There is in Canada today not only regional alienation but sociological alienation. For many middle Canadians there is a growing unease about the direction our society has been following and the direction this government has been leading.
I should like to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this kind of alienation which many people are experiencing is partly

January 16, 1973
The Address-Mr. Stackhouse due to the way in which the government seems to have become removed from the people. Government in Canada has become of such behemoth proportions, and seems so complex in its proceedings, that the average person can say of the government it is his government in name only. One way in which the government of Canada might come closer to the people is by taking steps to open membership in this House of Commons to more and more Canadians.
One of the difficulties that people find when standing for election to the House of Commons is that they usually have to give up their jobs. This imposes upon their families a financial burden that most men and women do not feel justified in asking. I would suggest that we need to reform our election practices so that membership of this parliament can be sought by people of all occupations. If parliament is to be truly representative it must be the nation in small. It must be representative of all religions, races, ethnic origins, languages and so on, but it also must be representative of occupations. Parliament has been dominated too long by too few occupations. I suggest that we should consider a proposal that parliament enact legislation requiring all employers to permit employees with two years seniority to become candidates without fear of losing their jobs. Employers would be required to give such employees leave of absence during the election campaign, such leave to be without pay. Employers should be pledged to grant leave of absence without pay to any employee elected to the House of Commons. Should an employee seek re-election after one term he or she would be deemed to have resigned since it could be interpreted that he or she had begun a new career.
I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that this kind of obligation is comparable to what was required of employers during wartime when they were expected to keep jobs open for employees who served with the armed forces. If we can require employers to make this kind of commitment during the war to those who would serve their country, surely we can do it in peace. Parliament should not be primarily a place of privilege but a vocation of service open to many.
The alienation of middle Canadians is accented by the way social forces make the local community and single individual seem insignificant. Much is said in this House about participation, involvement, consultation, but often more is said than is done. It is frequently the tendency of government to announce first and consult later-maybe. For example, last week the construction of three limited dividend apartment projects in Scarborough was announced. They are to be funded by the federal government. Community associations are concerned about this, not because they reject their social responsibility to low income citizens but because they are concerned about the impact of high rise building on family neighbourhoods and about the ingress of large numbers of children in such areas with already limited recreational and service facilities. When one Ontario Housing corporation project was proposed early last spring, a protest meeting assembled 1,000 ratepayers to voice these concerns, and the federal government take them seriously. The Ontario government listened to these people and the project was stopped. The government of that province has also initiated a study of the future of public housing in Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, I propose that the federal government should initiate a study of public housing in Scarborough. This study should involve all three levels of government and aim at developing more effective ways of meeting these housing needs than having the people together in buildings that often soon come to be looked upon as ghettos. Scarborough has about 15 per cent of the population of metro Toronto but about 33 per cent of the Ontario housing located in metro plus the limited dividend apartments. These housing projects, being partially or wholly financed from federal funds, show the great federal involvement in public housing in this municipality. I put it to the House that before any more projects are undertaken in Scarborough the federal government should invite the province and municipality to co-operate in a study that would indicate the best direction to follow in future. Part of the value of this study would be the demonstration to the community that it has a voice which is heard and is taken seriously.
Another reason many middle income Canadians feel alienated from society results from the development of a permissive approach to life. There is a permissiveness abroad that they often seem to believe is encouraged by the government. What the middle income Canadian wants is the rule of law to be respected. Civilization demands this because a civilization is a society that has learned to live together under the rule of law. Western society has come to take that rule for granted, but one of the results of urbanization has been the decline of that rule. In the United States the streets of the city are emptied at night by fear. Fear turns a key in every door and people lock themselves in their homes as though they were prisoners in cells. That can happen in Canada, too. I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that we need a "firming up" in our administration of law.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: A bail system that allows thugs to commit violence while awaiting trial, a parole system that permits offenders to obtain one parole after another, a criminal code that says the life of the victim may be taken but not the life of the murderer-this is not the way to build confidence in the law. Justice must be tempered by mercy, but mercy should not be confused with sentimentality.
The alienation of wide segments of middle income Canadians from the government is increased by certain economic factors as well; for example, taxation. The graduated income tax was based on the concept of distributive justice-the belief that the strong should bear more of the burden than the weak. However, in an inflationary economy the graduated income tax has become a way by which middle Canadians are being penalized for trying to keep abreast of inflation. When they are successful in raising their dollar income to meet the decline in the dollar's purchasing power, they find themselves taxed at a higher rate. This often means not only that they must pay more tax dollars but, also, that a higher percentage of their income must go to the government. They thus find themselves robbed of much they had gained. What they thought was progress turns out to be a penalty.
January 16, 1973

We need a tax reform, Mr. Speaker, that will put the graduated income tax on a constant dollar basis. This would be a reform that would restore initiative to middle Canadians who have begun to wonder if it makes sense any longer to work harder, to strive more and to climb higher. When I urge that, I am not pleading for concessions to an economic elite. I am urging justice for that great mass of Canadians whose pay deductions are mounting so high that they wonder if Canada has become a country where effort is penalized instead of rewarded.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: For example, I am thinking of a small businessman with whom I discussed this entire question. He told me that on Saturdays he cannot persuade his employees to work for him except, and I use his words, "as an act of charity." They say to him that after they have paid their taxes for the overtime, it really does not pay them to work on Saturday. That is typical of what one hears from Canadians right across the land. It is clear that we need a tax reform that will save Canadians from the unjust, confiscatory, legalized exploitation that our income tax has become.
The same must be said about inflation. John Kenneth Galbraith claims that the modern industrial state has to choose between the two evils of unemployment and inflation. Our government, Mr. Speaker, has resolved the dilemma. It has opted for both. This holds true not only in the instance of food prices which are of concern to everybody but, as well and equally, in the instance of housing. Housing, which middle income Canadians at one time considered a right is now a luxury which many can never achieve. For example, for every six families in Toronto who could buy a house ten years ago, only one can do so today. In 1961, the average new house cost approximately $17,000 and almost 15 per cent of families in the area could qualify for a mortgage. In 1971 the cost of a new home has risen to a price in excess of $40,000 and slightly over 2 per cent of families can qualify. The high rise apartment offers no solution either, since whether a family is buying a home or renting an apartment the cost for that housing can take up between 30 and 40 per cent of income. Indeed, I have letters from people in my riding who ciaim they are paying almost half their take-home pay in rent. At the same time, the government persists in collecting a sales tax on every item of material used in housing. Thus, at a time when working people should have their load made lighter, they find the government of their own country adding to their burdens.
Concern about inflation in food prices and housing costs, however, should not divert us from being concerned about inflation in the cost of government. The cost of government is now growing at a rate that is 50 per cent higher than the rate of growth enjoyed by the gross national product. The cost of government is thus increasing at a rate greater than that which the economy can absorb. In 1965 the government's share of the gross national product was 30 per cent; in 1971 it had risen to 37 per cent. If this rate of increase is to keep up we can expect that out of every dollar's worth of goods and services produced by the Canadian people, 40 per cent will go to some level of government.
The Address-Mr. Douglas
If we are committed to combatting inflation, we must combat the cost of government. We must avoid those pressures referred to by the proverb, "the appetite grows with eating." The more the government does, the more it intends to do. The more it spends, the more it will spend. When we consider the way in which middle income Canadians are being obliged to carry the heavy burden of confiscatory taxes and increased prices as a result of inflation, it is small wonder that so many cf them find themselves feeling as the mythical Sisyphus must have felt.
According to the story, that mythical figure was sentenced by the gods of Hades to a unique punishment. He had to push a great rock up a hill. It was a big rock and took all his strength to push up; however, when it reached the top, it rolled back to the bottom and Sisyphus had to start all over again. Middle income Canadians are beginning to feel just like Sisyphus. They are in the same plight. Somehow, they just cannot reach the top and stay there; they just cannot keep ahead of the demands of taxation and the penalties of inflation. So, we find that along with feeling alienated from the government, and its policies which have made them unable to keep up with their commitments they find that they cannot meet the pressure of general economic forces upon them. As a result they are beginning to wonder if their society is worth while. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that in the kinds of policies and legislation that this parliament will enact we can say to those people who have done so much to build this country that we are with them, that we are on their side and that we will endeavour to meet their needs and fulfil their aspirations.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I join with the other speakers who have preceded me in adding my congratulations to Mr. Speaker and Mr. Deputy Speaker for the resounding vote of confidence which they received in being elected to preside over our deliberations. I commend the government for nominating a member of the official opposition for the post of Deputy Speaker. I hope that this will constitute a precedent for future parliaments. I wish to congratulate the mover and seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne and to commend them for the manner in which they have discharged their duties. I am sure their constituents are proud of their performance.
This first session of the twenty-ninth parliament finds the House of Commons meeting in a most sensitive situation. The recent election resulted in a stalemate in which no party has been given a clear mandate to govern. Consequently, this is a parliament of minorities. This House has two options, either to bring about an immediate election or to attempt to work out government by consensus. I want to opt for the latter course because I believe that a parliament of minorities constitutes a challenge to the statesmanship of all the parties and to every member of this House.
In my opinion, there are two compelling reasons why an immediate election would probably not solve our problem. The first is that the vast majority of Canadians do not want an immediate election if it can be avoided. Early

January 16, 1973
The Address-Mr. Douglas
in December I sent out a questionnaire to every householder in my constituency. While the returns are still coming in, of the many thousands that have been received, less than 10 per cent gave it as their opinion that an immediate election should be held. Interestingly enough, on the question as to which of the major parties they would like to see form the minority government, 35 per cent plus a fraction favoured a Conservative minority government, 35 per cent plus a decimal fraction favoured a Liberal minority government and 28 per cent and a decimal fraction had no preference whatsoever.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: They couldn't tell the difference.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The second reason I think an immediate election would not solve our problem is that there is no assurance whatsoever that if an election were held in the next two or three months, the results would be substantially different from what they are at the present time. There might be a different political party with a slight numerical majority, but I doubt very much if any party would have a clear majority in the House of Commons.
We ought to reconcile ourselves to the fact that we are likely to have a multi-party House of Commons for many years to come. It is significant that in the past 15 years we had only two majority governments and four minority governments. Some members might yearn for a return to the two-party system, but the returns from the last election indicate we are not going to have this for some time. We had the two-party system from confederation to 1921, with the exception of some independent and farm members who were elected from time to time, but the two-party system broke down in the 1920's. It broke down because both the Liberal and Conservative parties did not represent any fundamental difference in political philosophy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Because both of them spoke for the privileged groups of Canada, most of the elections were fought on the basis of racial, regional and religious differences. That was responsible for most of the national disunity we find in this country today.
In the 1920's we began to see the break-up of the two-party system. In 1921 we saw the emergence of the Progressive party, the United Farmers of Alberta and the Independent Labour Party, all of which were represented in the House of Commons at that time. In 1935 the CCF sent its first contingent to parliament. That party, and the New Democratic Party which succeeded it, has continued to secure an increasing measure of electoral support. It may well be that the day will come when there will be a political realignment in Canada and we will develop a two-party system such as has been developed in many other democratic countries. When that time comes, it will be a two-party system based on an ideological polarization with the parties representing on the one hand those who desire to retain the present corporate controlled society and, on the other hand, those who desire to establish social democracy in Canada. In the meantime, we must face the situation as it is and reconcile ourselves to the fact that we have a multi-party system and that it does reflect the views of the people who sent us here. Minority

governments may be uncomfortable and inconvenient for politicians, but they do reflect the views of the voters and they challenge us to make parliamentary democracy work in the present situation.
In a recent editorial, the editor of the Ottawa Citizen wrote, and I quote:
Minority government is a nightmare for civil servants. It is hell for politicians. But it can really be quite good for people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Government by consensus may present some difficulties, but it also provides some significant advantages. It means that whatever government is in office must be more sensitive to public opinion and more responsive to public need. Whatever the problems of this parliament, they are in many ways better than the arrogant government we faced in the last parliament which turned a deaf ear to every plea and showed a callous disregard toward the most glaring needs of many Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Government by consensus makes possible the opportunity for better and more progressive legislation. No government is the sole repository of all wisdom. If a parliament of minorities makes it possible to amend legislation or reject legislation if the majority of the members so decide, this is all to the good. In the final analysis, members of this House are accountable to their constituents. If the majority of them are dissatisfied with legislation, it is a safe assumption that this represents the views of the people who elected them.
Some of the most advanced legislation placed on the statute books has emerged from parliaments in which no party had a clear majority. The Mackenzie King minority administration in the 1920's produced such things as old age pension legislation, reduction in tariffs, adjustments in freight rates and long overdue legislation to deal with grain deliveries in western Canada. The Conservative administration, headed by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), in 1957-58 was much more progressive and forward looking than the administration which he headed from 1958 to 1962 when he had the largest majority of any government in the history of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The late Right Hon. L. B. Pearson headed a minority government in 1963 and again in 1965. Those two parliaments produced such legislation as medicare, the Canada Pension Plan, the Canada Assistance Plan, the National Labour Code, the new broadcasting act and a distinctive national flag.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am not suggesting that minority government is an ideal situation, but I do contend that it is not a disaster. It can result in beneficial legislation which represents a consensus of the convictions held by members of this House.
January 16, 1973

The Progressive Conservative members have been highly critical of the position taken by the New Democratic Party in refusing to defeat the government in this debate on the motion in reply to the Speech from the Throne. The members of the New Democratic Party have, after very careful consideration, decided unanimously to follow the logical course of giving to whichever party had the largest number of seats in the House an opportunity to present its program to the House of Commons with the clear reservation that if the legislation which was presented failed to live up to its advance billings, they would vote against the government. I was disappointed by the frenzied attack which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) made on the leader of this party, the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis). The Leader of the Opposition revealed a hunger for office which fails to take account of political realities. He wants us to put him and his colleagues on the treasury benches despite the fact that they failed to get a mandate from the electorate, and that, if anything, their policies with respect to such issues as unemployment, economic growth, price stability and pensions are even more vague than those of the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If the Progressive Conservative party had secured more votes than the Liberals, and secured more seats in this House, we would have given them the same opportunity to present their program as we are now giving to the Liberal party. And if the Progressive Conservative party is called upon to form a government during this parliament we shall give them the same opportunity as we are now giving to the present government, that is, the right to present their program and show whether or not they intend to put that program into effect.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then, the Liberals will be saying nasty things about us.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The taunts of some Conservative members are really unworthy of them. The Leader of the Opposition said the other day:
A marriage of convenience has been arranged between the two parties, a union achieved by cynicism on the one hand and by sheer fright on the other.


Mr. Nowlan:: Right on.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I want to tell the Leader of the Opposition that I am neither cynical nor frightened. The right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) says the Liberal government sits there by the grace of the New Democratic Party. Need I remind him that in 1963, when the Social Credit party moved a motion of no confidence based on a motion calling for debt-free money which was supported by that agile chameleon known as the Liberal party, the New Democrats voted against it and kept the right hon. gentleman in office for a few more weeks. It is true that some time later we supported a no-confidence motion when it became apparent that the government was disintegrating from within, because they had not only failed to secure any organic agreement with any other party they had failed to establish agreement within the cabinet itself. This is why it collapsed.
The Address-Mr. Douglas
In the course of this debate several hon. members, in particular the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) talked of the NDP being "in bed" with the Liberals.


An hon. Member:: Must be hard up indeed!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I want to ask hon. members in the Conservative party whether, if, by the fortunes of war, they were occupying the treasury benches-and they might well do so in the coming months-would they expect us to vote against a Speech from the Throne presented by them merely because we were frightened the Liberals would taunt us by saying we were in bed with the Tories?


Stanley Ronald Basford: No answer at all from over there.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: We have a much more serious task before us in the House of Commons than to play partisan political games. So if parliamentary democracy is to work, we must demonstrate to the country that parliament is capable of governing. In our opinion this means giving to the party with the largest number of seats and votes an opportunity to present its program and sufficient time for it to be determined whether that program will be reflected in specific legislation and effective fiscal measures. If the measures promised in the Speech from the Throne fail to materialize we reserve the right to vote the present government out of office.
The right hon. member for Prince Albert has drawn attention to the Prime Minister's statement that if this government is defeated on some fundamental issue he reserves the right to go to the country. But the NDP has made clear its belief that whatever the constitutional position may be the Prime Minister has a moral obligation, in the event of being defeated, to ask the Governor General to call upon the Leader of the Opposition to form a government. The constitutional right of the Prime Minister to ask for dissolution would apply whether his government were defeated on the issue of the Speech from the Throne or on any other matter which he considers to be a question of confidence. Ever since the controversy between Mackenzie King and Lord Byng it is doubtful that any Governor General would refuse to grant dissolution to any Prime Minister. The question is not really an argument about constitutional rights; it is one concerning moral obligations, and it should be remembered that in the final analysis the last word will lie with the Canadian voters. I am convinced that if the present government is defeated during this session, asks for dissolution and goes to the country without recommending that the Leader of the Opposition be called upon to form a government, the voters will make their views known in no uncertain terms.
May I turn, now, to the Speech from the Throne? This document represents the greatest about-face in Canadian history. It contains many laudable and desirable national objectives. But most of all it demonstrates that a kick at one end of the spine can have a most stimulating effect upon the other end.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: At long last the government recognizes that unemployment exists. Before the election, the Prime

January 16, 1973
The Address-Mr. Douglas
Minister couldn't see any unemployed-only frauds and cheats. He spent much of his time blaming the unemployed for being out of work and telling them there were plenty of jobs. The government has learned, somewhat belatedly, that the cost of living is increasing at a fantastic rate. Before the election the Prime Minister was saying it was good for the farmers and the Minister of Finance blamed rising food prices on the weather. This comes well from a government which, only a few short years ago, was paying farmers not to grow wheat, with the result that today we face a shortage-last year, too, they paid farmers to kill chickens, with the result that there is now a shortage of eggs. Apparently they do not realize you must have chickens in order to get eggs.


Eugene Whelan: We have enough eggs, too. Don't kid yourself.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In his speech of penitence, the Prime Minister said that although the government had made mistakes they were not sins of omission. He is wrong. The wrath of the Canadian people was not directed against the government's mistakes. All governments make mistakes. It was directed against the fact that the government ignored the plight of many Canadians and showed a callous indifference to their sufferings.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Members opposite are only practising selfdeception when they talk, now, about an English backlash or find some other excuse. The real test of the Speech from the Throne will lie in the answer to this question: what realistic measures will the government take to reach some of the admirable goals it has outlined. Two policy areas are designated to receive major concern. The first has to do with economic policy and the second with social policy. I shall deal with economic policy briefly. The first of these declared intentions is to expand job opportunities. We welcome these measures but I believe it can be said that some of them are too late, and also that they are too little.
The minister said we will not have the final decision in respect of approving many of the projects under the Local Initiatives Program until January 19. How much time will that give those who are sponsoring these programs to provide for jobs? The program of winter works to assist provinces and municipalities was announced the middle of December. The premiers asked for that program as far back as August and the Mayors and Municipalities Association asked for it last June. Any premier or mayor of a city will tell you that if they are to have any work and wages program for sewage disposal plants or do any kind of public works they will need several months in which to prepare their plans, call for tenders and allot contracts. The program is not only late, it is too little. The Local Initiatives Program involves $165 million, but the minister says the number of applications would cost $400 million. This means that more than half of the projects will have to be thrown out. The winter works program, which is part loan and part grant is to be $350 million spread over three winters. Only about $60 million to $70 million will be

available for this winter. For the province of British Columbia the allocation for the three year period is $37.3 million. Vancouver Island alone would need $37.3 million if it is going to have over three winters an adequate working wages plan that will put people to work. It is not that there is a lack of work. When you think of the millions we are spending in handouts to corporations and think, on the other hand that there are very large cities in Canada which are putting inadequately treated human sewage into rivers, lakes and coastal waters and the price we will have to pay to clean up this pollution in the future, there should be no difficulty in finding projects and no difficulty in finding the necessary money to put these projects into effect.
The second program the government discusses is that it is going to promote stable economic growth.


An hon. Member:: It better not smell.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The Prime Minister said the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) would discuss this. I listened to both those gentlemen very carefully and they told us in turn that we would have to wait until we heard the budget. In the Minister of Finance's speech I gathered that the government is still committed to the belief that grants to corporations and accelerated writeoffs are the answer. I say this policy has already failed, failed demonstrably and failed dismally. What this country needs are fiscal measures to redistribute income and to provide increased purchasing power to the low income group so as to increase aggregate demand. Unless the government moves in this direction all its talk about promoting economic growth will be a mirage.
The third area of the government's economic policy has to do with reasonable price stability. Again, I listened to the Minister of Finance very carefully. He eloquently depicted the dire consequences of rising prices, as though that were needed, since every person is feeling the pinch of rising prices. He failed completely to prescribe any solution or indicate any definite measures the government is going to take to promote price stability. The only proposal the government has put forward either in the speeches of the minister or in the Speech from the Throne was the appointment of a joint committee on food prices. This could turn out to be nothing more than a stalling device.
Members of the last parliament will recall the joint committee we had on consumer prices. It was appointed on March 15, 1966 and reported to the House on April 25,
1967.	To the best of my recollection the report was never debated and never passed. I suggest that a joint committee will be a useful exercise in getting some information for members, but such a committee has neither the time, the expertise nor access to the books of food processing companies and chain stores to get the kind of information necessary. In addition, it is difficult to study food prices in isolation. The price the farmer gets for food can only be considered in the light of what he is paying for his machinery, the interest rate he has to pay on his mortgage and the price he must pay for the supplies he purchases.
We in this party have been advocating for several years that what we ought to do is establish a prices review
January 16, 1973

board with authority to examine the books of various companies and to ascertain which price increases are unwarranted. Such a board ought to be armed with the legislative authority to stop price increases where it finds they are unjustified and, where necessary, to roll them back. Only a prices review board would have the time and expertise to study all the relevant data which this House must have if we should decide later to move into some type of selective price controls.
The fourth area of economic policy referred to in the Speech from the Throne is the need to ensure that all regions benefit from prosperity. The government's announcement is that a conference is going to be held with the western provinces. This is a long overdue recognition of the need for building an economic base under the western economy. Such a conference could mean a great deal or it could be merely an exercise in futility. This conference will be meaningful only if the government of Canada is prepared through the Canada Development Corporation or through any of its other agencies to generate a large accumulation of capital to enable the western provinces to transform their raw materials into processed and finished products. British Columbia, as an example, has all the potential for a steel industry, for copper refining and smelting and for a shipbuilding industry. What it needs is the necessary capital generated and leadership given. If that comes out of this conference the conference will have been worthwhile.
Let me say in conclusion these few words. The Prime Minister says the government has made some mistakes. That makes it unanimous. We in this party are not granting the government a pardon but only a reprieve. Our vote is not a vote of confidence but it is a carefully considered decision to give the government an opportunity to demonstrate that the programs set out in the Speech from the Throne are more than a collection of pious hopes. This government has a chance, if it will take it, to show that it has learned some lessons from the election of October 30 by carrying out a series of dynamic programs to provide jobs, to promote economic growth and to provide a reasonable degree of price stability. At the same time, this House has a chance to show that parliamentary democracy can work by supporting the government when it delivers the goods and by changing it when it fails to do so. That is the challenge which faces the Twenty-ninth Parliament of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. H. T. Herbert (Vaudreuil):: 
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harold Thomas Herbert: As an individual, I am blessed with the opportunity to enjoy the best of our two cultures. My wife and I have many different points of view. We do not pretend that those differences do not exist by closing the door on discussion.
The members facing me must be naive indeed-and I use an intentionally gentle expression-if they suggest that the question of separatism or the subject of language power is unique to the province of Quebec. Only this past week, most of you must have received the hate literature which stated that:
We are essentially again in the throes of a second Papineau rebellion, the object of which is the establishment of French power in Ottawa.
My regret is that this subject appears to polarize along party lines. I plead with every true Canadian to treat all differing opinions and minority groups with the true respect and understanding that will enable everyone to live as real equals.
My county of Vaudreuil is surely as representative of the peoples of this country as any can be. The more affluent, the less affluent, the city businessman, the farmer, all enjoy living in a county bordered on one side

January 16, 1973
The Address-Mr. Herbert
by the picturesque, if polluted, Ottawa River and on the other by the mighty St. Lawrence. Those of sufficient means can enjoy golfing, yachting, tennis, curling and equestrian pursuits, including the colourful if controversial hunt. For others, their leisure time can be filled with swimming, skating, skiing, hockey, baseball, camping and the enjoyment of our parks and woods. Our sugar camps bring visitors from afar, including the United States. We in the county of Vaudreuil are fortunate to be able to fill our leisure time in a variety of ways not available to everyone in this country.
I have had the good fortune to travel in many lands and consider myself lucky to have been able to live or work in all the provinces. From the rugged east coast to the beautiful gardens of Vancouver Island, we surely have no difficulty in extolling the wonders of a country that has such a variety of scenery and ways of life to please every taste. The breathtaking beauty of the fall colours in Nova Scotia, Niagara, the Quebec winter carnival or the Calgary stampede, Lake Louise and the magnificent Rockies, in every province and territory we can speak with pride of our favourite and distinctly Canadian attractions.
I want to quote an extract from a publication of the federal office of tourism. It reads as follows:
The more the traveller travels, the wider his horizons become. Travel brings people together, adding to each an understanding that wasn't there before, and making tourism a powerful agent for bridging the social gaps that exist within countries. We especially need this in a country as staggeringly vast as Canada, where regionalism and isolation would be problems even without the. added differences of language and culture.
Canada was born rich. We have a natural environment that's spectacular to look at, easy to live in, and a pleasure to visit. We have wilderness for outdoorsmen, water for swimmers and snow for skiers. We have cities to stimulate, culture to appreciate, and countryside to contemplate.
This is one excellent reason for claiming that our land is strong. This is why we should raise our heads with pride, because we have a product that we believe in and that we can go out and sell.
I want to speak for a few minutes on what some may consider the more practical side. More than 20 years ago my company was building low cost detached houses in Montreal that were selling for $8,500. Today in my county of Vaudreuil, well constructed three bedroom detached houses can be bought for less than $14,000. That is an annual price increase of less than 2 per cent.
I am aware of what has happened to construction wage rates, and for many trades the increases are fully deserved. Modern techniques tend to balance field labour cost increases and each year the problems of winter construction become less. The present rate of house construction is setting an all-time record, and the projections for industrial and commercial construction indicate a healthy construction industry through the rest of this decade. That does not suggest to me a weak economy.
In the Speech from the Throne we read of "encouragement to investors to make more money available to meet housing needs". This money must be available at reasonable interest rates and much of it must come from our banks. The relatively small amount of competition that exists in the Canadian banking system tends to make banking less efficient and interest rates higher than they

need be. A ceiling on interest rates should be re-imposed. This move should encourage greater lending in the house mortgage field. We should also consider whether permissible dialogue between managers of different banks does not contravene the intent of the Combines Investigation Act.
I should like now to turn to the food industry. We have seen in the past years an increased efficiency in food production and retailing that has kept the average annual price increase below the increase in the cost of living index. During this period the corner grocery store has found it increasingly difficult to compete with the big chains, and I believe that a renewed effort must be made to help this type of small, family business. Efficiency and price level must not be the sole criteria for survival. The small enterprise is a cornerstone of our nation and the need to give these businesses special tax consideration is included in the proposals of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner).
However, there must not be any inference here that I have any sympathetic feelings toward the suggestion of the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) that we should increase the tax burden of the big corporations. Investors in large companies expect a reasonable return on their investment. If the tax load on the food retailing industry is increased, then automatically this increase will be passed on in prices and those who will suffer most will be the poor, those with low incomes. Or does the hon. member for York South suggest that along with the increased tax bite he would impose price controls? Naturally, while he is imposing price controls he would also introduce wage controls.
I trust he listened to the remarks of the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees). I quote:
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 2i per cent a year and 3 per cent a year, and makes it very clear that mandatory controls will be introduced if these guidelines are not obeyed, both management and labour will have no alternative but to obey these guidelines.
Did the hon. member talk to the same leaders of labour to whom I have been listening? Someone appears to be dreaming, in colour!
I want to make a brief reference to agriculture. As with the small commercial business, so must the family farm be considered an essential part of the Canadian economy. Our farm policy is to give equal consideration to all farmers be they from the west or the east. Adequate price support programs, quotas that will take into account seasonal variations, even though this results in surpluses and subsidies to avoid price increases to the consumer will all encourage an industry that is seriously affected by the agricultural support programs of foreign governments. I also believe that a stepped up program of assistance for research at the university level will help rekindle the interest in agriculture which is necessary for the replenishment of the diminishing farm labour force.
I was referring earlier to the speech by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings. I want to comment on the continuing references to the 3 per cent tax change. The 3
January 16, 1973

per cent tax decrease was instituted as a stimulus to the economy. Anyone doing any Christmas shopping this year would have found it difficult to believe that Canadians were buying less because of fears of a tax increase in 1973. As an example, the sales of toys were reaching new highs and three weeks before Christmas many well known quality products were already sold out. During this buying spree few people thought of our economy as being weak.
The hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings has been espousing many of the past tested Conservative theories that have produced down-turns in the economy of our country. He makes reference to our unemployed. We will soon be considering changes in the legislation affecting the Unemployment Insurance Commission. It will be very easy to reduce the numbers by changing the eligibility qualifications. Full employment appears to be the objective of all parties. Let us not play politics with the figures, or try to take away from anyone the right to a minimum standard of living.
However disappointing the unemployment figures have been and are, the moneys paid to these persons, those of the greatest need, have been visibly injected into the economy. We have heard discussion of the work ethic. Let there not be an over-reaction that could result in unnecessary suffering and humiliation of the real needy.
A popular subject in the last few days has been old age pensions. There is a genuine need for increased payments, but I sense that much of the promotion is more with an eye to vote getting. I wonder how many of those who have talked of the problems of our elderly citizens have actively promoted and assisted in the use of those existing programs which are designed to make our mothers and fathers a little happier. Persons on pension can be helped by increases. They can also be helped by making it easier for them to live comfortably on the moneys they receive. How many of us have encouraged the building in our counties of homes for our senior citizens? How many of us have actively promoted the New Horizons program?
Mr. Speaker, since I entered this House a few days ago I have been described as "weak-kneed", "bleeding heart", and one of a "new gaggle of Liberal backbenchers that sprung up, as it were, like mushrooms in the nethermost corner of the House". I believe that many of us are guilty of using varying degrees of epithets in time of stress, but anyone using such language in what is presumably a prepared speech not only indicates his own inadequacies but does grave discredit to this House. I do not really object to being called wet behind the ears by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), but I would point out to him that many new members bring with them a length and depth of business experience that he could not possibly have, unless he is very much older than he looks.

Mr. Speaker, more than half the citizens of the riding of Vaudreuil are French-speaking. I am therefore extremely proud of the results of the last elections: they are a good example of the relations that can exist between our two cultures.
The Address-Mr. Ellis


Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, as a representative of the historic riding of Hastings I approach this, my first speech in the House of Commons, with not inconsiderable trepidation. I have listened carefully to my peers and their speeches, both maiden and otherwise, and I sense a number of trends.
It is obvious that it is traditional to praise the Speaker of the House in one's opening speech. I wonder if in the past, at some time or other, members on one side of the House may well have choked on their words of praise. In this House, however, it is abundantly obvious, even in the short time that I have been here, that we are blessed with a Speaker of complete impartiality, outstanding wisdom and charming grace. I regret to presume that all the fine qualities of the Speaker may well be strained to the limit in this particular parliament. The choice of the Deputy Speaker leaves little doubt of the high regard of the House for this gentleman. Again, I am confident of a choice well made. I congratulate the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave).
It is also customary to dwell for a moment on the qualities of one's riding. For my part this is not difficult. I have had the distinct pleasure, as I am sure most of my hon. colleagues have had, of travelling the length and breadth of Canada many times. It is my considered, objective opinion that that part of southern Ontario bordering on the beautiful Bay of Quinte and reaching into the highlands of Hastings is unexcelled.
From the beautiful rolling farmlands of the south, where every conceivable fruit, vegetable and grain is harvested, to the rugged, rocky beauty of the north, the people are universally alike. They, if any, are typical Canadians exemplifying the hard working, good living principles that have made this country strong. Originally of United Empire Loyalist stock, the strong strains of English, Irish and Scotch are fully integrated with new Canadians from every country in the world. Belleville, the county seat, is a veritable gem of a small city where employment of every sort is found, including the head offices of many national and international companies. And yet one can always go home for lunch, or within ten minutes be on the golf course, sailing on the bay, skiing in the winter, or just enjoying the fresh air of the beautiful countryside.
Historically my riding has supported the Crown. In 1836, in one of the first elections in which John A. Macdonald took part, history records that the area went solidly Conservative, and in 1851 at fairs and rural hustings in the counties around, the incredible Macdonald legend began to grow. In 1838 a regiment from Hastings assisted others from counties to the east to repell invaders from northern New York. To this day, the regiment continues that proud tradition. Over the years the riding, despite frequent boundary changes, has been well represented and never better than by my predecessor, Mr, Lee Grills, the friendly milkman. I am pleased to report that Lee is recovering from his recent accident and I convey to his many friends in the House and to you, Mr. Speaker, his good wishes. This is the area, then, which I now represent, and about which frankly, I am deeply concerned. I am

January 16, 1973
The Address-Mr. Ellis
concerned that the bureaucracy of the government is at best, unaware that this part of Canada exists.
I am concerned on behalf of the farmers of the area, and I intend to take up this matter with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). I know that the huge grain growers of the Prairies and the fruit growers of both the Okanagan Valley in the west and the Annapolis Valley on the east, represent much larger blocks of power, but the mixed farming areas of central and southern Ontario are still the heartland of Canada. Many of these farmers rely on cheques from the federal government through the milk marketing scheme for a steady income and when these cheques are from six to eight months in coming, it constitutes a considerable and unreasonable hardship. There is absolutely no excuse for this slip-shod approach. Certainly, if the employees of the Department of Agriculture, who are responsible for checking the statements and preparing the cheques, had to wait for six to eight months for their weekly income, the situation would change quickly.
While I am rapidly learning as much as I can about agriculture and, in fact, about all of the aspects affecting the life of this great and wonderful riding I represent, my background is primarily commercial and industrial. It is for this reason that I am going to direct my remarks primarily to criticism of the government's performance in this area.
A major agency of this government, which renders a distinct disservice to the people of Canada, is the Industrial Development Bank. It represents an injustice to anyone interested in the industrial development of Canada. I contend that this body does as much to encourage the sale of our industry to the United States as any combination of other factors in the country.
While I am aware of a number of instances of this treatment, including one inflicted on a colleague on this side of the House, I refer particularly at this moment, to one of the largest non-United States-owned manufacturing industries in the city of Belleville, one of only two pre-cast concrete producers not owned by a major cement company in Ontario. As a direct result of a snail-like, suspicious, typically civil service approach by the Industrial Development Bank to this company, the company is now a fully owned subsidiary of a United States giant. The company had within it, and still has, all of the prerequisites for Industrial Development Bank support. In addition, it has a vital, young, competent management team of Canadians. I can, and will if necessary, name the company and others to prove my point that this particular form of bureaucracy has caused many companies to be sold to the United States or driven to bankruptcy.
An analysis of the eight year loss experience of the Industrial Development Bank from 1964 to 1971 with a portfolio of over $366,000,000 indicates losses of less than one-fifth of one per cent. This alone proves that the Industrial Development Bank as a lender of last resort, in a supposed high risk lending position, has failed to justify its existence. Industrial Development Bank's interest rates are nothing short of usurious unless commensurate with substantial risk. This risk has been consistently avoided at the direct expense of Canadian businessmen.
(Mr. Ellis.)
The bank takes far too much security relative to its lending position, basically mortgage funds, taking as it does, life insurance, personal, family, and affiliated company guarantees and a floating secondary ^position after existing creditors' requirements. Lending conditions are far too stringent. Businessmen require flexibility in order to meet changing demands and should not be precluded from running the business which they know best. The government assumes wrongly, that tight controls, which are in the interest of Industrial Development Bank, will prevent fraud and offset inept management.
In practice, inflation alone has protected IDB's mortgage interest even in otherwise rapidly deteriorating situations. The overly severe limitations are known to other suppliers of credit, such as banks, finance companies and normal suppliers, who often react negatively to IDB's presence and begin to build extra protection into their lending based on past experience with IDB. Firms have been forced into bankruptcy solely by IDB's presence and the resulting inflexibility of the borrower. The IDB, to say the least, has not kept up with the changing requirements and sophistication of borrowers. It is geared to servicing the traditional small customer, such as motel, restaurant and garage. This, in itself, is not wrong, but the system assumes inept and dishonest management; inadequate, untimely and unorganized financial information and lack of control over resources and personnel.
The IDB is completely unprepared to service a customer of any size with demonstrated ability. The bureaucracy cannot adapt to such a customer and frustrates rather than encourages. The Board of Directors, heavily weighted as it is by civil servants, and lawyers, just does not have the background to properly assess loans brought before it by its senior management. They rubber stamp automatically and with good reason, since the lack of imagination by senior employees in this agency allows them to only look at those proposals that are iron-clad. They know full well that their security is such that they can invariably regain their investment through bankruptcy proceedings. This, in my opinion, is a travesty of business and bears no relationship to the original intent of the IDB. It would be a highly interesting exercise to have a small team of knowledgeable Canadian entrepreneurs search carefully through those applications that never reach the board. I am confident that in this list you would find enough talent and know-how to build a viable, healthy, Canadian industrial and commercial community.
In the case to which I refer specifically, the company met and exceeded every criteria set out by IDB. The IDB took 236 days to approve funds that were short by two thirds of being sufficient to do the job. A quick reply, even if an unequivocal refusal, would be better than the handwringing indecision up and down the hierarchy. In this case, even though the amount finally offered was far too little and in no way reflected the strength and potential of the company, it would likely have been accepted, had it been offered in time. In fact, the IDB continues to advertise for new customers and actively solicit new loan applications through speeches, advertisements, new offices, glossy brochures, and expensive annual reports, even when the existing system cannot produce authorization in anything resembling adequate time. Any loan applications would be unlikely if the applicants knew the
January 16, 1973

true timing of negotiations through to the actual release of funds. There are times, as any good businessman knows, when a decision must be made quickly. By involving everyone in every detail of every file as the information flows up through the levels of hierarchy, by avoiding responsibility and rationalizing indecision, the IDB creates unemployment for Canadians.
Just as the departments which I have mentioned inflict their bureaucracy on the farmer and industrialist, I am even more disturbed with the major affliction of people of every walk of life, the Unemployment Insurance Commission! I am concerned here, on behalf of many Canadians, but since the regional office of Ontario, containing as it does, the much blamed computer which sends out the cheques, is located in Belleville, I am more particularly concerned.
First, I am concerned with the act itself; the anomalies contained in this insidious welfare document are legion. To record them all would be useless. I am confident that the members of the back benches on the government side of the House get quite as many calls as I do complaining of the inequities of the legislation and expressing frustration at the service received. They are aware that the system is constantly being abused, and that there are families who regularly receive over $600 a week from the commission as well as people whose income is in excess of $25,000 who are drawing hundreds of dollars in sick benefits. At the same time, there are people who, after contributing for a lifetime into the program, are temporarily out of work but, are unable to collect any money from the commission, or as in one case in my riding, less than $200.
I cannot, do not and will not, blame the employees of the regional office in Belleville for these sins. Nor will I countenance any such criticism from my colleagues in the House. The blame belongs within the commission. I want to stress this as strongly as I am able. From the top down, there is little or no direction. Instead of consolidating and improving the operation, changes are being made continually.
Let me outline some of the historical problems. At the time of the conception of this act, the then chairman of the commission, Mr. Jacque DesRoches, was new to the commission. He had no commission experience from which to draw and so he leaned on Mr. Guy Cousineau. Mr. Cousineau had experience in the commission and had access to many high priced consultants for assistance. Mr. Cousineau could be called the chief architect of the document, its chief planner, the word-smith who fabricated the nonsense that eventually became legislation. Mr. Cousineau also prepared the model from which costs were projected. I suggest that those estimates were as false as the model and reflect the idiotic terms of the act.
When the act was ready for implementation, the new building was constructed in Belleville. The computers were ordered and installed. Then, the trouble began. The programs for the computers were not ready and, therefore, had never been tested. The computers themselves had not been tested alongside the existing manual methods. Amidst all this confusion the new act was introduced and put into effect; but where was the architect? Where was Mr. Cousineau? Why, Mr. Cousineau was nowhere to
The Address-Mr. Ellis
be seen. He had quietly slipped out of the department and was now a senior official in the treasury department. I have no idea how the plan could be expected to operate properly when the man who designed it was not even in the department.
I do not need to dwell on the catastrophic results, but I wonder how many are aware of the other costs. Mr. DesRoches initially tried to stay within the budget set. He is no longer chairman of the commission. Now, we have Mr. Cousineau back with us as chairman, and the problem that was terrible but improving-to-bad is on its way to becoming terrible again.
Belleville was chosen, in part, because the availability of capable help at the wages paid was infinitely superior to the situation in Toronto. In Toronto, as fast as key punch operators are trained they are stolen by large insurance companies and others. The life style of the people of Belleville and the surrounding counties proved attractive to some senior staff and soon, with co-operation in all areas, the Belleville office began to be more efficient. Due to the problems connected with the act itself, almost twice the staff projected was required. Temporary space had to be rented. There is now a move afoot to reduce the effectiveness of the Belleville office and, indeed, perhaps to move a good part of it out of Belleville. The regional director of the commission responsible for Belleville does not even live in the area; in fact, he visits Belleville infrequently. I would be interested in knowing, and I intend to ask the question, how he justifies trying to manage a multi-billion dollar pay centre by remote control, especially at a time when problems are still rampant. I would also be interested in knowing how the regional director justifies an expense account while staying in Belleville and, in fact, a chauffeur to drive him back and forth when he should be residing there. I assure the gentleman that it is a delightful place to live.
A very serious concern to me at present is the removal of personnel out of the UIC office at Belleville. The latest to go is the public relations officer and his staff. The reason given is that in Toronto the public relations man is closer to the major media. This may be so, but what does he tell the media when he is so far away from the action himself? We were blessed with a fine man in the position who had integrated into the community well, and I am confident that he did not really want to leave. I find it difficult to understand the rationale for moving him when the public relations officer for the Maritimes, working as he does out of Moncton, adequately handles Saint John, Halifax, Fredericton and St. John's. The public relations officer out of Winnipeg does equally well in handling Regina, Saskatoon, Edmonton and Calgary. The personnel director also has been moved to Toronto and now commutes to Belleville once in a while.
How these people and their staff can properly operate one of the most important dollar distributing projects of this government by remote control is completely beyond me. How can they, for example, consult with the chief insurance officer or other senior staff still resident at the centre in Belleville? How can they have any idea of what is happening? I am aware that there is now a movement to remove yet another division from Belleville. I suggest to the members on both sides of the House that this one will

January 16, 1973
The Address-Mr. McRae
effect us all equally. The division in question is the ministerial secretariat, the one that looks after all the complaints that you and I send in. Should this division be moved to Toronto, you can appreciate the type of service you will get then. At least now, when complaints come in, you can be sure of getting an answer. What the service would be with one hand separated from the other by 120 miles I leave to your imagination.
At one time we had the UIC training centre for all of Canada in Belleville at the local Loyalist College of Applied Arts and Technology. It was working in an excellent manner. This is no longer the case. As an aside, I point out that the Bell Canada engineering school for all North America is in Belleville and is used by engineers from almost every country in the world.
I am concerned also about the cost of the operation of the commission. I am aware of questions on this subject on the order paper. I look forward to these answers with anticipation. I predict that the cost of administration will be 60, 70 and 80 per cent over the projected budgets for 1969-72. The cost of HMCS Bonaventure will look like the price of a toy canoe compared to the overexpenditure in the administration of this department. I suggest also that the changes proposed in the act by the minister are far too little and far too late. I suggest finally that the changes requested in the rate structure will not, in fact, balance the cost of the program. They give a false picture to the public and more funds from the general purse will be required.
Is it any wonder that morale among the staff at the UIC offices not only in Belleville but across Canada is at an all time low. Many senior executives from managers on up, are absent due to illness or other excuses or are on long term leaves at full salary. Others have been shuffled about, leaving no cohesive managerial sequence. Surely, there is a crying need for a complete investigation of this commission. I demand of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) that he hold a complete investigation publicly before the standing committee and clear the air on this matter. I have outlined only some of the problems; others would soon become evident. I have named senior members of the commission. This government, however, must accept the final blame. The previous minister gave us a great dissertation on the act just last week. To this I say, balderdash. It deserves no further mention.
These, for the moment are my chief concerns. There are many other areas which I feel deserve similar attention and I intend to devote myself to them. I have been told by older hands that I will burn myself out fighting the system. I have no desire to fight anything. I am determined to obtain for the residents of Hastings riding an efficient, reasonable and commonsense response from the people employed to serve them in the federal government. This is not a new approach perhaps, but one not likely to be achieved under the present administration. Perhaps we may even change that also.


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, it was with a great deal of pride that I took my seat for the first time in the twenty-ninth parliament as a member of the House, and I am grateful for this opportunity to speak today. As the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. 
Diefenbaker) suggested, I am wet behind the ears. I find that there are many strange customs that one must become accustomed to in the House. Some of them, I think, are excellent and I like them very much. For instance, I like the idea that the House as a whole addresses Mr. Speaker and speaks to him collectively. Yet, I find it rather strange that all the members should congratulate the Speaker on his election. I feel that we should congratulate the members for their widsom in selecting such a fine person as Mr. Speaker, a person who has such knowledge, such objectivity, fairness and, above all, a sense of humour. I am also very much impressed by the role of the Deputy Speaker and was impressed by the manner in which he was selected.
May I also congratulate the mover and seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. I was impressed by what they said and also impressed by the fact that the mover was a French-Canadian from Ontario and the seconder an English Canadian from Quebec. If we are not one nation, we are nothing.
I am also very pleased to note that each one of us is given an opportunity during this debate to speak about our own section of Canada. I was pleased that the debate was not cut off, as proposed in an amendment. It is very important that we, especially the new members, get to know the problems of people in other parts of Canada. This is a massive country. Unless we hear all members speak, it is very difficult for us to understand the problems of the rest of the country.
I have observed that there are some massive divisions within this country. One member spoke of five different areas. These divisions give me some concern. I wish to talk about a sixth division in this country. There are two dividing lines which, in a sense, divide but which also unify. There is a patch of green that stretches from the Queen Charlottes through Prince Rupert, Prince George, Peace River, The Pas, Thunder Bay, Sudbury, Timmins, Rouyn, Noranda, Baie Comeau, Chicoutimi, Rimouski, Bathurst, N.B., Twin Falls to Cornerbrook. Some call it mid-Canada. Others call it the boreal forest of the north. It does not matter how you delineate it.
This is the stretch which is the heartland of Canada, the very center of this country, an area that can bring unity to this country. There are many variations within this part of Canada, but there are many things that are the same. We are the center of the greenbelt. The forest north, the forest product industry, the pulp and paper industry and the lumber industry are centred in this area. People working in these industries have many of the same problems. The hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) talked about the closing of the CIP plant. Living in this particular area of Canada, this also affects me.
We are at the center of the mineral wealth of Canada. When we talk about energy problems, we talk about the problems of the heartland or middle part of Canada. We have most of the ground water. When people in this area are concerned about water diversion, they are concerned because they know about the ground waters in the center of Canada. This is an area of great natural beauty with a great potential for tourist growth. We are a people who
January 16, 1973

are free. We are used to distance, travel and movement. There are a great variety of peoples in this area. Most of the native people in this country live in this area. I have been very close to the native people in this country through marriage and many years of experience. I know the kind of problems they face.
There are many problems in mid-Canada. This is not the growing south and not the exciting far north, but the heartland of Canada. I must list some of our problems. Perhaps the most important is absentee ownership, the fact that things are always being done to us, not by us. We are the centre for expertise. Groups of experts are always telling us how to do things.
I wish to congratulate Mr. Richard Romer on his notion about the mid-Canada corridor. However, although there was much good in it, we did not participate in the planning. A partial explanation of this situation lies in the fact that we are absentee-owned and managed. Although I cannot put my finger on the figures, a survey that was conducted indicated that 50 per cent of the large industry in this area is branch plant industry and the average manager of one of these plants is in a community for four or five years. That kind of absentee ownership and management affects us very much.
We suffer from poor communications. There is a great need for organizations such as the CBC to provide better communications. In spite of the fact that we need a network in the north, we do not have a single CBC station in that whole area, and certainly not a network. I have referred to an east-west line. There is an opportunity to do something worthwhile to unite Canada, namely a communications network across the mid-Canada corridor. I again thank Mr. Romer for this suggestion.
We are dependent on a rail system which is totally inadequate. The two major railroads in this country do not want to run railroads. I have very strong feelings about the poor transportation in the north country. From time to time, I intend to speak about the lack of desire of our railroads to run a railroad system in this country.
At this point, we are sadly under-represented. This is one problem that faces all members in this area. Of the 21 constituencies where nomination dates are early, 19 are in this area about which I am speaking. This is the area hardest hit by the new redistribution. There are three such constituencies in northern Ontario and two in northern Quebec. Four of these have an increase in area of between 40 and 50 per cent as a result of redistribution. In three of the constituencies in northern Ontario, Kenora, Nipigon and Cochrane, there are distances further apart than Ottawa from Windsor or Ottawa from Yarmouth, Nova Scotia.
I should like to put into the record some observations by Douglas Fisher taken from Times-News of January 3:
Ontario is to have four ridings near or more than 150,000 square miles in size, i.e., each is to be substantially larger than Great Britain, or five times as large as Nova Scotia. Each of these four ridings is populated by at least 64,000 people in scattered nodes across its space.
The Address-Mr. McRae
I would say that most contain populations of around
75,000.	Mr. Fisher goes on to speak of the role of a Member of Parliament:
It becomes more obvious each year that MP's who hold such monsters are not even bystanders to the basic parliamentary work of legislation and scrutiny. Just serving their ridings takes all their efforts. This year's increases in area, and those due after 1981, will make the monsters impossible.
We've got to make changes in redistribution before 1984.
I maintain we must make changes in redistribution before 1974 or else in these areas about which I am talking we shall have virtually no representation at all. I welcome the suggestion by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) that a constitutional amendment should be introduced so as to give due representation to people in these and similar parts of the country.
I have spoken for a few moments about this strip of green, what we call the heartland of Canada. I will conclude by mentioning the heart of this heartland, the city of Thunder Bay and the constituency of Fort William. I do this because it is a custom, a custom I like, to speak about one own's constituency. I do so, as well, because here I am speaking about a sector of mid-Canada. We are neither easterners nor westerners. We look both ways. Our government is to the east; we look to Toronto for provincial government. Most of our business, on the other hand, comes out of Winnipeg in the west. If I had to choose, I would say we were more western than eastern. We receive our CBC programs from the east, and one hour later we receive our CTV program from the west. So we are one of the few parts of the country which can get CBC news and CTV news at different hours.
The newly formed city of Thunder Bay is a major communications and transportation centre. I understand that in the last shipping year we handled the largest tonnage of any harbour in Canada on a monthly basis while the harbour was open. We are very much concerned with commerce, with everything which moves between east and west.
My constituency of Fort William has been ably served the last 37 years by two very fine members. Some of those present may remember the Reverend Dan Mclvor, a very warm-hearted person who graced this House for many years-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Edmund McRae: -as well as my immediate predecessor, Mr. Badanai who was a member of this House for the last 13 or 14 years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Edmund McRae: I can assure Your Honour that Mr. Badanai, still does a quarter of mile around the track and swims every day-he could take us all on. He extends his greetings to all his friends in the House.
In conclusion, coming as I do from the centre of the heartland of Canada, I should like to pledge myself to doing all I can to bring about unity in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
358

January 16, 1973
The Address-Mr. Atkey


Mr. Ron Atkey (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, one of the
things with which I have been duly impressed in my time here in the House is the skill and diplomacy with which you and your Deputy, the member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) have performed the difficult task of acting as Speaker. The very effectiveness of this House as the major institution of government in this country is dependent on you to a large extent, and may I say to you, Sir, that Canadians are well served by the present incumbents of the Speaker's Chair. May I congratulate you both on your election to this office. Also, may I express my admiration for all the new members who have spoken in this debate. I refer not only to the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the throne speech, but to the new members of all parties who have set such a high standard of advocacy and eloquence in their maiden speeches in this House. And, of course, I state here unequivocally my support for the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), a most thoughtful and considerate human being as well as a great leader. I am proud to be a member of his team.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ronald George Atkey: The riding of St. Paul's which I have the honour to represent lies in the heart of the great city of Toronto. It embraces famous Toronto landmarks known to many Canadians: Casa Loma, the village of Yorkville, Upper Canada College, St. Michael's College School, Forest Hill Collegiate and many churches and synagogues known throughout the world. Many of my constituents are leaders of government, business, the professions, the arts, labour and industry. Included among their numbers are two provincial cabinet ministers and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) sitting opposite. This is the riding which produced one of Your Honour's predecessors, Mr. Roland Michener, who served with distinction as Speaker of this House from 1957 to 1962, a great Canadian who now occupies the high office of Governor General of Canada.
St. Paul's is an urban riding in the centre of one of the fastest growing metropolitan areas in North America. Perhaps the growth has been too fast for the liking of the people of the city of Toronto living at the centre of the metropolitan area. This was certainly the message of the people at the recent municipal elections in Toronto. Their demand, and my demand, is to preserve our city and our neighbourhoods as decent places in which to live. I note that the government in the throne speech now appears to acknowledge, perhaps reluctantly, a major federal role in the preservation of cities. Yet one has to question the urban intentions and priorities of a government which is willing to commit over a half billion dollars to an unwanted and unnecessary airport at Pickering that is a political mistake, and thereby deprive the people of the Toronto-centred region of federal assistance for public transit and housing for which there is an urgent need.
Particularly in the field of housing, imaginative proposals are needed to assist in the rehabilitation of existing housing stock and neighbourhoods as an alternative to high-rise living. St. Paul's riding, particularly in the area known as the Annex, contains some of the finest old housing stock existing on this continent. Many houses form an important part of Canada's architectural history. Yet the residential rehabilitation assistance program

announced by the Secretary of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) last June fell far short of the mark both in terms of flexibility of loan and grant ceilings and in terms of the type of dwelling which would be eligible for rehabilitation assistance. The need is not only for singlefamily accommodation, but for multiple family use, hostels and homes for senior citizens and the handicapped. Also, the program of assistance for neighbourhood recreational and social facilities must be stepped up. One would hope that the rehabilitation assistance program referred to in the throne speech will be a substantial improvement on this earlier effort.
Another unique feature of the St. Paul's riding is that almost one in five of the voting residents there are old age pensioners. Where is the government's program to improve the lot of these people, many of whom built and served this country well, yet who find their poverty pensions whittled away by rampant inflation? When the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) gave the government an opportunity to bring in old age security legislation as a priority item last week, who was it who stood in opposition to this humane gesture to the senior citizens of Canada? The arrogant Liberals, hand in hand with the NDP!
I do not intend to get involved in the numbers game of suggesting what the basic pension and guaranteed income supplement should be. All of us in this House know that the increases should be substantial in both cases. The reputation of the new Minister of Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) among senior citizens will stand or fall on the size and nature of the increases. But what I would suggest is that some consideration be given to special increases in the supplement for senior citizens living in larger cities to reflect higher costs of shelter. Rents in the city are appreciably higher than the rural areas for all types of accommodation, and those city dwellers eligible for the supplement should receive consideration along these lines.
Now, let me turn to a matter of my special concern. It is interesting to note from the throne speech that the government has not forgotten about its famous competition bill. Indeed, it looks as though we may see the new and improved version of this fancy product some time later this session. I hope that in describing the bill which will be coming as "new and improved" I will not be violating the provisions against misleading advertising.
I know that the mention of this bill will bring back many memories to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) who had the honour or dishonour of originally introducing it. Fortunately for him, he seems to have fared better than his former colleague who introduced tax legislation at about the same time and for whom the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was able to find only a civil service job when it came time to bail out excess baggage prior to the last election.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ronald George Atkey: The throne speech indicates that the new competition policy will be in harmony with industrial policies in general and foreign investment policy in par-
January 16, 1973

ticular. If this means that this government's industrial policies and foreign investment policy must be determined first before the bill is reintroduced, then we are unlikely to see the new competition act before the year 2000 at the present rate at which this government engages in economic policy development.
Nevertheless, I am glad that the government now realizes apparently that competition policy alone cannot be relied on to fashion an efficient, dynamic economic structure in this country. Competition must be carefully related to and placed in the context of other industrial development policies and objectives. It was not wise for this government to have gone full steam ahead with a comprehensive competition bill without stopping to consider the economic options which that bill might have foreclosed when considering the broader questions involved in the development of a viable industrial strategy for Canada. This government had not committed itself to specific policies relating to industry structure, patterns of rationalization, export prospects, import competition and foreign ownership. Until it had done so, it was a mistake to try to lay down a specific competition policy.
Let me say a word or two about the 1971 version of the competition bill and the approach taken by its draftsmen. Now I have no doubt that the authors of this bill were able, legal scholars. They probably had read most of the literature in the field and the intricate, legislative model which they put forward was in many ways a scholar's delight. But it was also a businessman's nightmare, and one which no practical man would have ever expected could politically survive the transition from logical construct to operating program. No little wonder that the business community rose up in unison against this bill. Most Canadian businessmen would understand what they were told to do if they were instructed "to compete, but not in ways that destroy competition".
Under Bill C-256 however, the Canadian businessman would have had to live with a different commandment, going something like this: "Ply thy trade in purity; open up potentials for entry among thy suppliers, thy competitors, and thy customers; and if thy competitive decisions lead thee into murky areas of commerce, seek the blessing of the Tribunal." Such a commandment could only lead to business hesitancy and unnecessary restraints on competitive innovation. This is not to say that there were not certain aspects of the proposed competition act that were good. For example, the shift away from the criminal law approach towards a more suitable civil jurisdiction was long overdue for such matters as price discrimination and non-permitted mergers. Also, the act included for the first time service industries in its coverage of anit-competitive behaviour.
Third, the act refined and consolidated the prohibition of objectionable practices at the consumer level, providing much needed clarification in this area. And fourth, the act would have created a competitive practices tribunal capable of undertaking a sophisticated economic and managerial analysis in the evaluation of mergers, specialization agreements, export agreements, exclusive dealing and tying arrangements, etc.
These were some of the desirable features of the proposed competition act. However, they were obscured in
The Address-Mr. Atkey
large part by certain provisions of the bill which tended to completely over-reach its stated goals of nurturing efficiency through competition where possible and through agreement where necessary. For example, the act as originally introduced included a large number of per se offences which were to apply notwithstanding that the impugned combinations or agreements had no significant impact on competition. These provisions were unnecessarily harsh and it is to be hoped that the new version of the bill will subject most of these offences to the more gentle "material lessening of competition" test before the offence is proved.
Second, one would hope that there might be some amendment to Section 73(7) which would have presumed directors liable for offences of which the corporation had been convicted. This invidious section should be amended to provide directors with at least a minimum due process protection consistent with the Canadian Bill of Rights.
Third, some of the powers of the proposed competitive practices tribunal should be amended to provide further procedural safeguards, particularly relating to the notice provisions. Also, consideration might be given to requiring that at least one member of a three man panel of the tribunal should be a lawyer with the status of a high court judge, as is the practice followed in constituting the restrictive practices court of the United Kingdom.
One of the overriding problems of the competition bill introduced in 1971 was the serious doubt raised as to its constitutional validity. It is difficult to argue that the federal level is not the logical preserve for competition laws generally. But much of our constitutional case law indicates that federal regulation of businesses operating solely within a province may be an impingement of the provincial property and civil rights jurisdiction. Not only will this create uncertainty in the setting up of the competitive practices tribunal but it will create additional uncertainties in the business community already reeling from the magnitude of the substantive changes proposed. To remove these uncertainties one would hope that the federal government might work together with the provinces in having the question of constitutional validity of the new bill tested by way of reference to the Supreme Court of Canada at the earliest opportunity, preferably before the bill becomes law.
All these remarks are by way of general comment on what has essentially been a preliminary skirmish. The time for the hard analysis will come when we see the specifics of the new bill, if it ever comes.
Mr. Speaker, as a final matter, I would refer to the Prime Minister's suggestion a week ago in this House on Monday, January 8, that if the government is defeated on a clear vote of no confidence he will immediately go to the people. The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) has already referred to this during the debate this afternoon. While the Prime Minister may have recanted somewhat from these views in a subsequent conversation with some newspaper or television interviewer, I think it is extremely important that the correct constitutional position be stated in this House.
25714-24J

January 16, 1973
The Address-Mr. Atkey
To put my position simply, I would challenge on constitutional grounds the inference of the right hon. gentleman that another election is the only course open to him under the present circumstances in this House. His was the statement last week of a desperate man attempting to cling to power at all costs. It ignores the established constitutional practice honoured in virtually every parliamentary democracy of the Commonwealth that in minority government situations such as these, His Excellency the Governor General is perfectly entitled to caution against a request for dissolution and to suggest that the Leader of the Official Opposition be called on to form a government. Moreover, it has been the tradition for a Prime Minister whose government is defeated in the House in these situations to advise His Excellency to call on an alternative government rather than to inflict another election on the people.
Hon. members opposite may think that there is some comfort to be taken from the unfortunate precedent of the King-Byng affair in 1926. But there is not a constitutional historian worth his salt who has ever suggested that Lord Byng was not constitutionally right in refusing Mackenzie King dissolution and calling on Arthur Meighen to form a government. At the very least, the most charitable comment that has ever been passed by constitutional historians in retrospect is that Mackenzie King gave His Excellency bad advice in requesting dissolution and that Lord Byng would have been perfectly entitled to point out to King the harmful effects of another election and the fact that an alternative government could be formed, before eventually succumbing to the unreasonable request.
Even so eminent a constitutionalist as Dr. Eugene Forsey, a recent convert to the swelled ranks of the retired Liberals in the Senate and, by the Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) own admission last Monday, one of his speech writers and advisers, concluded in 1943 in his now famous book "Dissolution of Parliament" that Lord Byng acted correctly. Indeed, Dr. Forsey in his book put forward this proposition, that a government which survives an election and which meets the new House following that election and survives the vote on the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, and then is defeated at some later period of time of the first session, is not entitled to dissolution when an alternative government is possible. I agree with Dr. Forsey, the Prime Minister's adviser. I agree with this proposition and would have thought that it was now a practice firmly established by parliamentary tradition in this country and throughout the Commonwealth. Certainly, that is the impression left by reading Senator Forsey's book. Therefore, it seems to me that the right hon. Prime Minister's suggestion that he will immediately go to the people following a defeat in the House this session is a questionable constitutional doctrine at best.
If the Prime Minister carries out his threat to ignore established constitutional practice, then he may well find that the Canadian people will, to coin a phrase, become disillusioned with his dissolution, and will wreak their revenge on him in the ensuing election. But the Canadian people do not want another election. They want constructive policies dealing with present economic conditions

which have given us record high unemployment combined with drastic increases in prices. They do not want delays in the House of the sort that this government seems ready to sanction, despite its statement of good intentions of January 4. Neither do they want this House to be diverted into other issues which will take the heat off this government's lack of creative ability and imagination to put forward specific policies to deal with economic matters. The Canadian people want this House to produce, and if the present government will not present the legislation to give it a chance to do so, then surely an alternative government should be given that chance.
The last thing the Canadian people want right now is to go to the polls, particularly when it may be brought about by this government setting up diversionary issues which may ultimately prove to be like the Maginot Line, failing completely to stem the onslaught of real problems facing Canada. If they will not act, Mr. Speaker, we stand ready.


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, on several occasions during this throne speech debate hon. members on this side and from across the floor have suggested, in fact some have urged, that members of the government elaborate and explain in greater detail some of the statements in the Speech from the Throne, particularly those that are in their immediate area of interest or in their area of responsibility. So, in addition to wanting to congratulate you, Sir, as well as Mr. Speaker, Mr. Deputy Speaker and the mover and seconder of the motion, in addition to wanting to join and associate myself with all the very sincere tributes that have been directed to each of you, I want to participate in the debate at this point in order to speak about two statements in the Speech from the Throne that have not been discussed, I believe, to the extent that they merit or deserve.
The first is the reference in the speech to the wider area of service open to the Canadian armed forces, and the second and really vital statement to which I want to address myself is perhaps one of the most far-reaching and significant statements in the whole Speech from the Throne, namely the one regarding the proposed conference on western economic opportunities.
First of all, turning to defence, I should like to remind the House of the exact words in the Speech from the Throne. They were:
The government intends to widen the area of service to Canada open to personnel in the Canadian armed forces. In addition to maintaining a high degree of military capability as the primary and most essential role of the forces, new emphasis will be placed on the many areas in which the varied skills and training of this large number of dedicated Canadians can contribute to the achievement of national goals.
Those are the words from the Speech from the Throne, and in speaking on this subject I wish to emphasize first of all our commitment to maintaining a high degree of military capability. The first duty of our armed forces is to protect Canada, and nothing we do in other areas should diminish that capability. But having said that, I believe that there are skills and training possessed by personnel in the armed forces that can serve other national goals. I also believe that within the armed forces there is a desire to serve, not just to serve in a military role, not just to protect this country, but to help to improve this
January 16, 1973

country. Some of the subjects that I have in mind are as follows.
I might say in these first few weeks as Minister of National Defence that I have not tried to establish programs. I simply want to put forward a concept. Take the case of engineering.
We have engineering skill in the Armed Forces. I do not go so far as to say we should copy the American Corps of Engineers who have built some of the great projects in that country, but certainly our engineering skill can be used to meet other goals than our military capability. I am thinking of the development of the north, and even more particularly of the great project along the Mackenzie valley.
I am thinking of communications where we are in the process of putting in new and sophisticated equipment, all of which is going to cost us in excess of $50 million. Looking at the department for the first time I ask myself, should we be doing this just for our own use, just for our own departmental communication, or is there some way in which this expenditure of taxpayers' dollars could be used to serve other departments or other national purposes?
Then, look at the matter of physical fitness. You will note that in the throne speech debate my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), has talked about physical fitness. Even if it is not now, this should be a national objective, and again I do not know of any group other than the Armed Forces who possess a higher degree of physical fitness. There must be something there in their coaching skills, and in their facilities, which could be given a wider application.
I think, too, of the ecology, of the national objective of clean air and clean water. Again, I know that the Armed Forces have an expertise in this area. Not only did they help in the clean-up on the Peace River, and in Chedabuc-to Bay following the Arrow tragedy, but daily they are on patrol spotting areas of pollution around our shores. This is another area which I think could be given greater emphasis.
Then, too, there is the whole area of search and rescue, which has recently been widely publicized. Here again there are taxpayers' dollars being spent for very worthwhile non-military purposes. Apart from search and rescue we fly over 200 mercy flights a year, some four mercy flights a week, as a contribution of the Armed Forces. I could elaborate further, Mr. Speaker, but time is limited and I want to talk on the other main subject.
Let me sum up by saying that I believe that in addition to their primary objective, which is to defend the sovereignty and independence of this country, in other words to protect Canada, the Armed Forces should also be helping to improve Canada. If I were allowed, Mr. Speaker, I might make a brief personal reference, as an example, of the kind of thing I am talking about as a secondary mission.
When I was flying with 10BR squadron in Labrador in 1944 our main military purpose was to look for submarines. The year before we were there the supply ship
The Address-Mr. Richardson
coming into Goose Bay, which was carrying a year's supply of beer, struck an iceberg and sank, and we ran out of beer about the middle of February. So, our crew were given the responsibility, as we were looking for submarines, to mark the icebergs in order that the next year's supply ship would be able to get through. It did get through, and that is an example of how secondary objectives can be attained by the Armed Forces.
Now, moving on to the other main and important subject, the proposed conference on western economic opportunities, I have already said that I believe this could be one of the most far-reaching proposals in the Speech from the Throne.


Mr. Paproski:: Would the minister allow a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is the hon. member rising for the purpose of asking a question?


Steve Eugene Paproski: Yes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: This could only be done with the consent of the minister because it is taken off his time.


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I prefer to cover my subject first, and then I would be pleased to entertain questions, particularly from the hon. member whose questions I always enjoy.
As I was saying, this conference is probably one of the most important proposals put forward in the Speech from the Throne. Before we can talk about it I think we have to start by asking what does western Canada want. In a television interview the other day the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) made the comment that for years Canadians had asked what does Quebec want, and he said that now we must start thinking what does the west want.
This conference is confined to economic opportunity. So, I think we have to go one stage further back and define what kinds of economic opportunities there are before we can say what the west wants. Although this is somewhat of an oversimplification, as it necessarily has to be, there are three main areas of economic opportunity, three phases of economic development, one of which is lacking in the west.
The first main stage of economic development is of course the primary resource stage, starting really from a hunting economy, agriculture, resource development, fishing and forestry, and covering all of the primary resources. The west has this phase of economic development in abundance.
The second stage, and the vital one, is called either secondary industry or the industrial stage. The woj-d industrial in this context is not perfect because it implies a smokestack type of society, but I use industrial society to include scientific development and technological development, in effect really an advanced society.
The third clear area of economic opportunity embraces the service industries, all the hotels, restaurants, taxi cabs, beauty parlours, laundries, and maintenance of all kinds. The service industries grow on top of primary industry in the same way as they grow on top of an industrial society. That is why, when you look at them superficially, you

January 16, 1973
The Address-Mr. Richardson
cannot tell a western city from one in the industrial area of the country. But if you go behind the office windows, go into the factories and look at the job opportunities, you will find there is a tremendous difference between an area that has just a primary resource base and service industries on top, and is missing that all-important secondary industry, and an area which has secondary industry, has an industrialized, technological, scientific section as part of its existence. This is what the west wants.
The west wants to build industrial strength on top of its agricultural, resource and energy base, and here is exactly where the Speech from the Throne shone a light right on the area that is wanted. These are the words in the Speech from the Throne:
The government recognizes that western Canadians wish to build industrial strength on top of their region's great resource and energy base.
If that is what the west wants, Mr. Speaker, then what we have to determine is what can the federal government do to help achieve that objective. In a single word, it is decentralization. The Speech from the Throne is quite specific on this point when it says:
As the economy continues to grow, a greater measure of decentralization of industrial activity will be necessary to achieve this desired regional objective.
Mr. Speaker, in the time I have left I should like to speak about decentralization and the results the government has achieved in that area. This government has shown leadership and has shown understanding of the need for decentralization which is not a new concept to this government. As well, I should like to point out some areas where we have not done as well as we should and I should also like to point to some things that I believe we should do.
We have had some successes in this area. As Minister of Supply and Services, I pointed out to this House that 85 per cent of all purchases made by the federal government were made in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, leaving only 15 per cent for the other eight provinces combined. The government changed its purchasing policy in order to give increased federal buying to the Atlantic provinces and to the western provinces. It is natural for the lion's share still to go to Ontario and Quebec but this change is an example of decentralization.


Steve Eugene Paproski: That has been changed again.


James Armstrong Richardson: No, Mr. Speaker, it has not been changed and it cannot be changed as long as this government is in power.


Steve Eugene Paproski: You have no power to direct that department now.


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, in response to the comment from across the floor, it is not the minister who makes the decision, but the government and this government is committed to decentralization as is indicated in the Speech from the Throne.
Let me give some further examples, Mr. Speaker. It was apparent to some of us that the Crown corporations were

clustered around the capital in a very small regional area, and when we realized that we needed more minting capacity, it was decided that the coins of this nation should be minted in western Canada. That is an example of decentralization.
There is another example in the west that I know will please my hon. friend. This government decided that the head office of the Canadian Development Corporation should be located in Vancouver. This is probably the largest Crown corporation in Canada, so we have some record in this area-


An hon. Member:: You sure have some record!


James Armstrong Richardson: Although we have done well, Mr. Speaker, and clearly understand this national requirement, I want to say that we have not done nearly well enough.
A perfect example of decentralization outside our own experience is the American space program. To my knowledge this is the biggest program that has ever been put together by any government and it is highly decentralized. The rocket is fired from Florida, the headquarters are in Houston, Texas, the parts are made in California and Seattle and the gross national product of at least 25 states is greatly strengthened by the total program. We do not seem to be able to exert the same regional influences, regardless of which government is in power. The United States has a system which allows them to decentralize and I think we should examine this.
Mr. Speaker, I am really talking about two subjects- industrialization of western Canada and about that objective being helped by decentralization. I could point to some things that may surprise my colleagues. We did a lot of talking during the election-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Armstrong Richardson: -and at other times, about hopper cars. We provided 2,000 hopper cars at a cost of about $46 million. I have heard it said that these were a great gift to western Canada but, Mr. Speaker, where was the industrial benefit? Where was the economic stimulus? Where was the payroll? I am pleased to say that in the interests of decentralization some of these hopper cars were built in Trenton, Nova Scotia, but still the lion's share was built in Sorel, Quebec and in Hamilton, Ontario. Mr. Speaker, not five cents was spent in western Canada for the building of hopper cars. It has been pointed out that in the old days of wooden cars at least some of the lumber was sometimes sent from the west. These cars are useful for the movement of grain and I would not suggest that they are not a valuable addition for that purpose. But, Mr. Speaker, that is extending our primary resource economy, it is not doing anything to achieve our industrial development nor to provide the kind of jobs that young western Canadians seek when they leave university.
Mr. Speaker, the provision of creative jobs is the main single reason that I believe we must build industrial strength in the west. Although a lot of our young people coming out of the universities think of farming as one of the finest occupations in the world-and it is-or may think that mining is, we simply cannot have all our stu-
January 16, 1973

dents going to university in order to become wheat farmers or hard rock miners. If they are to have the kinds of jobs that they are looking for as designers, engineers or computer operators, and are to have them in the west, then we have to industrialize.
Mr. Speaker, I have pointed out where we have done well and have tried to point out where we have not done well. Now, let me point out a few places where I think we should decentralize. According to the figures that I have, 91 per cent of our industrial research grants are given in Ontario and Quebec. Other research and development expenditures on behalf of the federal government, are 90 per cent in Ontario and Quebec. That leaves something under 10 per cent for the other eight provinces. I do not say that it is easy to move these research grants, but I think it is essential that we try to achieve an appropriate balance.


Donald Craig Stewart: Is the minister one of the western separatists the Prime Minister talks about?


James Armstrong Richardson: I am one of the people who can, hopefully, prevent the west from separating, because I want to get an equal deal for us.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Just a minute, please. We had no intention of separating in the first place. We do not want to separate. We have a pretty good deal going right now. Perhaps you people, in Winnipeg, want to separate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Order.


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I will move on to other subjects that I feel strongly about. I want to speak about wider national participation in the area of my own department. I refer to defence procurement. We will be involved in the purchase of a long range surveillance aircraft, and the figure publicly used now in connection with that purchase is $600 million. This is to be a major national purchase and, understandably, what we are saying to the manufacturers of these aircraft is this: "If we are going to buy your aircraft, whether they are made in Europe or the United States, we want a maximum amount of Canadian content. We want a maximum of Canadian industrial benefit." That is really all that Canada has ever said so far. But, we are now saying to those manufacturers: "We want Canadian content industrially; but not only that we also want to know where the industrial benefit is to take place in Canada." My main message is that national purchases of this kind, national projects, national endeavours, must bring nationwide industrial benefit. That is where we have failed so far. I see an opportunity, in the wording used in the Speech from the Throne, to achieve that objective.
Another area in which we should bring about such nationwide benefit is in the area of the short landing and take-off aircraft. Here is a national project. This is not being undertaken by private industry; it is being subsidized. The federal government is putting millions of dollars into that program. We are building the airframes in Toronto and the engines in Montreal. I do not object
The Address-Mr. Richardson
because, as I say, it is a national project, but national projects must bring nationwide benefits, otherwise we are not a nation in the sense that I should like to see it.


Mr. MacLean:: Hear, hear!


James Armstrong Richardson: My time is nearly finished. I have talked on these subjects frequently, Mr. Speaker, but I talk with more confidence now, after the election of October 30. These are the kinds of things I said during the election campaign and I had the good fortune to have my constituents give me a larger majority than they did in
1968.


Steve Eugene Paproski: That is because you are a great guy, Jim. There are not many like you left in western Canada.


James Armstrong Richardson: What I am now saying does not reflect only my own view; it reflects the view of many others. I now have the endorsement of a large number of western Canadians who are my constituents in Winnipeg South.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I am glad the minister mentioned constituents, instead of members in cabinet.


James Armstrong Richardson: The other items on this important conference agenda are transportation, regionally based financial institutions and northern development. Each one of those could form the subject of another speech. I will not begin speaking about them now. But I will conclude at this point by saying that I have been talking in a regional sense, because the statement in the Speech from the Throne concerned a regional conference. I would not be a member of this House, and I do not believe other members would be here, if we did not all wish to see a stronger and better Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Armstrong Richardson: I do not apologize to anyone for describing what I believe to be necessary to build a stronger west. I believe that it is strong parts that make a strong total. In the final analysis it is only strong regions that will enable us to build an even stronger country.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. 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 Norfolk-Haldimand (Mr. Knowles)-Public Works-Floods-Assistance to people with property on north shore of Lake Erie damaged by high water level; the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Kmght)-Transport-Inquiry as to action to prevent closing of railway stations in western Canada; the hon.
member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser)-Transport_
Airport-Vancouver International-Runway expansion__

January 16, 1973
The Address-Mr. Andre
Request that environmental impact study be provided to expropriation hearings.


SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. J. J. Blais for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to the speech at the opening of the session.
Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I need not say what a thrill and honour it is to be here and to address this assembly during this throne speech debate. A few days ago the senior member among us, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) warned that we freshmen members, on the occasion of our maiden speech, would be making the hardest speech of our lives. I confess, Sir, that at the time I do not think I truly appreciated the significance of his warning; but as I stand here before you in this impressive chamber, with its great tradition of oratory of the highest calibre, an example of which we witnessed in the speech of the right hon. member for Prince Albert recently, I am beginning to appreciate the significance of his words.
As a freshman member I am, of course, very mindful of the great traditions of the House of Commons. In fact, Sir, as with all the members of the party to which it is my honour to belong, I am mindful and respectful of all our Canadian traditions, and particularly now the tradition of the throne speech debate. One of the pleasant traditions is to congratulate you, Sir, on your elevation to the position of Speaker of this assembly. Those more senior than I have already commented on your record of fairness, humour and ability. I feel fortunate to be a member of this assembly with you, Sir, in the position that you occupy, particularly now, given the makeup of the House. May I also congratulate the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) on his elevation to the post of Deputy Speaker.
Another pleasant tradition, Mr. Speaker, is to compliment my fellow freshmen, the mover and seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, and this I do with pleasure. I cannot help but speculate that, but for a few dozen votes and 31 New Democrats, I might have performed that task and they mine.
It is also customary, Sir, to spend a few moments to talk about the constituency which a new member represents; of course it would give anybody great pleasure to talk about Calgary Centre. Before I talk of the people and places that make up this constituency, I should like to take a few moments to pay tribute to my predecessor; of course, I refer to Hon. Douglas S. Harkness. In a sense, Sir, I, as the new member for Calgary Centre, bear a double responsibility as compared to most new members, because anyone who sits in parliament for Calgary Centre will be judged against a standard of dedication to public service that has no equal. First in war, where he was decorated for bravery, then in parliament from 1945 to 1972, Doug Harkness has served Canada. I cannot aspire

to his distinction, nor could anyone equal this tradition; but I will try and honour it. Few people have served Canada as well and I know his presence in this assembly is already missed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: The constituency that Doug Harkness represented and that I now represent, Calgary Centre, as the name implies is the heart and core of that great city nestled at the foot of the Rocky Mountains. I will not try to describe my constituency because words alone, at least not the words of an engineer, could do it justice. Those who have not been there are the lesser for it and I would recommend most highly that they take the earliest opportunity to fill this void in their lives.
There is just one point I would like to raise in connection with my constituency, and that is in regard to the proposed federal government building for Calgary. I hope the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Dube) will give this matter his attention since the officials in his department are attempting to acquire a site which the people of Calgary would prefer as the site of a downtown park. The city of Calgary has been encouraging the federal government to locate its new building in the designated urban renewal area and here, Sir, we have an example of a lack of co-ordination by the federal government and its departments which is very difficult to understand and very disturbing. After spending millions of dollars on urban renewal and after encouraging virtually everybody else to expand or erect new buildings in that designated area, they now resist going there themselves. Of even more fundamental concern at least to me and to the people of Calgary, is the federal government's apparent lack of concern for the fact that the location they covet for the site of their building would destroy virtually the last possible site for a downtown park.
I hope that the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) who, from his public statements at least, is apparently interested in the quality of life in our cities, will use his influence on the Minister of Public Works and the department officials to get them to change their minds; to reconsider their posture. We are not asking for a multi-million dollar federally funded downtown park, although in view of the established precedent, maybe we should. We are simply asking the federal government to erect this building in the urban renewal area and leave at least one small patch of greenery for the people of Calgary Centre, half of whom live in apartments.
This issue, Sir, is obviously not a major or principal issue to my constituents. They, like all Canadians, and probably more than most, are vitally concerned about Canada's future, Canada's unity, its independence, the poverty amidst plenty, unemployment at disastrously high rates, inflation and its effects on the elderly and those on fixed incomes and about all of those major problems facing Canada with which this government has been totally unable to deal.
The people of Calgary Centre are not, using that expression of the member for Rosedale (Mr. Macdonald), rednecks, reactionaries afraid of change. They welcome
January 16, 1973

change, beneficial change. They welcome progress, real progress in coming to grips with the problems facing Canada. They did not see this progress coming from this government for the very obvious reason that there was none. There was activity, a great deal of it; there were great plans, many of those; there were successive throne speeches with promises that inflation and unemployment would be beaten. There were large, very large amounts of money spent. In fact, Sir, there was just about everything, except results, and in Alberta, as the election returns proved, we judge on the basis of results, not on promises, and certainly not on charisma.
This being my contribution to the throne speech debate, I should most properly consider not just the past record of this government, dismal as it was, but rather the program it intends to pursue and that program was presumably outlined in the throne speech. Certainly, within that context, there is much to talk about, not only for what the throne speech includes but, as well, for what it leaves out.
However, one statement in that throne speech in particular, Mr. Speaker, was welcomed, certainly welcomed by me and I am sure the majority of people in my constituency. I refer to the statement that began:
The government recognizes that Western Canadians wish to build industrial strength on top of their region's great resource and energy base.
The omission of the word "agriculture" may add further fuel to the argument presented by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) earlier today. It apparently took the shock of an election wipe-out to draw this government's attention to what westerners have been saying for years. Yes, we do have a great resource and energy base, and nowhere is that more apparent than in my constituency where are located the headquarters of the vast majority of Canada's petroleum companies, and, incidentally where should be located the headquarters of the National Energy Board.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: That is why I welcome part of the comments of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson). I am sure he will come to my defence when, at a later date, I present arguments to back that suggestion.
The progressive policies of successive Alberta governments have fostered a healthy and prosperous petroleum industry which, in turn, has helped make Alberta one of the "have" provinces. However, Mr. Speaker, history has shown that great reliance on one industry, no matter how prosperous that industry, can be very dangerous. We had an example of the sort of thing that could occur just before the throne speech where rumours of what the speech might contain caused great gyrations in the western oil section of the stock markets. This is a reflection of the lack of confidence that the business community associated with the petroleum industry has in this government. May I add that the unnecessary delay in tabling the new energy policy is not helping their confidence in any way.
The petroleum industry has been good to Alberta and Alberta has been good to the petroleum industry. That is not to suggest that things cannot be improved because they certainly can. I hope that, if and when we see the
The Address-Mr. Andre
energy policy, there will be an opportunity to discuss this point further. It must be pointed out that even a great industry like the oil and gas industry is limited in its capacity to absorb the growing work force of my area of Alberta. Anyone at all familiar with the situation in Alberta realizes that without the development of a substantial secondary industrial base, without the diversification of the economy, Alberta could in the not too distant future become a have-not province like too many others in Canada. No one can argue that awaiting that eventuality before acting will serve any useful purpose, to Alberta or to any other region of Canada. I want to make it abundantly clear that we are not asking for special treatment from Ottawa. We are not asking for handouts or for money to be diverted from other regions to ours. We are asking for fair and equal opportunity with other regions. We are simply asking to have those obstacles removed which now, unnecessarily and unfairly, prevent us from fulfilling our own potential. The cause of Canadian unity, the improvement of the material and social welfare of all Canadians is not well served by policies and, more important, by attitudes that are based on the concept of a central heartland and a subservient hinterland. For that reason, I welcome the commitment made in the throne speech to at least discuss the western viewpoint at a conference on western opportunities.
As an aside, Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), if he has not already done so, accept the invitation of Premier Lougheed to hold that conference in my constituency. The hospitality he and any other attending will receive will be of great aid in creating that friendly spirit which will be so necessary if the conference is to produce useful results. Welcomed as the planned conference is, I am sorry it is to be delayed until summer. By that time the honeymoon with the NDP may well be over and this opportunity to educate the future Leader of the Opposition will have been missed.
It is hoped, Mr. Speaker, that the reference in the throne speech to improvement in the transportation system is more than mere window dressing to entice some western voters back to the Liberal fold. I think the voters of western Canada are entitled to be somewhat sceptical, especially so long as Edgar Benson remains head of the Canadian Transportation Commission.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: Also, I listened in vain to the recent speech by the new Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) for some evidence of new insights or appreciation of the Canadian transportation system and what might be done to improve it. Not only were there none, but a listener would be hard pressed to identify the speaker as having anything at all to do with the Ministry of Transport. As this government seems determined to hold on to power at all costs, I hope that the minister will soon turn his attention to his department.
The problems of transportation and access to markets are obviously of fundamental importance to the development of western Canadian industry. However, the west shares with all other regions of Canada the other basic weaknesses that exist in the economy which are readily apparent in the high unemployment rates and the disas-

January 16, 1973
The Address-Mr. Andre
trously high inflation. There are many factors which are contributing to this weakness and my colleagues have been trying to bring these to the attention of the government. I want in my remarks to talk primarily about just one of these factors, that is about Canada's science policy or, more accurately, the lack thereof.
The throne speech mentions measures to improve the transfer of technology from abroad. But what about the development of Canadian technology? In this highly competitive technological age we just cannot rely totally on foreign technology. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) mentioned in his speech that he will be investigating the licensing of foreign technology, recognizing that this mechanism is the preferred way to import technology. The minister indicates that some licensing arrangements, by the conditions they impose, handicap the licensee. He implies that the government will be trying to gain improvements. But what he apparently has failed to grasp is the question of timing. By the time a new technology has been developed to the point that it is ready for licensing abroad, the markets for this technology have already been captured.
So even without restrictive licensing, Canadian industry relying on imported technology will be restricted to the domestic market, and then probably only if it is protected by tariffs. But of even more fundamental long term concern, at least to me, is the fact that every time industry relies upon imported technology, the Canadian pool of technological competence is depleted and our chance of developing viable Canadian industry is reduced.
We must take strong measures to increase Canada's technological competence and this, of course, means establishing a fully co-ordinated science policy which means something and which works. Almost every one of the many groups which have studied and made recommendations regarding Canada's science policy has commented that a national industrial strategy must form the cornerstone of such a science policy. Yet from the remarks of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce it would appear the government is still no closer to such a strategy and apparently does not even know what would constitute such a strategy. Therefore, regrettably, we can expect a continuation of the fragmentation of Canada's secondary industry.
This fragmentation is one of the basic weaknesses of our economy. The reasons are complex, to be sure, but some of the elements are these: the extent of foreign ownership, the anti-combines legislation, unco-ordinated regional economic expansion, unco-ordinated research and development incentive programs. All of these, according to the throne speech, will be reviewed or altered by this government, but apparently in a totally unco-ordinated manner. This exercise, I am afraid, is going to cost the Canadian taxpayer great amounts of money and do very little to improve the state of Canada's secondary industry, which the Chemical Institute of Canada recently called a national emergency.
It is imperative that the government give the highest priority to developing a national industrial strategy and, in conjunction with that, a national science policy. The

government should create a department of science and technology with responsibility to develop and implement this policy. This department should be responsible for all research and development incentive programs, for the patent office and all research agencies and departments of the federal government.
All government research and research incentive programs should be reviewed and related to the production of social and economic goods and services. The recently announced farm-out policy should be administered by this department and expanded to include most of the research now done in the House. I am certain that were she here the new Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mrs. Sauve) would agree that these suggestions are both reasonable and necessary. I can only hope the minister is able to convince her cabinet colleagues that these steps are necessary and that the science ministry should be more than just a training ground for more important posts.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude my remarks by stating that while the major part of my speech was based on economic matters, these matters are not my principal concern. The social problems facing Canada are frightening in scope and depressing to contemplate. But one thing is sure; their solution is almost impossible without a strong economy. Therefore, I would urge the government to act quickly on the many responsible suggestions coming from this side of the House, or else to trade places with us and let us get on with the job.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, it is traditional, of course, to offer you compliments on being elected as Speaker of this august House. I do not think I can add anything to what already has been said, except that I know of no man who would be better qualified or more deserving of this high honour and office. I am pleased, also, to offer congratulations to the Deputy Speaker, the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave), with whom I have had considerable association during the last four and a half years as a Member of Parliament through the parliamentary breakfast group in which he has been a very active participant and leader. I am proud to be associated with that hon. member and to congratulate him upon the honour this House has bestowed upon him. In addition, I should like to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. They did great credit to themselves and to the constituencies they represent.
In the Speech from the Throne a great deal of importance was attached to a policy area which is of immediate concern to me as parliamentary secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde). There was in the throne speech a great deal said about social security matters and forthcoming changes in the fitness and amateur sports program, as well as changes in health care arrangements. This is the area about which I would like to speak more specifically.
The Speech from the Throne contained a brief reference to the fact that federal-provincial meetings at the ministerial level are projected on a range of urgent mat-
January 16, 1973

ters and that these include health care programs. The Minister of National Health and Welfare, the hon. member for Outremont, subsequently informed the House that there has been under consideration, a proposal for change in the federal-provincial financing arrangements which will be discussed at a joint session of federal and provincial health and finance ministers which will be held January 19.
If these deliberations reach a satisfactory conclusion, we are confident that the provinces will have a much better framework within which to develop health care programs which are not only efficient and effective but also in accord with their respective priorities. These goals can and should be achieved within the broad framework of existing national health standards of the present hospital insurance and medical care programs, relating to comprehensiveness of insured services, universality, accessibility and portability.
In view of the obvious priority which has been given to this matter by the federal and provincial ministers most directly involved, I am certain hon. members would wish to be given a review of developments to date in order that they may understand the importance of these deliberations and be able to take an interest in the eventual outcome. Recently elected members of the House might not yet have had time to completely familiarize themselves with the issues involved, and for them in particular I hope my remarks will be helpful.
The hospital insurance and diagnostic services program implemented in 1958, and the medical care program which commenced in 1968 together account for the bulk of our health care expenditures. These two programs are currently costing the two senior levels of government about $3.5 billion annually. These costs are shared about equally between both levels of government, but the costsharing formulae provide a higher percentage of federal financial support to provinces with lower per capita costs, and somewhat less than 50 per cent in the case of provinces which have per capita costs which are higher than the national average.
It is worth while recalling that during the 1950s many hospitals were in serious financial trouble and that many sick persons were not able to obtain necessary treatment because of financial barriers of one sort or another. The hospital insurance and diagnostic services program was implemented in 1958, which subsequently made it possible for all Canadians to receive necessary hospital care of an acceptable standard, on a prepaid basis. Generally speaking, the system has been functioning fairly well, it has met the objectives set for it at that time and the vast majority of Canadians receive care that is adequate for their needs without incurring excessive financial burdens. However, such factors as the increased complexity of hospital care, with advancing technology, the increased availability of hospital beds and improved remuneration for hospital staff have all contributed to a relatively high escalation year by year in the cost of hospital care.
Since the program recognizes, for cost-sharing purposes, only specified hospital services, it does not encourage the development of adequate alternative forms of
The Address-Mr. Cafik
care at lower cost for those patients who could be treated just as satisfactorily but in a less expensive way than by occupying expensive, acute care hospital beds. With proper arrangements, there need be no compromise in the quality of care actually provided for such patients. Surveys have indicated that as many as 30 per cent of the patients occupying beds in general hospitals could be adequately cared for on some other basis if the services they require were available without financial penalty to the patients themselves. We have tended to be rather lavish with providing health care through hospitalization, particularly through the use of high-cost beds. For example, we have per capita more active treatment hospital beds than there are in the United States.
Our second major health insurance program, the medical care program which was introduced in 1968, was based largely on the findings and recommendations of the Royal Commission on Health Services, the Hall report which was submitted in 1964. This commission, which was appointed in 1961, undertook a most comprehensive and detailed assessment of Canadian health services. In its major report submitted in 1964 it reported that it had found that while nearly 60 per cent of Canadians had some insurance protection against the costs of medical care, approximately 30 per cent of it was totally inadequate. Medicare was established to solve this problem.
The open-ended nature of the federal-provincial financing of these programs is now a major point of concern. No limits are placed on the health services which an insured person may receive provided the criteria of medical necessity are met. This is a fair and just provision. However, neither program provides sufficient flexibility for the provinces to develop alternative and less costly forms of health care consistent with the needs and priorities as perceived by the provincial governments. The nature of the current sharing formulae is such that the provinces only obtain sharing for certain specified services, and thus there is an inadequate incentive to cut costs and provide less expensive services.
Controlling the escalation of the costs of our two major national health insurance programs has become one of the chief priorities of all levels of government. During the last three complete fiscal years the combined average annual rate of increase in the cost of the two programs has been about 13 per cent. This rate of increase significantly exceeds the growth rate of our gross national product. The rate of escalation must be reduced, for obvious reasons. We must take steps to ensure that we are receiving the best possible value for our health care dollars.
The federal and provincial ministers of health have been for some time deeply involved in studying ways and means of resolving these problems. For example, in November, 1968, we appointed a federal-provincial committee on costs of health services to recommend what steps should be taken to contain costs without having an adverse effect on the quality of care. The report of the committee and its seven subsidiary task forces was presented to the conference of health ministers in November,
1969.	Most of the areas where improvements could be effected naturally lie within the provincial sphere of responsibility in so far as implementation is concerned.

January 16, 1973
The Address-Mr. Cafik
The committee drew attention to the need for coordinated government planning for health facilities and services. Many of its other recommendations cannot be fully implemented without such co-ordinated action. However, provincial efforts to improve the delivery of health care, both in regard to effectiveness and efficiency, cannot be maximized unless sufficient flexibility and incentives are provided through the federal-provincial financing arrangements. The federal government believes that changes can be made to achieve this desired result.
We subsequently proposed that future federal financial contributions to the provinces in respect of health insurance might take the form of a per capita payment to replace the contributions presently payable under the hospital insurance and medical care acts. Flexibility, which many provincial ministers desired, could be achieved through each province being free to use the federal contribution in accordance with its own priorities, provided existing national standards for coverage were maintained. Federal payments, therefore, could be applied to the total range of provincial health services, existing and innovative, and in the way deemed most effective, without the province incurring financial penalties as a result of costsaving measures.
The federal minister emphasized that any new financial arrangements should not result in a lessening of federal-provincial co-operation in health matters, particularly with respect to improvements in the way in which health care services are arranged. The minister therefore gave his provincial colleagues an unqualified commitment that the federal government would continue and if necessary expand its role in promoting federal-provincial co-operation in the exchange of information, in the provision of consultative services and in the support of studies, surveys and research. The Department of National Health and Welfare has already increased its ability to respond to this commitment, particularly in its response to meeting the expressed desires and requests received from a number of provinces, in particular the smaller ones.
The minister felt that a fresh approach along the lines indicated would be the most effective way of containing costs without impairing the quality of care. The reactions of the provincial ministers of health at this meeting in December, 1970, to the general outline of the proposal was most encouraging. Following the meeting, the federal minister instructed that a detailed examination of the existing federal legislation be proceeded with at the official level and that an attempt be made to work out, in consultation with provincial officials, a suitable alternative cost-sharing arrangement for consideration by the ministers of health.
The outline of a possible approach was the subject of extensive bilateral discussions with the provinces at the official level during the months of April and May, 1971. While most provinces at this time expressed a positive attitude towards the principles and objectives of the approach, there was a common concern about the adequacy of some of the financial features, such as the escalation factor suggested and the base year upon which future costs would be calculated.
(Mr. Cafik.]
Significant modifications were subsequently made in the initial approach, including the provision of special thrust funds to help provinces finance the reorganization of their health care delivery systems according to their particular needs. These modifications were thoroughly discussed with the provinces at the official level. Further substantial modifications were subsequently made in the suggested formula to meet continuing and additional provincial concerns which were considered justifiable.
The concern with health care costs was also an item on the agenda of the conference of first ministers which was held in Ottawa from November 16 to November 18, 1971, and it was on the agenda of a meeting of finance ministers which was held at the end of January, 1972. Both the then minister of national health and welfare and the President of the Treasury Board, the hon. member for Westmount (Mr. Drury), reviewed for the first ministers the progress made to that date in the legislative review and the search for an acceptable alternative to the current cost-sharing arrangements.
The President of the Treasury Board urged that most serious consideration be given to the proposed arrangements. He pointed out that the proportion of our gross national product being spent on health care was large enough to make Canada one of the healthiest nations in the world, if the money was spent wisely. He also urged that the cost-sharing arrangements be amended to maximize the probability of this being achieved through rationalizing health care in Canada.
The federal minister placed before a conference of health ministers which was held in Ottawa on December 16 and 17, 1971, a detailed federal proposal which is still before the provinces. I would like to review briefly its basic payment features. First of all, the federal payment would be made on a per capita basis per insured resident of each province, with the payment being revised annually in accordance with changes in population and general changes in the economy. This payment could be applied to the whole range of health services and would not be limited, as at present, to specific health services. The nationally accepted standard of comprehensiveness, accessibility, universality on uniform terms and conditions, and portability of hospital and medical insurance services would have to be maintained.
The per capita payment would be escalated by the rate of growth of the gross national product excluding, of course, the population component of that index. However, in order to protect the per capita payment against year to year fluctuations, the escalation factor would be based upon the moving average of five consecutive yearly indices. Per capita payments would be standardized among the provinces over a period of five years through appropriate yearly adjustments.
A thrust fund would be available on a different basis, and I will later describe this provision in more detail. The initial agreement with respect to the per capita payments would be for a period of five years, and for the thrust fund this would be available over a period of six years. All the features of the federal proposal as a package are designed to lead to the development of a total health care
January 16, 1973

system. This must not be lost sight of when considering elements of the over-all federal proposal.
The levels of the basic per capita contributions would be determined in relation to the costs of existing insured services of the current hospital and medical care insurance programs. Provision has been included to accommodate a nationally insured optometric benefit. As already indicated, the basic per capita payments would be available for use by the provinces for the whole range of health services.
A special thrust fund, to which I alluded earlier, has been proposed at a level of $640 million and would be payable to the provinces over a six-year period to assist in the reorganization and improvement of the provincial health care delivery systems. These funds would be for mutually agreeable projects designed to promote improvements in the efficiency of these systems. I should emphasize that the thrust funds would not be required to be matched by the provinces. The thrust fund would be made available for the capital and operating costs of acceptable provincial programs designed to bring about the reorganization and development of the health care delivery system into an integrated mechanism. The thrust fund would also help to cushion the time lag between the implementation of reforms and the appearance of resulting economies.	-
The thrust funds would also be made available to help finance a service or a program which will clearly substitute for or avoid the expansion of existing and unnecessarily expensive methods of providing necessary care. They would not be made available to simply shore up the existing system by being merely used as a supplement to the federal per capita payments in meeting the operating costs of the present system. It is not intended for the provision of new services or for the building of new facilities, nor is it intended to meet the costs of additional insured benefits for services not now covered, except where these would substitute for costly services which are presently insured, nor to support research, innovative studies, surveys or the like. It must be recognized, however, that many of the acceptable programs will in fact be breaking new ground.
Examples of areas where potential improvements exist and for which thrust fund support may be approved include home care, programs that effectively take patients out of hospital, costs for community health centres and other facilities providing ambulatory care, and the development and increased use of allied health personnel to avoid the unnecessary use of high-cost professional services. It would be up to each province to determine the reforms which are the most promising according to its own particular situation, and which will likely find acceptance for thrust fund support. In a nutshell, the thrust fund is aimed at producing reform and rationalization in the way in which health care services are made available.
Criticisms and reservations have been expressed by the provinces throughout these many discussions and the federal government has tried to respond by making appropriate modifications in the proposal. A major recommendation of the provinces is that the federal government
The Address-Mr. Jelinek
commit itself to some degree of risk sharing in the event that unexpectedly high provincial costs are encountered.
The federal government is very serious about its intention to moderate the escalation of health care costs and to make it easier for the provinces to effect significant improvements in the way health care services are provided. It is sincerely hoped that all provinces share the federal views in this matter, and that agreement can be reached on new financing arrangements which will provide to the provinces the desired flexibility in the use of federal contributions and create the framework for the introduction of less costly but equally effective health care services.
Personally, I look forward to participating in the federal-provincial conference of finance and health ministers which will take place this coming Friday and I share with the minister the hope that the agreements which will be reached at that and subsequent conferences will prove to be of significant and lasting benefit to all Canadians.
Mr. Otto jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley): Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying what a great honour it is for me to be a member of this House and to sit with such a distinguished group of men and women from across Canada. I feel it speaks highly for our democratic system of government when a refugee from Czechoslovakia can have the opportunity to be elected to represent other Canadians in the governing of this great country.
My constituency of High Park-Humber Valley rests on the shores of Lake Ontario and is a part of west Toronto. It is a riding which is truly representative of the strength and vitality of our country. It is made up of Canadians who represent a wide variety of cultural heritages, sharing not only the beautiful and scenic open-spaced park from which the riding receives its name but also the winding Humber Valley through which the now too polluted Humber River flows.
On the west side of the river there is a part of the new burgeoning borough of Etobicoke, and on the east the old village of Swansea and a large section of York township which used to be known as west Toronto. It is a riding of diversity and complexities, an exciting and interesting place in which to live and for me to represent. That is why I regret that the federal electoral boundaries commission has seen fit to make major changes in the riding's boundaries.
The greatest strength of this constituency, and indeed of all Canada, lies in its people of various cultural heritages and backgounds. The quality of the lives of all Canadians has been enriched by the number of cultures that have joined to form our society, and it is important that we maintain this rich cultural heritage while adapting to changing conditions in Canada. I believe in Canadian unity and will play any part I can to ensure that this unity is maintained in every sense of the word.
I was appalled, as were most Canadians, at the recent comments of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) and of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) which attempted to create an issue by accusing our party of dividing the country. To make Canadian unity a partisan issue is very dangerous indeed and can only create problems, not solve

January 16, 1973
The Address-Mr. Jelinek
them. I am sure that every member of this House is here for the primary purpose of keeping Canada unified and it seems to me that the Prime Minister, with his recent remarks, might be better suited to govern a single province rather than the whole of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Jelinek:: At this time I would like to take the opportunity to add my congratulations to the Speaker on his re-election to the House. As a new member, I can only say how highly he is regarded by the many hon. members I have talked with. I look forward to his guidance which, along with all new members, I will certainly be needing in the weeks and months ahead. I would also like to congratulate the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave), who I know will do justice to his position as Deputy Speaker.
I would like to congratulate the Prime Minister, as well, on the second big romance of his life. Even though I am new to the House, I have been told that romance and politics do not mix. I am sure that his first romance will have a long and prosperous life, unlike the second which is doomed to failure.
As we all know, Mr. Speaker, some of the greatest problems facing us today are the continuing rise of inflation, unemployment and the general instability of our economy. I can think of no better example than my own business experiences during the Trudeau years to demonstrate the many flaws in the government's over-all economic policies. Unfortunately, my experience is not an isolated example but is a far too common happening in Canadian business today. I started a small manufacturing company some years ago. In the first three years we realized a substantial growth to over $1 million in sales, providing over 50 new jobs for Canadians. By the middle of 1971 business had become very active and we reached even higher sales which required us to expand our facilities. For this we needed further financing. Up to this point it sounds like a perfectly healthy business situation.
The crunch came when we approached chartered banks, and finally the Industrial Development Bank which theoretically was created to promote the economic welfare of Canada with particular consideration to the financing problems of small enterprises, in other words, to help small businesses across Canada and thus stimulate a healthier economy. It took us close to a year to obtain a relatively small loan from the IDB, which cost us in legal fees nearly 10 per cent of the loan. Our collateral to the IDB was almost four times the value of the loan. As a matter of fact, it took so much for collateral that if I had told them my grandmother had gold fillings in her teeth they probably would have wanted those as well. On top of all that, the interest rate was 111 per cent. I do not call that helpful to anyone.
Eventually, like many other Canadian manufacturing companies lacking growth capital in order to create jobs, curb inflation, and generally in a small way help the over-all Canadian economy, the American sharks were biting at our heels. To make the story short, we were finally offered to be bought out by an American firm that had already been offered the required capital for the takeover by the same Canadian bank that had turned us

down, to stay Canadian. In other words, it is the same old story of being bought out with our own money. Fortunately, they made me an offer that I could refuse.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Mr. jelinek: We have taken note of the fact that small business failures in Canada in 1972 were at record levels and the trend is continuing in 1973. The over-all level of business failures for some months was the worst since the depression, We have taken into consideration the fact that small business ownership suffers from lack of adequate capital, higher interest rates and excessively high taxation. We have taken note of the fact that the government of Canada appears to believe, as we do, that tax incentives granted to the larger corporations produce beneficial results.
As a means of promoting small business, our party has proposed, among other things, allowing Canadian citizens to deduct from their income tax half of any amount up to $5,000 invested in small Canadian companies. The Prime Minister's response to this proposal has been an interesting one. He has said that it would be inflationary. But of course, Mr. Speaker, you must remember that this is a statement from the same Prime Minister who told the nation last fall that he did not think the rise in food prices was a very serious matter because it was good for the farmers.
Also last fall, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) stated, with respect to our proposal to encourage personal initiative and community enterprise, "it would provide an opportunity for some individuals to reap a rich bonanza ... without meeting any demonstrated need of small businesses for funds." This is an insult to the individual and an affront to the business community. We have stated that there is a desperate need for incentives to the small business community in Canada to help it grow, while the Minister of Finance has said that small businessmen have not demonstrated the need. Well then, Mr. Speaker, who has demonstrated the need? Perhaps the government is demonstrating the need-the same government that estimated that the budget last year, for special services and outside consultants, was $531 million. These tax-supported consultants were superimposed on the public service of Canada. They have been described as arriving in Ottawa by the planeload every Tuesday and leaving by the planeload every Thursday. The government has advisers advising advisers and consultants consulting consultants. The government of Canada today has the most serious case of "the files" in its history. No one knows what they do; it is secret and confidential. We only know the cost.
With four years of investigating, analysing, consulting and advising, why was there not a policy for unemployment insurance that was not a recipe for bankruptcy, a policy for economic independence that would satisfy someone other than the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp), and why was there no policy for small businesses at all? In my opinion there is no logic in a policy that would allow the unemployment insurance deficit to soar to such unbelievable heights while ignoring the key areas in the economy that would greatly assist in the creation of jobs.
January 16, 1973

It is fine to hear all of these problems mentioned in the Speech from the Throne after ignoring them for four years, but the government's sincerity to act on the multitude of topics it outlined is questionable, particularly in view of the fact that the government and its new friends in the House even refused to take care of the most pressing problem of the old age pensioners, a problem which is long overdue for solution.
Let me say, Mr. Speaker, even key Liberals no longer believe the present government can solve Canada's economic problems. For example, Charles Templeton, former leader of the Ontario provincial Liberal party, a strong voice for the Liberals in the media for many years and an organizer and strategist for the Liberals, admitted on his radio program on CKEY last week in Toronto that the archaic principles followed by the Liberal government cannot solve the problems of unemployment and inflation, and that the Progressive Conservatives should form the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, turning to an area that is of importance for the general physical and mental wellbeing of all Canadians, in this regard I was happy to submit a private member's notice on January 4 of this year which reads as follows:
That this House, affirming that Canada should adopt physical fitness and athletic excellence as a major national goal-as well as for the health and general well-being of Canadians as for the contribution which a successful sports program can make to Canadian unity and to the Canadian identity recommends that a national council for sports be established which would support and co-ordinate the activities of regional training centres to be built in various areas of Canada by the federal government in consultation with the provinces, sports governing bodies and community groups.
I was interested to see that the throne speech stated:
In response to the increasing importance of fitness for the wellbeing and health of Canadians and the need for greater opportunities for people to participate in sports activities, the federal government has proposed over the next three years to more than double the current level of expenditures under the fitness and amateur sports program.
I was puzzled, however, Mr. Speaker, that no mention was made in the throne speech of the world international event, the Olympic games, an event that not only tightens national unity within a country but, indeed, attempts to bind together all countries around the world. We all know that today's magnitude of the games could become a costly proposition and thus, most probably, a problem with far reaching consequences. I suggest that the government, even though it has been in constant touch with the various Olympic organizing committees, has been most obvious in trying to evade this issue, and therefore I should like to make some suggestions regarding this matter through this House.
Realizing the possibilities of incurring high costs, we must look for some options or alternatives. The Olympic Games in recent years have become much too large and complicated, both in regard to facilities and the number of participants, to be held in any one city. They are no longer the games consisting of a small scattering of
The Address-Mr. Jelinek
individual athletes, as was the case a decade or so ago when I was lucky enough to represent Canada at the Olympics.
I believe that Montreal is the city best able to cope with the multitude of problems that would be faced by staging the games in Canada. However, because of the costs and added possible benefits to our country, we should consider partially decentralizing the games somewhat along the lines of the Munich Olympics, which in fact took place in as many as seven different cities, one as far away as 550 miles from Munich.
For example, Mr. Speaker, do we have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on gymnastic facilities? No; Laval University, in Quebec City, has one of the best sports complexes in North America. Do we have to spend millions of dollars on an Olympic pool for swimming and diving? No; Winnipeg has the country's best, and the Etobicoke Jaycees near Toronto are in the process of planning one, with no government aid.
Ottawa-Hull has one of the world's finest shooting ranges. St. Catharines has the only Henley rowing course in Canada-the world's finest-on which the federal government has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars. Kingston is made to order for sailing, and Toronto, with its large ethnic population alone, is ideal for soccer; and on and on-to save money and to promote good will, to reap benefits by permitting larger proportions of the Canadian population to benefit both monetarily and socially by seeing and feeling their part in the Olympic games, and to boost tourism, both on a short-term and long-term basis, whether it be through travel, accommodation or gaining international reputation and Canadian self-esteem.
The facilities alone must eventually be built across different areas of Canada as this country has already committed itself to holding no less than seven major sporting events of national significance before the end of 1976. These are the Canada games in 1973, the Canada Olympics in 1974, the PanAmerican games trials in 1975, the Canada winter games in 1975, the Canada Olympic games trials in 1976, the Canada Olympics in 1976 and the Olympic games in 1976.
Mr. Speaker, if Montreal were to agree to somewhat decentralize the games, I believe that the Olympics would provide more than tourism, facilities and international esteem. Starting now, the Olympics could be, and should be, the rallying point, the stimulus to make the people of Canada physically fit. When you consider that Canada's 30-year old males have the same physical fitness rating as some 60-year old males in Sweden, it is shocking. I am glad to see the government is getting off its seat, though very, very slowly, to help our spectator populace to do the same. Looking around the House, I would suggest that this is one instance where some members should take notice.
I know that in the minds of many people it is important to win medals in the Olympic games, and I suppose it is. However, I do not believe that a vast program of financial aid over the next four years to train our best prospects for 1976 is the whole answer. Athletic excellence at the Olympics should not be our only goal-physical fitness and health for everyone should be our main objective. We will

January 16, 1973
The Address-Mr. Jelinek
only be successful at the Olympics or in any sporting event when athletic excellence by a few is part and parcel of general fitness for everyone. I know of no better incentive for such a program than the Olympic games themselves.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to change to yet another topic of immediate importance, that of capital punishment. Although I will vote on this matter as the majority of people in my riding would have me vote, my own strong, personal views can best be summed up in this radio editorial given by Mr. Robert Holiday last week on CHFI in Toronto, following a recent incident in that city:
Another policeman is dead, another woman widowed, another son fatherless, another bill to abolish capital punishment, another provision that killers of policeman be hanged.
The single death of a policeman is not likely to make any difference to the majority of the Members of Parliament who will be voting on the capital punishment legislation.
There are in this country too many people that believe hanging for murder is cruel and inhuman punishment for a man or woman convicted of such a crime. These people, it appears, have no regard for the victim or victim's family. That argument, however, I will leave for another time.
What makes this new five-year ban before parliament so meaningless and what makes me bristle, is the attitude of the federal cabinet during the five-year ban which has just expired.
There was a provision for capital punishment to be levied against convicted killers of policemen and prison guards, but was a man so convicted during this five years ever hanged? He was not.
The new legislation prepared for this new twenty-ninth parliament has a similar provision.
But of what use has this provision if the federal cabinet during the next five years refuses to recognize the will of parliament and again, as it has in the past, vetoes that legislation and commutes the death sentence imposed on the policeman or prison guard killer? Men and women hyped by speed and armed with weapons walk our streets with violence in their minds and murder in their hearts. You and I walk these same streets unarmed, protected only by the men recruited to keep law and order and when these men give their lives while protecting our lives and our property, who pays? Does the law of the land demand payment? Yes, it does.
Who then should have the right to abrogate that law? The federal cabinet, in an aberration for which there is no sensible reason and which cannot be justified, does and has exercised that right repeatedly. It is time to re-examine this masochistic trait. We teach people that the age of maturity is 18. If a person after he or she reaches that age chooses to become an operative outside of the mainstream of society and is convicted of killing a man who maintains the law of the land, you cannot justify commutation after you attempt to justify life for this miserable human.
You are doing an injustice to those who live within the law and to those who maintain it. A killer has no right to inflict his presence on this society after he has been sentenced to death for the murder of a policeman. For if he lives, he is living proof that society has no desire to protect itself or protect those hired to protect lives and property. To let him live makes a mockery of the law, makes a mockery of those who enacted the legislation and those who elected the enactors of the legislation.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr. Terry Grier (Toronto-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a great privilege to rise in this House at this time to make my maiden speech and to speak for the first time on behalf of the voters of the constituency of Toronto-Lakeshore whom I have the honour to represent. The sense of occasion is for me enhanced by my recollection that my grandfather sat in this House some years ago for the constituency of Welland. He was elected in the years 1925, 1926 and 1930 and to this day George Pettit remains the only Conservative to have won the constituency of Welland since the year 1896. I only hope that some of his obvious ability to engage and retain the confidence of his electors will have passed on to my generation.
As a teacher of political science, I have had occasion in recent years to refer to the importance of the office of Speaker and the skill of the present incumbent. In extending my congratulations to the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker, I can only say that since coming here my views of their importance and skill have been reinforced.
Since the election, many commentators have sought to explain what took place and to analyse the collective motivation of the voters on that occasion. Tonight I simply want to add my observations and say that, in my judgment, for many voters, both in my constituency and across the country, the election was a collective search for fairness. I believe that people in great numbers felt that somehow the social and economic system pressed upon them unfairly. Many people were defeatist and apathetic about the possibility of effecting substantial change. Successive government failures, both by Liberal governments and by their Conservative predecessors, rendered voters cynical and indifferent to the possibility of change. I suggest, aside from any partisanship, that such an attitude is not good. We, as parliamentarians, must produce and show the voters in this country that the political process is capable of solid achievement.
In a number of areas this sense of unfairness and a collective groping for a fairer system manifested itself. Wage and salaried employees, and these constitute the great majority of our labour force, knew almost instinctively that the tax system in Canada was pressing upon them most heavily while at the same time other groups enjoyed tax allowances and concessions of no visible social utility, and that the revenues produced by the tax system were in large part being funnelled to individuals or enterprises better off than the average citizen.
Canadians across the country in this election campaign knew instinctively that they were paying more than their fair share of Canada's taxes and that they were, and indeed still are, getting less than their fair share in return. There is nothing much very new about this, but in an age of slogans about equity and justice it sticks in the craw. Moreover, it erodes people's sense of willingness to contribute of themselves and of their resources to the collective well-being of the country. When that willingness to contribute to a country's well-being is worn away, a nation's strength is sapped. For that reason, as well as for the reason of equity, I believe, as my leader pointed out on so many occasions during the campaign, that this parlia-
January 16, 1973

ment must attach a high priority to the restructuring of our taxation system, to the end that individuals and enterprises together pay their fair share; no more and no less.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Terrence Wyly Grier: I suggest that this sense of unfairness was also felt in the field of unemployment. All of us today recognize that unemployment is very largely caused by factors beyond the concern of the ordinary worker. It may be caused by ill-advised anti-inflation policies such as those produced by the Liberal government in the years following 1968. It may be caused by the introduction of new plant and equipment technology which has the effect of causing layoffs. I may say that in the constituency of Lakeshore this winter there will be numbers of persons laid off for this reason. It may result from the hasty and ill-considered rationalization and consolidation of plants and industry, a consolidation and rationalization which was suggested, if not in this House at least following the general election, by the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies). This, too, can create hardship and result in a loss of jobs. It may result from a reduction in product demand, as was the case last week in my constituency where a firm employing upward of 500 people announced that its doors would close on May 1.
When people such as these are rendered unemployed by circumstances beyond their control, they are all too frequently called lazy. Their incentive to work is called into question. Indeed, they are sometimes called bums. They are harried by an unemployment insurance machinery which, while it may have been conceived in good will and while it may be overworked and harassed by some critics, none the less all too frequently operates with indiscriminate and impersonal inefficiency.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Terrence Wyly Grier: It is ironic to compare the meagre benefits allowed by that system with the pension entitlement which a suddenly unemployed Member of Parliament with a major attachment may claim.
Another area of unfairness that surfaced in the campaign was that of housing. This area has been mentioned by other hon. members. In cities like Toronto, new, expensive homes, be they single-family or apartments, boost the housing starts statistics but they offer little consolation to ordinary working families who do not have the means to qualify for them. Not for them a new home in Toronto with a starting purchase price upwards of $37,000 or $38,000, or an apartment with a monthly rent of $250 to $275. Their alternatives are few. Alas, in my constituency the alternative is too often to move outside the riding to ex-urban communities to the west and northwest of Toronto. Thus, among other things, they deprive the constituency of a new generation of leadership to which it ought to be entitled and without which it cannot continue the sense of community which has sustained it so far.
Too often, older homes which could provide accommodation for many thousands of people are allowed to be bought up for apartment developments. I can say that in our constituency we are making a determined effort to
The Address-Mr. Grier
control this phenomenon. But it leads me to urge upon the government the necessity to provide NHA loans to those who wish to purchase existing or older housing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Terrence Wyly Grier: In the absence of such a provision, I cannot see any hope for reversing the present trend in urban housing. I also urge upon the government the necessity of introducing measures to reduce the interest rate on mortgages for homes. In this connection I should like to quote from a letter I received yesterday from a constituent of mine:
We bought a small family home in January, 1969, with $2,000 down payment. The first mortgage is at 81 per cent and expires October, 1973. The second is at 9 per cent and expires January, 1974. We pay our mortgage payments exactly on time. To afford the high payment we live an unbelievably simple life. We have no car, we stay always at home.
We find out we paid almost nothing into the house during four years. High interest took almost all the money. We have paid up to the present time, for both mortgages, $11,300; $8,000 is for interest and $3,300 for the house. Increased interest will make this picture even worse.
We want very much to keep our home. But now we are in danger. When mortgages expire and interest increases, what will be? We can never pay off the house. The interest is inhuman. We are not young any more, and we need to pay off the house during 10 to 15 years. But how? With high interest it is not possible. Please help us to get a government loan with low interest. Our dream is to put together the first and second mortgages with low interest. It is only possible with government help. Please try to understand us and please help us. We are worried; we do not want to lose our home and many years hard work. Our income is $6,000.
Mr. Speaker, I shall have to reply to that letter by saying that unless the present government takes steps to provide lower interest rates on mortgages, such hopes may be forlorn.
Another area of concern is that of pensions. Older people wait while almost all others, not least elected politicians and not only at this level, are able to increase their income and their pension. This waiting and this concern, this apprehension and frustration is, I am afraid, often cynically explained either at election time or, I regret to say, by manoeuvres like that proposed in this chamber the other day.
Another area of unfairness toward which voters in this election groped for a solution is that of prices. Steadily rising prices press upon the average working family, and yet when one asks why prices are going up, one is treated to sophisticated rationalizations from the corporate world, from public relations types and others who can all too often bamboozle and confuse the public. Labour costs are frequently blamed, but the public has up to now been denied the facts. That is why I welcome, albeit with reservation, the proposal presented by the government in the throne speech to establish a committee to investigate food prices and the food industry. I shall be surprised if they do not come to the conclusion-I hope it is a swift one- that they are forced to recommend a prices review mechanism at the very least of the kind which has been proposed on many occasions by our leader and other members of this party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

January 16, 1973
The Address-Mr. Grier


Terrence Wyly Grier: I may say in passing, Mr. Speaker, that I for one tend to be sceptical of the recent trend toward consumerism which is so evident in today's advertising and so much part of the public relations facade of contemporary industry. I am sceptical that it is as much as anything else an effort to lull the public into a sense of security that something substantial is being done to preserve their equity in the market place, without taking any real steps to solve the problem.
Also in passing, Mr. Speaker, I have some hesitation about the concept of wage-price freezes because, neophyte as I may be in the science of economics, it does not seem to me that wages and prices are comparable elements in the economics equation. Wages are the return to labour and profit is the return to capital and investment, and price is the mechanism by which these two returns are achieved. Therefore, I would suggest that if we are going to talk about wage freezes and wage controls we must talk also of profit freezes and profit controls.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Terrence Wyly Grier: These are the analogous, the comparable elements in the economics equation, and the price mechanism is simply the framework within which they are achieved.
When I talk of prices, Mr. Speaker, I think of the symbolic significance of the recent application by Bell Canada before the Canadian Transport Commission for rate increases. It seems to me, in a time of expressed concern about rising prices, that it is somehow curious that this government should take such a laissez-faire attitude toward the application by Bell.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Terrence Wyly Grier: The burden of Bell's application appears to be that it requires equity capital and that it faces a lack of investor confidence. If it raises its rates, as it is seeking to do across the board, it will presumably ensure higher earnings and provide a greater attraction to investors. The effect of this, however, will be that consumers will pay more; they will subsidize Bell's profits and reward Bell's investors. Of course, the double irony is that having achieved, if they do so, the rate increase for 1973, Bell will within a matter of months turn around and submit another application for a rate increase for 1974-the so-called application "B". The effect of Bell's "A" plus "B" theorem-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Terrence Wyly Grier: -will be a 100 per cent increase in most general service charges, 100 per cent in pay telephone calls, and residential phone tariffs will increase by around 50 cents a month, just to take some examples from the various applications submitted by that corporation. Yet Bell's last increase was awarded in the spring of 1972 and we appear to be on the verge of an annual affair between Bell Canada and the Canadian Transport Commission. Bell complains about cost squeezes and lack of investor confidence, but I draw to the attention of this House that the figures show that Bell's profits in 1971 were upward of $140 million, up from $108 million in 1967. In the last ten

years, total profits were over $1 billion, and between 1962 and last year they had increased by 125 per cent.
Bell Canada ranks number one among Canadian corporations in terms of assets and in terms of net income; third in rank by sales. It has often exceeded the earnings ceiling laid down by the commission and has done so without penalty. Its earnings per share rose 26 per cent in the five-year period from 1966, and two of its subsidiaries received close to $9 million in the fiscal year 1971-72 by way of federal government grants.
Bell has a lot to say about equity. Mr. Speaker, what about equity for the consumer? Equity is another word for fairness. I suggest that the commission and this government must be more concerned about equity for the Canadian taxpayer and the Canadian consumer than they are about equity for Bell Canada. If the public is going to subsidize Bell's operations in this way, I suggest the public is entitled to equity in return.
I therefore call on the government, as I have in questions in days gone by, first to join with the provinces of Ontario and Quebec in opposing Bell's application for a rate increase. The Minister of Communications (Mr. Pelletier) indicated in a reply to a question last week that he could conceive of certain times and circumstances in which it would be appropriate for the government to make a statement about this application. I suggest the time is now and that the circumstances are appropriate.
I also call upon the government to insist that the CTC hold hearings in centres other than the city of Ottawa. Many individuals and groups, including municipalities, have indicated that problems of distance, time and expense prevent their coming to Ottawa and following up any written briefs they may have by appearing in person before the commission. In a matter of this magnitude, affecting one of the largest corporations in Canada and Canadian consumers, it does not seem to me inappropriate to suggest that the committee should take itself out of Ottawa to other centres of the country and make it more convenient for people to appear before it, thus demonstrating to the people that it is indeed concerned that their voice shall be heard to the fullest extent.
Moreover, I suggest that if Bell's problem is a valid one, and if in fact Bell must have more capital in order to carry on its operation, then in consideration for the public supplying this capital the public should be entitled, through the public sector and this government, to some equity ownership in Bell.
This search for fairness is not over. It is going on now in the country and I think it is going on now in this House. I sense that a politically divided House, as this is, reflects a politically divided country-and both require a generous measure of co-operation. Yet I am bound to say, with some regret, that hon. members to my right are acting as if this were a majority parliament and as if criticism and gamesmanship could be carried on without fear of the consequences and without particular concern for the anxieties of many Canadians who expressed those anxieties during the election campaign. This gamesmanship and this political manoeuvring, to me, belies their expressed concern for people's problems. For all their criticism of
January 16, 1973

the government, much ol it justified, about speeches from the government side being less than specific, I am bound to say that the speeches from the Progressive Conservative benches have been even less specific.
If it is specifics the House is looking for, I suggest all members, including those of my own party, are obliged to present them. I am quite sure that Canadians want parliament to get on with the job, and if no single party has a mandate-and indeed no single party has-then surely parliament itself has a mandate. We, as members of the House of Commons, are under a stong obligation, if not to put partisan advantage aside, because that would be unrealistic, at least to contain it within limits so that we may in the coming weeks and months pass some solid legislation.
I think a party indecently anxious to get into power does neither itself nor the Canadian people a service, if I may presume to say so. I detect a faint resemblance between the behaviour of members on the Conservative benches in this House and members who sat on the Liberal benches in 1958 and repeatedly asked the government of the day to move aside and let them do the job. No party won this election, and certainly the Conservative party did not win it. I think all of us are obliged to bear that in mind. Mr. Speaker, it may be naive and presumptuous of me, as a new member, to hope that recriminations and exceedingly political gamesmanship can take a back seat for the next weeks and months-but I do.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Maurice Dupras (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, it is always with pride that I address this House on behalf of the constituents of Labelle to whom I want to pay homage and express my gratitude for the confidence they showed me October 30 last in reelecting me as their member and representative in the House of Commons.

Before I go any further, I should like to extend my congratulations to the preceding speaker, the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Grier) who was making his maiden speech. I should like him to know that in spite of the fact I may not agree with the whole substance of his speech, I thought he acquitted himself beautifully in his maiden speech.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maurice Dupras: First, your Honour, I should like to join with the previous speakers who paid tribute to the Speaker upon his unanimous re-election. Several members before me recalled his great qualities and his sense of humour and at the risk of embarrassing him, I should like to express my admiration and the high esteem in which I hold him, that are inspired by his ability and his fair-mindedness.
Those congratulations that are offered every day to him are a tribute to the voters of his constituency of Stormont-Dundas, for the wise choice they made in re-electing him for the fifth time.
The Address-Mr. Dupras
Their pride is only natural considering, Mr. Speaker, that they are represented here by one of the most prestigious figures in the history of the House.
I wish to pay tribute also to the gentleman who was elected Chairman of the Committees of the Whole, the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave), a choice which already meets with the approval of all four parties. It is also fitting to emphasize the altruism his party displayed in depriving itself of the services of such an excellent member.
Mr. Speaker, may I also be allowed to extend my best wishes to the Deputy Chairman and Assistant Deputy Chairman of the Committees of the Whole (Messrs. Laniel and Boulanger). Of course their task is fraught with responsibilities and they will have to rely on the co-operation of all hon. members.
Like the previous speakers, I should like to pay tribute to the movers of the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne (Messrs. Blais and Blaker) who showed much self-assurance and eloquence in the discharge of their duty.
I should like to congratulate also all the new members, be they of this party or of any other, on their election and I wish them a fruitful and constructive career in this House.
Mr. Speaker, I should also like to congratulate the lady members of the House. I cannot help saying how much their presence improves the look of this august assembly, and if those ladies should follow the example of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) I am convinced that they will serve with distinction.
As for the members of the opposition parties, I consider that it is only fair to let them assert their right to represent their electors in the House with as much energy, aggressiveness and loyalty as we do as government members.
However, some of the new members on the opposite side lost no time in showing by their contributions and their behaviour that they believe the quality of their contributions and the value of their interventions is measured here in terms of decibels.


Mark Willson Rose: That is not very nice.


Maurice Dupras: Unfortunately, some of these members even had comments to make regarding our front row. Perhaps I, too, could make some comments on the front row facing me, a row which may be called a row of broken dreams. As you know, Mr. Speaker, no less than five members in this row were turned down, were denied at one time or another the leadership of their party at five different conventions; so it seems that the electors failed to recognize their hidden talents. Some of these ex would-be leaders have shown already in their interventions how wise their party members were to deny them the leadership of the party.
In the short two years that I have been a member of this House, I have learned very quickly to become greatly involved in the activities here and I have developed a deep

January 16, 1973
The Address-Mr. Dupras
attachment tor this institution. I soon discovered how quickly we develop a sense of solidarity toward one another, regardless of party line, and it is with this in mind that I make my contribution this evening. I would like to believe that my views and ambitions are shared by the majority of hon. members. I know, also, that I might risk offending some of my electors if the comments that I make are anything like the ones that I heard the other day.
This brings me to the question of how people reacted when they read the speech that the newly elected hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) delivered to the House the other day. It was not very inspiring. I imagine that he is much more interested in what the newspapers had to write about him than what his electors may think of him. This emphasizes the wisdom of the delegates at the Quebec Liberal convention when they denied him the leadership of the party.
A great deal was made of the film produced by the Liberal party and used during the last campaign. The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe mentioned that the stars in the film were three doves and one or two sparrows. Some people have no talent for posing. Some people even observed that we did not have a peacock in the film.
In his remarks on the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) asked among other things, whether the province of Quebec and the Atlantic provinces found the Trudeau government satisfactory after four and a half years in office. I cannot help but being astonished by such a question when the number of Liberal members from these provinces has increased at the last election. This shows without any doubt the support enjoyed by the government of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and its politic and constitutes of course a clear and obvious statement of appreciation. Therefore, the question of the Leader of the Official Opposition is not even justified.
Among other things, the Leader of the Official Opposition gave a gloomy picture of our economy by reminding us of the latest available figures which show that more than 600,000 Canadians are jobless or supposedly unemployed. This is far from the record number registered in the province of Quebec in 1960 under the last Progressive Conservative government when unemployment reached 10.1 per cent. What he failed to say or did not want to say is that our economic performance is expected to make of 1972 a record year in terms of gross national product, bank savings, wheat sales, export, the effects of which we can see every day.
He should also have told us that our gross national product has, for the first time, exceeded $100 billion this year and this represents an 11 per cent increase over 1971.
He also failed to state that consumers have been spending much more and that in spite of this they have saved more. The purchase of durable goods has been stimulated mainly by the building of new homes which will reach this year an all-time high with slightly over 240,000 units.

Furthermore, our economic indicators are showing an all-time percentage increase, and I quote some examples as published in the excellent monthly publication of the Provincial Bank of Canada.
In retail sales, we are showing an increase of 14.1 per cent over the first eight months of last year; in exports, an increase of 10.7 per cent over ten months; in imports, 20.3 per cent, again over ten months; in housing starts, an increase of 7.5 per cent.
Mr. Speaker, we are quite far from the dramatic situation described by the hon. Leader of the Opposition. Suffice to mention, for example, the record sales disclosed by the large chain stores during the last holiday period, figures which reveal unheard of results concerning the sales increase registered by these stores during this period. This prosperity, Mr. Speaker, is found in all areas.
You could read in a weekend magazine that each Canadian had spent more than any other citizen of any other industrialized country in 1970 for international travel-$68. In second place came the Swedes who spent $62 while the Americans, for the information of hon. members, spent only $20.
For a population of slightly over 20 million people, Mr. Speaker, we are certainly, percentage-wise among the most numerous people in the major tourist centres around the world, be it in the Alps, in the South Seas, in the Southern United States or Central Europe.
One has only to remember that when the Russian hockey team came to Canada, very few Russian citizens accompanied their team, while no less than 3500 Canadians-from an alleged slow growth country-accompanied Team Canada to root for them. This, Mr. Speaker, is another proof of the tremendous buoyancy of the Canadian economy which provides every Canadian with a standard of living higher than the standard of most industrialized countries in the world.
While really satisfactory, such a performance, Mr. Speaker, does not keep us from looking toward the future and from attempting, through new mechanisms, to improve on a continous basis the living conditions of all Canadians, western Canadians and eastern Canadians alike.
Upon reading the Speech from the Throne I cannot but be pleased about the great many measures to be found in it, which will be brought before the House next week in order to bring amendments to measures already foreseen, to clarify others already initiated that can now be carried out.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) informed us in his speech of last Thursday of some new projects to reopen the file in the federal-provincial field of social affairs. Such measures are the results of much thought on the part of the minister and the care he brought to the consideration of these projects permits us to believe that they will come up to the expectation of the various provinces with a view to assuring the welfare of the people concerned in these programs.
Some steps are already being taken, for instance additional credits have been authorized for LIP projects as well as for training on the job programs. Those two programs have received unanimous acceptance and approval
January 16, 1973

across the land and they contribute immeasurably to creating jobs.
What about the measures proposed to stimulate tourism in Canada? They are an additional proof of the prosperity of our economy. When we consider that in 1970 every Canadian citizen spent $68 on international tourism, we realize that we must do everything possible to prevent those amounts of money from being spent abroad. We must at all costs stimulate the tourist industry at home and enable our Canadian industries to benefit from the many advantages tourism offers.
Mr. Speaker, as I am fortunate enough to represent a riding whose main industry is tourism, needless to say those programs stir considerable interest back home.
A large number of my constituents already have plans to improve their facilities; several already have projects for expansion and are very anxious to know all about the measures we intend to take to help that industry which is so important in my constituency.
In another field, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) told us what he intends to do to help small businesses by means of new provisions to improve management services, consultation services and to ease the access to financial help. This will certainly be most welcome all over the country and it will be an opportunity for us of the central government to help those industries employing no less than 32 per cent of the Canadian manpower.
Another important measure is intended to strengthen the very foundation of the country's economy and it will show that the government is in favour of a fair relation between the price of feed grain used by cattle breeders in different areas of the country. The government, Mr. Speaker, intends to take measures before the next farming season to ensure fair marketing prices for the producers of eastern Canada.
Again last week, and as he has been doing since 1962, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Lessard) asked that such steps be taken. When we read a speech he delivered in 1962, we now realize that he was asking with much energy that the government take all possible measures to ensure a fair distribution of feed grain all over the country. He mentioned the progress made by several producers of the Lac Saint-Jean area on a co-operative basis in the field of slaughtering and butchering and he added that their turnover was continuously growing. At that time, he was already saying that the major problem which the producers had to face was that of distribution and costs of feed grain. Maybe I am too readily happy to see that the problem that the producers of eastern Canada have had to face for so long will be solved, we hope, during the coming weeks.
However, a solution can be found provided hon. members belonging to the four parties in this House co-operate and concur.
You will probably be hearing about this matter within the next days as we, who represent the province of Quebec, will not yield an inch and will not accept a negative reply to our repeated requests since 1962.
Many other initiatives of as great importance to living conditions in Canada were mentioned in the Speech from
The Address-Mr. Dupras
the Throne and will no doubt be debated within the coming months.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak of matters more closely related to my electors and my riding. I want to inform my colleagues that last Friday, January 12, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Marchand) and I were present on the occasion of the transfer of titles to the La Macaza Base from the Department of National Defence to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The educational centre of La Macaza is part of a program announced jointly on June 8, 1972 by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier).
The program dealt with funds made available to native people for creation and operation of the educational and cultural centre. This centre, we were told, was conceived in order to allow Indians to study in an appropriate environment consistent with their own culture and special needs. This program is mainly aimed at enabling the native people served through that centre to take decisions about the management of programs, educational methods and any other activity connected with the operation of those centres.
This program, as was indicated, is an answer to the request of Indian groups to the federal government in order to ensure the survival of their culture. We have quite rightfully answered those requests.
In a joint statement, the ministers said that the centres were a unique opportunity for the native people to understand and appreciate better their present and historical part in the Canadian community. They added that the cultural consciousness and autonomy of the native people would be stimulated and developed by the creation of training facilities which are very important to them and to the whole of Canada.
The establishment of this centre is for us, of the riding of Labelle, a most fortunate solution, as it was stated several times. The closing of the Bomarc base at La Macaza represented for this area the loss of the second major employer. It will be recalled that the operation of this military base required a civilian staff of at least 80 people. I am thinking also of the goodwill that the presence of 200 or 300 families of military personel could mean for the region. The area was therefore exposed to considerable hardship after the closing of this military base and its very economy was jeopardized.
I am very happy about the transformation of the military base and I would like to express all my satisfaction for having contributed to a certain extent to accelerate the negotiations so that the population of that area would not have to suffer too much from the closing of the base.
I would also like at this time to draw the attention of my colleagues on the more than warm welcome the people of my area extended to the Indians. Not only did the residents of Annonciation and La Macaza have a warm welcome for them but they already consider them and accept them as a part of theirs.
So, Mr. Speaker, may I be allowed at this time to pay special tribute to the people of my riding and on behalf of all Canadians I thank them very sincerely for their con-

The Address-Mr. Fortin
duct, for the way they welcomed the Indians and for their contribution to national unity.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to congratulate you on the confidence you most certainly deserve from all your colleagues, our party included, for the heavy burden of presiding over our proceedings. The situations sometimes critical we have to live through in this House can only be solved by your tact, your competence and most of all your fairness. I want to assure you on behalf of my party of our co-operation at all times so that our proceedings can benefit the whole population we have the honour to represent.
Mr. Speaker, I would like at the outset of my remarks to congratulate the hon. members for Rimouski (Mr. Allard), Charlevoix (Mr. Caouette) and Drummond (Mr. Boisvert), three new colleagues we welcome to this House. All our colleagues have seen their eloquence and their sincerity when participating in the work of this House and their will to contribute to improve the lot of all citizens.
Mr. Speaker, I should like also to congratulate the movers of the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne (Messrs. Blais and Blaker), and to assure them of my admiration as it is not always easy to put forward more or less acceptable proposals.
Mr. Speaker, I was the most surprised man in the world on coming back to the House for a second term by the tone of the debate on the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne.
That Speech from the Throne is perhaps the least rational of all the ones I have known, but perhaps the most practical of all. What all that will come to, whether it will be translated into action or not, all that remains to be seen.
Mr. Speaker, all hopes are permitted. As a Social Credit member, I am happy to see not only that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) is considering a guaranteed annual income for a group of citizens but that our ideas winning acceptance. Therefore it is not as stupid as the former Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) said it was during the election campaign. I realize now that things are changing, which gives us heart to keep on with our work.
But when I heard the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Government attacking one another to know who was the most in favour of national unity or the most against it, I was disappointed to say the least.
When we listen to the speeches of the members from the Maritime provinces, what do we hear? If they are from the Progressive Conservative party, we may be sure they will criticize but if they are on the government side, they say all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.
But to be honest, let's forget about the rhetoric and realize that they are saying: "If things are not going well in New Brunswick, it is on account of poverty, lack of employment, misery in the midst of abundance and a surplus of potatoes".
I see this moves the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) to laughter because when he went there to collect votes they were raising potatoes. Nevertheless

people in the Maritimes say that if things are going badly it is because they have a surplus of products, for which they find no buyers and that therefore the federal government is to blame and even perhaps the people in Quebec, perhaps even also Westerners who Eire getting too much.
When you hear Opposition members who come from the west, since one can no longer speak of Liberal members from the west, you get another version. They speak the same language as the others, English. Things are going badly for them because they have a wheat surplus and the government is to blame for that surplus, because it failed to make enough sales and its distribution machinery is inadequate.
This afternoon I heard a highly eloquent Progressive Conservative Party colleague repeating the same old tune he has been singing since he has been here, Mr. Speaker, saying that everything the Liberals sold was bad and that the only good wheat is the one the Progressive Conservatives have sold. Yet, if things are going badly in the Prairies it is because there is a surplus of wheat.
On the other hand, when I come to Quebec I see that for Quebec farmers also things are going badly, not in English but in French. They are going badly because of a surplus of milk, of butter, of cheese and there is a shortage of feed grain from the west because it is too expensive.
Then there is the problem of potatoes and the problem of eggs in Ontario.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, the economy of Canada, protected by the Grits and Tories over the past 100 years, has contributed to the division of our country to the extent that today you would swear we have Upper Canada on one side of the House and Lower Canada on the other, as a result of the October 30 election.
Mr. Speaker, I am really disappointed at seeing that the basic problem does not lie with language but rather with the economic situation and that most hon. members are accusing one another on the plea of language difficulties and because of French power while forgetting the economic problems which our people have to face.
I believe that this statement may cause a number of hon. members to laugh, but I shall remind them that in the constituency of Lotbiniere we are faced with a problem which is the same in almost every riding. Personal initiative as well as work is not encouraged in Canada, and I call on my colleagues' good conscience to make the following reasoning. For the older person who is entitled to the old age security pension at the age of 65, we wish to bring the eligibility age down to 60. The act states that the older person is entitled to the same basic amount at the age of 65 and that if his income is not sufficient the government grants him a guaranteed supplement which will reach the incredible maximum of $150 a month. If this older person wants to help school boys cross the road, works for the school board and gets a certain income, what does happen? This older person must declare such income and therefore his guaranteed income supplement is reduced. Each dollar earned by this person means $1 less in supplement. Such is the principle of present rules and governments. They stifle a man's initiative and seem
January 16, 1973

to tell him: "My friend, sit down in your house, smoke your pipe, don't make a move and you will get $150." But if he tries to help himself, this plan developed by mad people-and I weigh each of my words-will take some money away from him. No wonder these people are fed up. This is only because these people, although they are aged, are still willing to go on working to earn a living even in small part-time jobs because they are still ready to help themselves.
Mr. Speaker, our philosophy in this House is negative. With our bills, individual initiative is discouraged. What about young people? Let me deal with the opposite end of the age structure. What about our students? If a student has worked all summer to help himself and his parents and applies for a federal or provincial scholarship, he is told on a nice little grey slip of paper, because this is rather sad news, "In view of the income you earned during the summer, we regret to inform you that you are not eligible for a scholarship. However, you are eligible for a loan on such and such terms." All this because he worked all summer and received an income. The other student who is in the same grade and lives on the same street but was unable to find a job or did not want to work-both cases are possible-will ask for scholarship and he stands a pretty fair chance of obtaining a full scholarship because he did not have any income during the summer.
Mr. Speaker, this case is similar to that of aged persons-the student who wants to help himself is not entitled to a scholarship. The student who takes life easy or does not get an opportunity is discouraged; he becomes worn out and dependent on others as the aged person.
What about the person who is between the young and the aged, that is the unemployed? Some say that there are
500,000,	others 600,000. Some Liberals maintain that under the Conservative government they were more numerous, while the Conservatives say that under the Liberals there were more. Then, while they are having a good time counting them, I should say: Why don't you name them? If we must enjoy ourselves, let us have a ball. But they forget to try and find solutions, and then to analyse this matter.
What happens in the case of the unemployed? First, they make complicated laws, just as stupid as the minister who introduced them. Second, they close local offices and centralize to the extreme throughout the province. In fact, all cheques must go through some electronic machine. They create local, then regional services in Sherbrooke, Trois-Rivieres and Quebec City. And what happens to the citizen in Victoriaville who is stuck with unemployment?


Mr.   De Bane@: Yes.


André-Gilles Fortin: The member for Matane (Mr. De Bane) says "Yes" because the same situation can be found in his constituency.
I was saying that the unemployed from Victoriaville must dial a long distance call to Sherbrooke at his own expense. He must go to Sherbrooke to appear before an arbitration commission often at his own expense. He must complete forms which he often does the wrong way because of a lack of communication. As a result anyone
The Address-Mr. Fortin
who became unemployed on November 1-in the mad system we were imposed- is still waiting for his first cheque on January 1. Chances are he did not receive his cards regularly either.
Mr. Speaker, the jobless in such a situation goes to his member of Parliament or any official in his union to make the best of it and the problem is immediately settled. I wonder how it is that a member of Parliament is able to settle a problem immediately whereas the poor taxpayer cannot succeed but must wait for his cheque. Is it that only Parliament members are able to handle a civil servant that should be at the service of all citizens without any distinction?
It often happens that the jobless worker entitled to unemployment allowances receives a letter from the local unemployment insurance centre worded as follows: Dear Sir: In view of current administration problems and the substantial amendments made to the Unemployment Insurance Act and in view of the fact that an increasing number of people are becoming eligible for unemployment allowances it is our regret to inform you that we are not in a position to pay your allowances immediately.
Sometimes, he is the father of five, six or seven children. His situation may appear funny tonight, but suppose you take his place? He is told in the last paragraph: In the meantime, call at your local social welfare office where, under an agreement between Ottawa and Quebec, you will probably get temporary help, even though a refund may be required eventually.
So the unemployed potters along. In the meantime, he has exhausted his savings for he was a labourer. There are thousands of people in a similar position in this country. Therefore, he goes to the local office and falls on his knees before the officials, stoops, begs for a meager allowance, signs a refund pledge and gets $300 which he has soon spent, and then the unemployment insurance benefit arrives. What happens then, thanks to the great generosity of all those officials who have a good time counting the unemployed instead of trying to settle their problems? When the unemployed man receives his cheque, he looks at it carefully, has it photocopied in order to keep some remembrance of the government's generosity, signs it, and then brings it to the social welfare office to repay his loan.
Mr. Speaker, that is how a man's initiative is stifled, how he becomes dependent on the state and a radical. I shall say bluntly that the number of people who become dependent on the various levels of government is ever increasing and that the number of those who have to pay the costs for administration of the various levels of government and to support such a large number of unemployed is becoming smaller and smaller, with the result that the governments are facing a problem of overtaxation. Their income is not sufficient and they ask for wage increases. Then we are running around like mad yelling that this disaster is caused by inflation, unemployment, Liberals, Progressive Conservatives, English-speaking Canadians, French-speaking Canadians or the unemployed.
Finally, the number of Liberal members decreased from 147 to 109 and the Progressive Conservatives also

January 16, 1973
The Address-Mr. Fortin
failed to obtain a majority. And the question is asked, who will lead the country?
Mr. Speaker, I will say, using perhaps a picturesque language-I may be teasing you in passing-that all this shows that the basic problem in our country is not a problem of language, of a lack of will to work, of a lack of desire to co-operate in building our country, but an economic and monetary problem. As long as we will find it amusing to divide ourselves on superficial questions and the problem of distribution of wealth is not tackled, as long as English Westerners will keep their wheat the French-speaking people will claim that it is the fault of the English-speaking who will say "Goddam French power", and we will not get anywhere.
Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleagues to reflect on that question and try "together", as a certain slogan that became fatal said, to think about it and come up with positive conclusions. Let us help and set examples for one another in parliament by stopping attacking one another, dirtying one another under the cover of national unity and let us really tackle the problems.
Mr. Speaker, for four years, from 1968 to 1972, this government enjoyed a majority and did so arrogantly. At a given point, the guillotine was brought down on us under Standing Orders 75A, 75B and 75C to avoid answering our questions. I also remember the famous roster system for ministers during the question period and a number of similar situations where members of the opposition were ignored. Now, after the election it is strange to see ministers recognize and salute us. The Progressive Conservatives recognize and salute us. I cannot understand why. And the government has become more conciliatory with the provinces. We realize more and more, as a colleague from the Liberal party said, that there was a time when the government used to propose and dispose, but now the government proposes and the House disposes. Here we are on our two feet again under a totally democratic regime. It feels good for a young member finally to breathe some democratic air in the House.
Mr. Speaker, we hope that our work and our proceedings-and we hope that legislation will be brought in as soon as possible-will enable us to prove to the people that members are serious, that they work and produce. The Canadian population is expecting great things from us: it expects us to come to grips with real problems.
In view of the election result, I contend that it is not the Progressive Conservatives, the New Democratic Party or the Creditistes who have defeated the government but rather the bureaucrats who in their ivory tower believe that they can do anything and who do not give a hoot about what people want.
Let us think for one moment: should those who do not understand the act on unemployment insurance-let us assume it is good-should they apply it? The members and the civil servants must understand the act. The same could be said of old age security pensions, family allowances and all government programs. We are told about creating jobs, LIPs, wonderful programs, so they say. I have in mind two projects that were accepted a month ago. The civil servants called the interested parties and

told them they could go ahead, that they would receive some money. They launched their projects and have been working for nothing since. At the same time, the Department of National Revenue wrote to them asking them to pay income tax on the salaries paid.
People come to see us. They ask what to do. Simple: the civil servants of one department are as stupid as those of another. That is what it proves, Mr. Speaker.
I may be a little blunt but time has come to quit fooling around and reach an understanding.
The government will have to show some maturity, act responsibly and call its civil servants to order. Whatever the advantages may be of the bills passed in this House, if the government does not train the civil servant who applies them, the Canadian people will continue to be served as badly as it now is; and there will surely be no change.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, that important point should also be considered. I do not wish to monopolize the time of the House any longer, for I am eager to start studying the bills the government seems to have the intention of putting before us. But before closing, I should like to call the attention of my colleagues on a particular point.
There is a proposal to extend the limits of our electoral districts, to redraft the electoral map-if one wishes, one can put in claims-in order to nearly double the area of ridings.
Mr. Speaker, the Lotbiniere riding for instance includes three provincial counties: Arthabaska, Nicolet and Lotbiniere. According to the new map, Quebec's representation would be reduced from 74 to 72 members and almost all of Megantic county would be added to the Lotbiniere riding. If we consider for a moment the number of provincial members in my riding, we find there are three at the present time, and according to the new map there will be four, each having two secretaries and an office.
We of the Federal Parliament serve the same population as these three members and we have neither an office nor a secretary in the constituency, and no telephone link with Parliament. This is absolutely ridiculous. Mr. Speaker, one could think we still live in Noah's era. Nobody seems to be interested in that problem.
By re-electing 15 Social Crediters, the Canadian population is teaching a lesson to my opponents. The former Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the hon. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) and many others have paid a visit to me and to the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) who thanked them for their visit by saying that they were a great help to him, leaving him free to go and help other Creditiste candidates.
In spite of the predictions, more Social Credit members were elected. The members of this House should realize that the Social Credit vote has increased and that it will continue to increase. Why? Because the Social Credit members, since 1962, have given a lesson to the other members. We may not have diplomas as the other members, but we are hard-working. In our constituencies, in our offices, we look after our people every week-end. We ask for their views, we send them circulars; they give us
January 16, 1973

their views and then we rise in the House to express them. Since 1962, the Social Credit members have joined ranks to form a team with the purpose of bringing the elected closer to the electors, of bringing the administrator closer to the administered and of seeing to it that democracy in our constituencies is really a living thing.
This is why, Mr. Speaker, we are so responsive that, as far as I am concerned, I intend to categorically oppose the adoption of this new electoral map by all parliamentary means at my disposal, as long as the government fails to understand the importance of giving members of all political parties the proper means to serve the population they represent. The people expect services from us and the government should give us the necessary tools to enable us to render these services. "Give us the tools and we will do the job" as our English power friends would say.
Mr. Speaker, this is an important point and, with regard to our parliamentary behaviour-at least mine-I would like to make clear to all my colleagues that, whatever the situation in the House, I am not here to topple the government, nor to protect it. I was elected in my constituency and my expenses were $2,500, made up of quarters given to my electoral fund by workers. I was democratically elected and I intend to act freely. I thank my leader for allowing me to speak freely according to my conscience.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that we have a minority government, because it shows that democracy is sound and that there is always room for a free member in the House, whether the government has a majority or not. This is the main thing.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to have enough time to complete my comments even if many ideas come to my mind.
The government says that it wishes to create employment and to control pollution. I would like to remind the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Dube) that he should try to be more active than his predecessor and realize that the St. Lawrence, one of the great inland seas in the world, is completely polluted. It is a real disaster.
The government should revise its position and study the possibility of improving the shores of the St. Lawrence between Montreal and Quebec at least so that this natural resource of our country may be developped and freed from pollution.
Several fishermen all along the river have lost their jobs. The waterfront land in the municipalities of my constituency is being eroded. The highway has become a public danger because of landslides. However the government says: This is not a priority; there is nothing we can do. Yet, it has before built some supporting walls and some ports. So even if it were only to help these municipalities I do not see why the government would not revise its policy in this regard. It would then kill two birds with one stone: while fighting pollution and improving the river banks and the beauty of certain historic sites, it would contribute to the creation of jobs and would enable municipalities to carry out public works which have become an urgent necessity.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you for your kindness and assure you of my co-operation in the future.
The Address-Mr. Epp


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, let me join other hon. members in congratulating you on your re-election as Speaker of this House. Your concern for and consideration of freshmen members was known to me long before I had the honour to take my seat as a member of the House of Commons.
It is a singular honour for me to represent the historic riding of Provencher. Provencher was created at the time Manitoba became a province in 1870. The first member to be elected for Provencher was Louis Riel. It goes without saying that our first representative made a lasting contribution to western Canada and, more specifically, to Manitoba. Still, it is my hope that my fate as the representative for Provencher will not in any way parallel that of Louis Riel.
Provencher is a riding which is not typical of western Canada. The Canadian shield skirts the riding in the east and the north. We are the possessors of timber resources and mineral resources in these areas. We have been blessed with farmlands right across the constituency and we are a major supplier of agricultural products. Tourism, also, is making itself felt as an economic factor, and especially in the eastern section of our riding tourism is becoming a big thing. Nevertheless, regardless of other factors-and we welcome diversification-agriculture remains the backbone of the rural constituency of Provencher and agriculture is my major concern.
While our geography might not be as typical of Prairie ridings as might be expected, Provencher is typical of western Canada in one respect, and that is in its multicultural mosaic. We count French-Canadians, Ukrainians, Indians, Anglo-Saxons and Mennonites as major groups comprising the total population of our area. Added to these groups, Mr. Speaker, are many other nationalities which have given us the contribution of their culture. The hallmark of these people has been co-operation with each other. While we hear so much today of various interest groups, I submit that in western Canada we have learned to live together. A person should not be judged by his national background or the background of his forefathers but, rather, by the contribution he is willing to make to our country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: We all have different backgrounds, but first we are Canadians. This is the country that gave our forefathers a new home. Hence, since taking my seat in this House, Mr. Speaker, I have been disturbed by the statements made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand). At a time when reason and understanding should prevail, they have taken it upon themselves, in an attempt to explain the losses they encountered at the polls on October 30, to suggest that these losses were due to an anti-French attitude held by many Canadians, specifically those of western Canada. As a western Canadian, I simply do not accept that criticism. Historically, it is not a correct statement that we have been anti-east or anti-French.

January 16, 1973
The Address-Mr. Epp
Since the time of the British conquest, the duality of Canada, with its French and English peoples, has dominated the political considerations of the day. At the time of confederation, agreements were reached that Canada would have two official languages. Federalism was adopted which allowed for the preservation of the cultures of the two peoples. Especially was this preservation sought by the citizens of Quebec and, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, by the citizens of Manitoba in 1869 and 1870. Added to this duality were the many nationalities who came to Canada, especially in the 1890s and the turn of the century, and again after the two world wars. Canada became a haven for them, a haven of religious and political freedom, a land of opportunity, a land where they could be equal and a land where they were not judged by their background or the accent with which they spoke the language of their new country. They were judged as human beings and people of worth. While we have had our differences in the past, these differences were not nearly as great as the bonds of friendship and the desire to live together as neighbours.
Since October 30, various political experts, self-styled, or otherwise have been saying that a great division exists between the English and the French in Canada. In Pro-vencher we have a larger number of French-Canadians. They want the rights that are theirs by law, they want the rights that are theirs by tradition; but they are not using these ambitions as divine means to achieve an illusory goal.
There are those who argue that areas outside of Quebec voted against what is referred to by some as French power. The same people say that French-Canadians voted solidly for the party in government because it was the only party which cared for Quebec. It is argued that our party, following historic tradition, received a negative vote from the people of Quebec. While some of these observations may be partially correct, Mr. Speaker, the effect of such divisive statements, comments made in this House and attitudes that have been expressed by some, will be to create further division. It is a division which says simply that confederation is no longer workable: it says that we cannot live together any longer. I categorically reject these prophets of doom, and this House cannot be a party to such matters.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I therefore submit, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister should not take it upon himself to create division. I see his statements as being an attempt at possible shortterm political gain. Rather, he should immediately make his legislation known to this parliament and to the people of Canada. What does he plan to do about inflation? What does he plan to do about unemployment? Especially, what is he willing to do for people who are on fixed incomes, old age pensioners and people who are seeing their savings depleted each year because of the inflationary trend?
The Speech from the Throne also indicated that this government, the Prime Minister in particular, have suddenly become painfully aware of the western presence. I would like to read into the record part of an editorial which appeared in the Winnipeg Tribune of Monday last:

The Prime Minister's program seems based on the assumption that the west was motivated by envy. We were upset at all the goodies that were going from Ottawa to central and eastern Canada, and we wanted our place at the jam pot. If he's not exactly giving us that, then at least he's spreading a little jam our way.
But there are other reasons why they might have turned against the Liberals. It may simply be that a lot of voters disliked the mystery men they elected in 1968-not only the Prime Minister but the many new backbenchers who came into office with him. It may have been their faces, their style or the cut of their clothes that turned the voters off. If that's the case, the people who think that way may well be angered that the men they voted against are clinging to power. The more the government uses its power to try to placate them, the angrier they may become.
Assuming the voter is a more rational beast, he may well have been upset not because his part of Canada was getting too little from Ottawa, but because the other parts were getting too much. Mr. Trudeau, after all, was the politician who promised Canada that there would be "no more of this free stuff". Those who believed him then are bound to be disgruntled now. Whether he can buy them off by passing out some of the "free stuff" to them as well remains to be seen.
I place special emphasis on the final paragraph:
In a moment of candour, Mr. Trudeau admitted not long ago that he has been unable to understand western Canadians. The election proved him right. The question now, despite the throne speech, is whether the prime minister now understands why he has been unable to understand the west.
Rural depopulation is an issue of great concern to us in western Canada. The economy of western Canada has always leaned very heavily on agriculture and on businesses which service this industry. The western farmer has consolidated; he has changed his methods and become more efficient. Thus, he has survived, not because of government programs but possibly, despite them. He has survived because of his own efficiency and his own enterprise.
Provencher is a good example of the new western agricultural community. We produce a major part of the poultry, beef and milk needed by the province. This is due to willingness on the part of our farmers to take risks and to expand, and it is a tribute to their enterprise that success has come their way.
One program that does not help preserve the family farm is the capital gains tax which was instituted by the government. While we in this House and people right across rural Canada decry depopulation of the rural areas, we virtually make it impossible for sons to buy the farms of their fathers. Many of these young men and women, especially in western Canada, want to continue farming; it is a way of life they want to preserve. Yet despite certain government programs they are having great difficulty doing so, due to high interest rates and difficulty in obtaining low-interest loans. And now we have this destructive capital gains tax which is forcing young farmers to give up their ambition to farm, and find jobs in our urban centres. If we are seriously concerned about rural depopulation, we should tackle the problem at its source.
The Department of Regional Economic Expansion was designed to establish new industries in economically depressed areas. This was going to be the great panacea for western Canada. We were going to be ushered into the
January 16, 1973

industrial age, we were going to create satellite industries in farm areas and have more jobs in rural Manitoba. The aim of this program was, of course, the creation of jobs.
While some success is being experienced in Provencher due to DREE programs, it has always been my contention that if grants are to be made available, small businesses in rural areas should be eligible for them. These people have invested their work in the community; these people have staked their lives on their communities. It is private initiative and personal enterprise that provides employment; the government cannot provide the employment that private enterprise provides. I submit, therefore, that rural depopulation can only be arrested in part by encouraging local business to expand. This type of expansion creates long-term employment rather than the band-aid approach that we are again receiving from members opposite.
I understand that DREE is committed to a policy whereby only two centres in Provencher are designated as growth centres. These areas will be eligible for grants. Yet there are many small communities in my riding which are growth centres because of the drive and the initiative of the people. I submit that it is hardly fair for me to go back to these areas and say to the people that I am sorry, but they are not eligible for grants because technocrats in Ottawa have made the decision that they will not grow.
The technocrats in government are saying that most rural areas are not going to survive or, if they do, they will survive without any government help. This policy is wrong and discredits the work and aspirations of the people working in rural areas. Instead, the government should give direct tax incentives to people investing in small rural businesses, in order to encourage growth. It is the responsibility of government to create an atmosphere of confidence in which individuals are willing to invest in these businesses. A decision made by DREE seems to have been that Provencher is similar to other prairie regions. For example, there is rail abandonment in some areas and some communities are finding it difficult to survive. I suggest there are communities in Provencher that are surviving and they should be eligible for DREE grants. They should be considered as growth centres and should be given the credit which is due.
Therefore, I do not accept the criticism, especially from hon. members to my far left, that only business interests will benefit from investment in small businesses. Today an insidious attitude prevails in the minds of many, that as soon as incentives are given to business, the ordinary citizen is being taken advantage of. These people say that surely more money could be spent on various make-work programs.
I submit that the free enterprise system is the only long-term employment creator-employment created on the basis of production and the ability to sell on markets subject to supply and demand. This is beneficial to all Canadians and all people in the work force. I would reiterate what we have been saying throughout the election campaign, that less money should be taken out of the private sector through various forms of taxation and put into the public purse but, rather, the reverse should take place. Let us leave more money in the hands of the private investor: he will invest it in Canada because of his personal drive.
25714-25*
The Address-Mr. Buchanan
In conclusion, it is with deep humility that I, as a member of the House, have the honour to be one of the first Mennonites to be elected to this House. Next year, in 1974, we will be celebrating the centennial of the first settlement created by Mennonites in Canada in the town of Steinbach, Manitoba. We are but one of the many ethnic groups beginning to plan similar celebrations.
I should like to thank the minister responsible for mul-ticulturalism for his comprehensive report to the House last night. Canada gave us the opportunity to practice our faith in the manner we believe to be right, and we are thankful for the contribution we have been able to make in return. Since 1967 we have been re-creating a fitting memorial to commemorate our past; a replica of a Menno-nite village, circa 1870s, is being built. One of Steinbach's first industries was a wind-driven grist mill. This mill attracted people from all over southeastern Manitoba. Today a replica of the first windmill stands on the same museum grounds.
On behalf of all the people of Provencher, I extend to members of this House and the constituents they represent a hearty welcome to come and visit us in 1974 when we particularly want to return thanks to God and our new country, Canada, for the freedoms and opportunities which were given to us.


Mr. Judd Buchanan (London West):: Mr. Speaker, like my colleagues, I should like to congratulate you. I share the feeling often expressed over the last few days, that you have earned our respect and affection for the manner in which you have carried out your duties as the first commoner. This is not only true of your performance when presiding in this chamber; it is also true of the discharge of the many other obligations which fall upon you as Speaker. I should like to extend my comments to include Your Honour's wife, who has proven herself an extremely gracious and charming person in the performance of your many duties.
We have developed the same high regard for Mr. Deputy Speaker and we are certain that he, too, will bring honour to that post. I should also like to compliment my two colleagues who moved and seconded the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, the hon. member for Lachine (Mr. Blaker) and the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais). I envy these two hon. gentlemen the facility they possess in each of our official languages. They were fortunate to be raised in an environment where from childhood they were exposed to both languages. It is far more difficult for active and busy individuals such as Members of Parliament and civil servants to acquire ability in a second language later in life.
I share completely the thoughts expressed by the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette), the leader of the Creditiste party, in believing that the only way we will truly make significant headway in the area of two languages is to make available to all young Canadians, second language education starting the moment they begin school. I strongly support the programs of the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) to provide assistance to provincial departments of education in developing this capacity for second language training in our school system throughout Canada.

The Address-Mr. Buchanan
Rather than commenting generally on the contents of the Speech from the Throne, I would prefer to limit my remarks to the proposals which dealt with the broad area of foreign economic involvement and, on the other side of the coin, measures dealing with the encouragement of Canadian business. There is no doubt about the concern of Canadians with the present level of foreign penetration of our economy and its implication for Canada's long-run prospects for national independence and economic growth. A report of our colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Gray), dealing with foreign direct investment in Canada, and the Ontario report of the interdepartmental task force on foreign investment, dealt at some length with the extent of this penetration.
Let me summarize. Throughout Canada, foreigners control 63 per cent of our manufacturing, 62 per cent of our mining, 99 per cent of our petroleum refining, 83 per cent of our oil and gas industry, 97 per cent of the automobile industry, 90 per cent of the rubber industry, 78 per cent of the chemical industry, 77 per cent of the electrical apparatus industry, 90 per cent of the computer industry and 92 per cent of the aircraft and aircraft parts industry. The penetration continues with approximately an additional 500 corporations being taken over in three years, 1969, 1970 and 1971. No other significant industrialized nation of the world has permitted such a high degree of foreign control in its economy.
The large industrial nations, such as West Germany, Japan, Great Britain and France have controls that make Canada's absence of such controls, by comparison, look absurd. So do middle nations such as Australia. Australia has recently undertaken even more strict controls than they have had in the past. Even developing nations such as Peru, Chile, Liberia and Guyana have strong regulations relating to foreign ownership. Of course, so do countries such as Switzerland, Norway, Sweden and Mexico.
We are unique in the world in permitting such a situation to develop. The rationale for permitting such a high degree of non-Canadian ownership has been that the new foreign capital has given strong stimulation to our economic growth and contributed to our high standard of living. One has difficulty squaring this belief with the fact that Canada's growth performance has been only average among OECD countries, according to the OECD's own analysis, in spite of the fact that Canada's net indebtedness increased by $23 billion between 1945 and 1969.
Another perplexing aspect of this situation is that the so-called new foreign capital is now virtually non-existent. We Canadians, to all intents and purposes, now completely finance the sale of our own economy. The Ontario report which I mentioned earlier points out that in Canada only 10 per cent of the funds absorbed by U.S.-owned affiliates in the period 1963 to 1968 came as new inflow from the U.S., whereas approximately 86 per cent was generated in Canada.
This trend of Canadians financing the takeover themselves increased in the period 1965 to 1969. During this period Canadian banks and our bond markets tripled the financing of foreign subsidiaries in Canada. It is obvious that our own Canadian-controlled financial institutions
January 16, 1973
have been using the savings of Canadians to underwrite the foreign takeover of our economy.
The Gray report underlines the fact that we have as much development capital as we need, if we would use it properly. This fact was underscored in a 1972 study by Shaw and Archibald of the University of Western Ontario business school which concluded that Canada had shifted over the past decade from being a net importer of capital to a balanced position, and more recently to the position of a net exporter of capital.
To re-emphasize, all studies and analyses indicate that Canada does generate enough savings to meet its own current capital requirements, if they were properly channelled. What is at fault is not the size of the pool of savings but, rather, the fact that our financial pipes are clogged. The funds are simply not getting into the hands, in adequate quantity, or our Canadian businesses and Canadian entrepreneurs.
Both the Gray report and the Ontario report deal with some of the other problems of foreign-controlled corporations. There is concern about the high concentration of basic decision-making in the economic sphere outside Canada. These decisions are made in the best interest, not of Canada but of the parent corporation's or parent country's interest. Obviously, these decisions may have a very direct influence on the number of jobs available in Canada and on the level of activity in our economy.
There is also concern about the concentration of the bulk of research and development activities in the parent companies. This results in substantial loss of jobs to Canada, particularly to the young science graduates of our universities. In addition, we often lose the benefits of the practical application of this research in manufacturing activity. Purchasing policies often tend to favour imports from affiliates rather than from competitive local sources of supply.
It is interesting to note that foreign-controlled firms in Canada import a larger percentage of their purchases of goods and services than do Canadian-controlled firms. Unfortunately, this trend seems to be increasing. This may have a cost advantage to the parent, but it certainly has an adverse impact on economic activities and employment in Canada. This also leads to the problem of concern about the manipulation of intracompany prices between parents and their subsidiaries, and of reducing profits of subsidiaries with the objective of moving the profit accumulation to the parent companies. This leaves considerable doubt as to whether the various levels of government in Canada are receiving their equitable share of taxes.
Mr. Speaker, so far in my comments I have tried to indicate the scope of the problem and why I believe we should be concerned. I suggest that in Canada in 1973 we have adequate amounts of our own capital without the need to import foreign equity capital. For these reasons, I was happy to note several proposals in the Speech from the Throne dealing with this very important subject.
The speech indicated that the government intends to enact measures to give aid to small businesses through new initiatives, to strengthen management and consulting services and to improve access to financial facilities. It

January 16, 1973

also proposed measures for the extension and improvement of the Industrial Development Bank. I look forward to seeing these measures.
As I mentioned earlier, there is strong evidence to support the belief that our capital generation is sufficient to permit us to attain our goals for economic growth. What is needed is the streamlining of our financial institutions so that we can properly channel our savings. If our financial institutions do not meet this challenge, I trust that the government will take whatever measures are necessary to make certain that they do. This is a vital cornerstone of our future economic growth. We are all too familiar with instances of Canadian businesses being sold out and the foreign buyer going to a Canadian bank for the funds to effect the purchase, bolstered by the credit rating of the foreign parent. This is the same bank which had previously denied these funds to potential Canadian purchasers.
The Speech from the Throne also proposed a review of research and development incentive programs to improve their effectiveness in permitting innovations in the private sector of the economy and the examination of patents, licensing and other policies related to technology.
One of the problems of a truncated economy like ours, as I mentioned earlier, is lack of a properly developed research capacity, with the resultant loss of jobs and growth. The Japanese have been significantly successful in exploiting licensing arrangements involving the use of foreign technology and know-how. These arrangements, I believe, would be more beneficial to Canada. As the Gray report suggested, they would permit greater Canadian influence over the industrial activity involved, while at the same time giving Canada the benefit of superior, foreign technological inputs. The licensee generally has much greater latitude in management, production, procurement, sales and pricing than subsidiaries.
The speech went on to promise measures to ensure further control by Canadians over their economy by the screening of foreign takeovers of Canadian-owned business, measures respecting the transfer of technology from abroad and access to it by Canadian entrepreneurs, measures to increase Canadian participation in the ownership and control of resource projects and, in consultation with the provinces, measures dealing with new direct foreign investment and the sale of land to foreigners. I am not certain whether this includes major new investments by existing foreign-controlled companies in Canada. I hope it does.
The speech also promises measures that will restructure the Canada Corporations Act, including a requirement that a majority of directors of federally-incorporated companies be Canadian. I have some doubt whether this is really significant, but it will do no harm and I believe that symbolically it is important. I am delighted to read of these proposed measures in the Speech from the Throne, and I look forward with great anticipation to seeing them become reality. I hope, and I am optimistic in this respect; that they will live up to our expectations.
There are many other ramifications in this broad area. The question of tax policy vis-a-vis Canadian firms, the subject of various forms of incentives to Canadian-con-
Adjoumment Debate
trolled firms and our financial institutions are ones I look forward to discussing during the budget debate. I would like to conclude by reading a quotation from the report of the interdepartmental task force on foreign investment, as follows:
-the question must be asked whether we do not delude ourselves by believing that we can retain one of the highest standards of living in the world by relying on imported technology, imported entrepreneurship, imported economic initiatives, imported trade marks, and imported patents and licences. Will we be able to compete in manufactured products without bringing genuinely Canadian products and processes into the world market, under Canadian patents and trade marks? These questions should cause us to give thoughtful consideration to the distinction between economic growth and economic development, and to increase Canada's direct responsibility for its own economic progress.


Mr. Morgan:: Mr. Speaker, may I call it ten o'clock?


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



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

Mr. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, as recorded in Hansard of January 11,1 had an opportunity to ask a question of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Dube) regarding damage done to property on the north shore of Lake Erie, caused by the high water levels in the Great Lakes. As recorded at page 174 of Hansard, I asked:
Mr. Speaker, in view of the high level of water in the Great Lakes, particularly Lake Erie, which has resulted in considerable damage to farm land, cottages and marinas, would the Minister of Public Works have his engineers advise the people in the area of Long Point on the north shore of Lake Erie how they may get temporary relief in the form of either advice or financial assistance?
I recognize that there was not time to develop the question that I had in mind during the question period, so tonight I am pleased to have the opportunity to expand on what I was trying to get across to the minister. I also appreciate the fact that he is here in the chamber to listen to my representations and that, hopefully, he will take note of them.
The problem is one dating back to historic times. Property owners on the shores of all the Great Lakes have always had to live with the fact of erosion, which in particular affects the sandy clay on the shores of Lake Erie. This erosion is caused to a greater or lesser degree by the rise and fall of the water levels of the Great Lakes. Normally, these people repair the damage that is done,

January 16, 1973
Adjournment Debate
but on occasion the erosion of farmlands on the north shore of Lake Erie has been drawn to the attention of the federal minister of public works and the provincial government. To date, no assistance has been forthcoming for the farmers.
The cause of the present situation is aggravated out of all proportion by the abnormally high levels of water in all the Great Lakes. In Lake Erie, the water level is 42 inches above normal and is 27 inches above average for this time of year. With severe wind storms, the raging fury of the waves has destroyed farmlands on a scale never before witnessed. The waves have destroyed cottages, marinas and have even damaged public docks and piers.
Let me deal more specifically with the magnitude and extent of the damage along the north shore of Lake Erie. This area extends through the length of my riding and through the ridings of Elgin, Kent-Essex and Lambton-Kent. Incidentally, the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. Holmes) has a number of questions on the order paper, directed to the Minister of Public Works, seeking assistance similar to that about which I am speaking. The hon. member for Huron (Mr. McKinley) has also witnessed and experienced the same type of damage along the shores of Lake Huron. Even the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) the hon. member for Essex-Windsor, knows about this situation.
In my riding, in the township of Houghton the damage has been as severe as that elsewhere. The island of Long Point, a sand spit which stretches out 25 miles, almost halfway across Lake Erie, has suffered severe damage. Places such as Port Ryerse, Port Dover, Nanticoke and Peacock Point have also suffered extensive damage. In the township of Houghton, a farm owned by Mr. John Balthes on the clay and sand bluffs, according to actual survey has lost 50 acres of high-producing farmland in 20 years. This land was worth $2,000 an acre, making a total loss of $100,000. It was good tobacco and orchard land.
The cottagers on Long Point have borne the brunt of the damage. The cottages there number 900, with an average value of $12,000, making a total value of $10,800,000. Marinas and highway construction in the area have also suffered damage. That means a considerable assessment on the local municipality. Some 50 of these cottages are in imminent danger. I have received letters from cottage owners outlining the plight in which they find themselves. The pier at Port Dover, which is the responsibility of the Department of Public Works, has also been damaged. I should point out Mr. Speaker, that the minister's engineers are on the spot, looking after the damage and repairing what they can at Port Dover harbour.
Dealing with solutions to this problem, I suggest that in the short term there should be some form of compensation to those people who have suffered maximum loss, perhaps on a cost-sharing basis with the province. This would cover a proportion of the disaster area at Long Point. I also suggest the erection of a breakwater at some of the more vulnerable spots. The province of Ontario is already dropping stone into Lake Erie to protect Highway 59. The government should also consider subsidizing the cottage owners to assist them in moving their cottages farther from the shores of the lake.

In the long run, Mr. Speaker, I think the level of the waters in the Great Lakes should come under the purview of the International Joint Commission. To that end I suggest that the minister should discuss this matter with the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp), and our members on the International Joint Commission should be directed to co-operate with the American corps of army engineers who have made a serious and detailed study of the cyclical water levels in the Great Lakes. At present there are sluice-gates on Lake Superior which let the water run out of that lake. There is some control available at that point. There is an outlet from Lake Michigan through the Chicago drainage canal, entering the Mississippi River, which might be used to regulate in a minor way the level of water of our lakes.
Above all, Mr. Speaker, I think the minister might help to bring this matter into proper perspective if he could state the facts of the case from an authoritative point of view. Many of these people are being subjected to wild rumours of what can and what cannot be done. The minister would be rendering a service not only to the people concerned but to the Canadian people as a whole if he could state exactly what the situation is and what can or what cannot be done.
With all the sincerity I have at my command, I ask the minister to seriously consider this very, very serious damage at Long Point and see if some help cannot be brought to these people.


Hon. lean-Eudes Dube (Minister oi Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. member for Norfolk-Haldimand (Mr. Knowles) perhaps it should be stated, first, that there is at present no act of parliament which specifically provides assistance for the type of problem he has raised, namely, the rising of the water level of Lake Erie.
Problems of this nature and the measures to be taken for their rectification are the responsibility of the concerned departments of the provincial government. However, in certain cases the federal government can act on a specific request from a province. A decision to so act would have to be a cabinet decision. If, after any request, a decision to act were made, it would be by way of a joint interdepartmental committee. Aid in such case would be of two kinds; the first would be physical aid which is generally provided by the Emergency Measures Organization, and the second, financial assistance, is generally administered by the Department of Finance.
If funds were provided, that would be done on the basis of a formula which is derived from the physical capacity of the given province to cope with the problem. This formula is based both on population and total cost. Where the cost exceeds $1 per person, the federal government may assume the cost of such things as certain public works which can be identified, for example schools, and also certain losses for private property which were not insurable.
My advice to the hon. member for Norfolk-Haldimand is that he contact the provincial authorities and have them, as they see fit, approach us for whatever assistance they seek. Of course, our own engineers of the Department of
January 16, 1973

Public Works are always pleased to give whatever technical advice they can to individual property owners.


TRANSPORT-INQUIRY AS TO ACTION TO PREVENT CLOSING OF RAILWAY STATIONS IN WESTERN CANADA
Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, on January 8 I raised a question with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) and was appalled to find that he did not have an answer, and even seemed to lack any knowledge of the subject. In the interests of the House, I wish to raise the question again tonight. Mine was a supplementary question and appears at page 41 of Hansard as follows:
Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport. Can the minister inform the House whether his department is looking into the possibility of postponing the 1975 date for rail line abandonment, in conjunction with the problem raised by the hon. member for Mackenzie?
Mr. Speaker, may I inform the Minister of Transport that in western Canada there are thousands of miles of rail lines for which in the 1960s both the publicly-owned and the privately-owned Canadian railways applied for abandonment. In 1965 a moratorium was placed on those applications to abandon rail lines and branch lines. That moratorium runs out on January 1, 1975, and the applications are still with the Canadian Transport Commission. That is a fundamental question faced by western producers in terms of transport. We do not need more statements.
The Speech from the Throne outlines the idea of a conference on western Canadian problems. We need a clear statement as to whether the government contemplates an alternative for those farmers who, if the lines are abandoned, will have to haul their commodities farther if they are to meet the demand of international markets for their goods.
May I point a few things out to the minister and to the new parliamentary secretary, whom I congratulate on his appointment. I am sure he will attempt to do a good job. May I point out some facts relating to my constituency, Assiniboia. The two railways have applied to abandon 650 miles of track. The abandonment can become effective after 1975 when the moratorium is lifted and the Canadian Transport Commission allows it.
During the past ten years, on average more than 22.5 million bushels of grain each year have been carried over these tracks. That amount of grain would have to be trucked. If that were to happen, about 11.7 million bushels of elevator capacity would be closed down. As elevators close, other farm services will disappear such as fertilizer and lumber supplies, and so on. Other farm services would be curtailed. You would see fewer stores, service stations, recreational facilities, and so on. Fewer amenities will be provided in small communities.
More than 5,100 farmers in Assiniboia alone would be forced to haul their grain over longer distances in larger trucks. Coupled with that would be extra wear and tear on the grid road and municipal road systems resulting from the use of larger trucks and higher taxes would result. On top of that, municipalities would lose between 50 and 60 per cent of their total tax revenue. Those losses would need to be made up by local residents.
Adjournment Debate
This is the major question which the west faces. Not one branch line ought to be abandoned until the national government outlines a national transport policy which will ensure that the kind of service provided by the railways, whether by the profit-oriented one or otherwise, is adequate for producers to get their commodities to market. That must be the essential ingredient in any new transportation policy and it ought not to be forgotten. You cannot abandon rail lines wholesale, as was suggested by the MacPherson royal commission that was appointed by a former Conservative government.
Whichever of the two old line parties sits to the right of Mr. Speaker, it ought to know that the kind of action I have mentioned is necessary on the Prairies. Do not give us another conference. By the way, such a conference could be of great benefit in outlining some of our problems. If we are to assuage the fears of small communities, 650 miles of branch line in Assiniboia, for example, must be protected. Until there is a clear decision as to services for producers, those producers must be protected so that they will not need to bear the extra cost of grain trucking over great distances.
On the one hand, federal local initiatives grants are pouring money into the small communities; they are trying to establish recreational facilities. Provincial governments apply those grants to the building of swimming pools, curling rinks, and so on. On the other hand, the national government countenances the policy of rail line abandonment, a policy which is killing small towns. This question needs to be considered. Surely we need not wait until the turn of the century or until the 1980s to get an answer. This question needs to be answered by the government in the next year and a half. I look forward to hearing the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) on this matter.


Mr. loseph-Philippe Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the minister has already indicated his interest in meeting with the provinces on the matter of freight rates and other problems, including rail line abandonment.


TRANSPORT-AIRPORT-VANCOUVER INTERNATIONALRUNWAY EXPANSION-REQUEST THAT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY BE PROVIDED TO EXPROPRIATION HEARINGS
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday morning I asked the following question of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand):
Has the minister prepared any environmental impact study relating to the effects of the proposed new runway at Vancouver International Airport and, if so, will it be filed with the hearing officer and the objectors in time for consideration at the expropriation hearings which commence next Wednesday, January 17, 1973, in Vancouver?
The minister's reply was curious, because he seemed to think that these things were always done. He said, as recorded at page 276 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, we are making an inquiry about expropriations, which has nothing to do with the environment.

January 16, 1973
Adjournment Debate
I find that an incredible statement for the Minister of Transport to make. When you move a major runway on a major international airport half as close again to a heavily populated residential area, I cannot see how anyone can say that is not a move which affects the environment of the people living there.
Strangely enough, shortly after my question the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds) asked a supplementary question of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis). The Minister , of the Environment said, as reported at page 276 of Hansard for January 15:
Our basic policy is that we should prepare environmental impact studies and that they should be made available to the general public.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta then asked the minister whether such studies had also been done with regard to the Pickering and St. Scholastique airports.
The reason this matter becomes important is that the expropriation hearing commences tomorrow. Under the new expropriation proceedings which were gazetted on October 7, there are 120 days to complete the process. Under the procedure, after the expropriation proceedings close the government then decides, as it properly should, whether the expropriation will be confirmed or abandoned. My point is very simple and straightforward. I would appreciate it very much, and I know that the objectors who will appear at this hearing would appreciate it also, if the minister would make available, as he is required to do under the statute, to the objectors and the hearing officer any and all environmental studies that apparently have been made. They should be made available in time for the objectors to study them for the hearing.
My second point is that if such studies have not been made-and that may be possible because the Minister of the Environment indicated today that although he was sure the studies had been made, he did not know where they were, or could not locate them-the minister or his parliamentary secretary should assure this House that the hearing will be adjourned until studies can be made and presented to the objectors before the hearing closes.
Lastly, if there was a study but it is not yet available, I ask that the hearing be adjourned until such time as the study is made available in sufficient time for the objectors to consider it and make their objections accordingly. I am not saying that there is necessarily an environmental danger as a result of moving this runway. I do not know. Until we see the effects of the study we will have no way of knowing. It is common sense that this study should be made available before the magic date of February 4, and you can count the days when the government has to confirm or abandon the expropriation proceedings.
I ask the minister or his parliamentary secretary to take immediate action on this question, to take steps to deliver the studies tomorrow, or adjourn the hearing if the studies have not been done, and have them done. This must be done before the time runs out.


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: There is no special study, as such, being carried out, but because of our noise standards we are aware of the implications of noise pollution. This is taken into account in the over-all study of airport development, and in this case in the construction of the new runway. Liaison has also been carried out with provincial and municipal authorities on other environmental matters related to the new runway. We do not plan to make any report to the expropriation hearing, but if questions are raised on these matters, answers will be given.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.19 p.m.

Wednesday, January 17, 1973