1973-01-05

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Peter Reilly (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege affecting all members of the House. Yesterday Your Honour admonished members of the House to co-operate with you by observing, among other things, the traditions of the House. Within minutes of that admonition, "flacks" from the Prime Minister's office were distributing in the press gallery copies of the Speech from the Throne fully four hours before the members of this House were to be apprised of its contents. Indeed, the contents of that speech were in print in at least one Ottawa newspaper fully one hour before the appointed time at which members of the House gathered in the other place to hear its contents.
I suggest to Your Honour that, far from reflecting a chastened or different attitude on the part of the government, this is evidence of the most palpable kind that the government continues to hold this House in contempt.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Peter Reilly: In the last parliament members had to walk at least 50 paces off the Hill before becoming nobodies. Now they can achieve nonentity by staying in their appointed places. I believe that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) owes the members of this House an explanation and an apology.


Mr. Speaker:: Of course, the hon. member has not proposed a motion and so the matter cannot be pursued further. According to tradition and custom, certainly the Prime Minister or a minister or a member of the House who is particularly involved in the proposed question of privilege is given the right to reply briefly. I believe that the right hon. Prime Minister is seeking the floor for this purpose. However, I have to repeat that since there is no motion before the House the matter cannot be discussed further.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, anything I say would be mainly by way of seeking guidance. I understand that this practice has been going on-


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Never.


An hon. Member:: It's the same old bunch.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -for at least 20 years, so we did not initiate anything new here. It has been the frequent policy of various succeeding governments to inform the press of
certain documents. I know it is done with the budget on a lock-up basis.


John George Diefenbaker: Not at all. That statement is false; that is not the practice.


Mr. Hees:: It is done on a lock-up basis only, and the Prime Minister knows it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I wish the hon. members would get together.


George Harris Hees: We are talking about the budget, and you know that.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The right hon. gentleman on a point of order.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, we do not have to get together because the statement made by the Prime Minister has no basis in truth whatsoever.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, in this new year I wish to move the first motion under Standing Order 43. The urgent and pressing necessity that impels me to make this application for unanimous consent relates to the situation in parts of northern Alberta and British Columbia where extraordinary weather conditions led to approximately one million acres of crop being under snow before the harvest was completed. If unanimous consent is given I would therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle):
That this House does not regard federal assistance to farmers of northern Alberta and British Columbia as adequate and urges the government to review its program and provide immediate cash acreage payments and rearrange mortgage payments and interest.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

The Late President Truman


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion cannot be proceeded with.


THE LATE HARRY S. TRUMAN TRIBUTES TO FORMER PRESIDENT OF UNITED STATES
Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the past few days have witnessed the death of three men whose public contributions have made them well known to Canadians. Yesterday this House paid tribute to the memory of two of them, the former Prime Minister Pearson and the Honourable George Drew. It is appropriate today, however, to mourn the passing of another important figure, the late President Harry S. Truman of the United States.
The years in which President Truman occupied his office were among the most turbulent and eventful in recent history. We are all in his debt for the calmness; decisiveness and spirit of generosity with which he approached problems of immense importance, and for the friendliness with which he regarded this country. Few heads of government have faced such momentous decisions as those that were required of President Truman during his tenure. Some of them will be debated by historians for many years. Others rank without question among the most enlightened acts of modern statesmen. In this latter category falls the inception of the Marshall Plan which brought such remarkable restoration to the war-stricken countries of western Europe.
As a measure of Canadian respect for President Truman, and to convey Canadian condolences to the Truman family, Senator Paul Martin is attending the memorial services which are in progress at this moment in the Washington National Cathedral in Washington, D.C.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to associate myself and the members of the Official Opposition with the tribute proposed by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to the memory of President Truman. President Truman had grave decisions to make. As the Prime Minister has said, historians may discuss the pros and cons of some of those decisions, but he certainly was a man who talked frankly and acted energetically and courageously for his country when he thought the situation warranted such words or deeds. He was most courageous. He rose from a relatively minor position in the life of his country to the highest office of that nation and achieved universal respect.
President Truman was a vital president and a friend of Canada and all Canadians. As president he was able to identify himself with what we might call the ordinary man of his own country. I think it is very fitting for us to honour the memory of President Truman on the same day that he is being honoured in a memorial service by the people of his native country.
I should like to take this opportunity to join with the Prime Minister in offering my sympathy to Mr. Truman's

family and to all our good friends and neighbours, the people of the United States.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I and my colleagues want to join in paying tribute to the late President Truman. There are some things for which his presidency was responsible that have shaken the world and its future and about which there will be great and serious argument in the future. I refer, of course, to the use of the atomic bomb to end the second world war. There are other things for which President Truman was responsible about which there is undoubtedly universal agreement and admiration, particularly the introduction of the Marshall Plan which did so much to rebuild a devastated Europe.
Therefore it is my pleasure on behalf of the New Democratic Party to extend sympathy to Mr. Truman's family and to the people of the United States, and to join with those who have already spoken in paying tribute to a man who started as practically an unknown and surprised the world with his capacity for decisiveness and leadership.


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and myself join with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to extend our sympathy to the family of the former President of the United States, Mr. Truman.
Mr. Truman was President of the United States during difficult years, yet he managed to lead that country to some unexpected heights not only in wartime, but also in peacetime.
We are therefore pleased to join with the other members to extend our heartfelt sympathy to the Truman family.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer, if I may, to a matter raised yesterday in respect of proposing the resolution having to do with hostilities in Viet Nam.
Hon. members will have noticed that on the notice paper today there is notice of a motion by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp). It is to be found on almost the last page of the Order of Business and Notices.
Under the rules of the House the motion cannot be proceeded with, without unanimous consent, in the absence of 48 hours' notice. It would not be my intention to interrupt the debate on the Speech From the Throne in order to deal with this matter.
However, it may be possible by consent of members to deal with this item of business now on motions without debate or to reach some other agreement by which we can deal with it briefly this afternoon following the speeches of the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. I have not been able, because of the number of meetings House leaders have had to attend this morning, to consolidate an agreement. So I raise the matter now in the hope that we may be able to find some
January 5, 1973

common ground upon which we can deal with this resolution quickly.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to have to interrupt the hon. member but the hon. member for Lotbiniere has a question of privilege.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the importance of the subject raised by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen), I should like to point out to him that the simultaneous interpretation system is not working, which complicates matters since we are unable to understand what is being said concerning this question of procedure.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, like the government House leader, I have been engaged for two hours in a number of discussions mainly dealing with the serious economic problems of the country. The government House leader was kind enough to telephone me and I received the message just before the House met. I have not had an opportunity to have the fullest and widest consultation that normally might take place. However, if a motion of this kind is to be of any value it must be disposed of in the same way as the House disposed of the motion dealing with the Amchitka matter. When the parliament of one country contemplates dealing with the affairs of another country, I think the degree to which there is unanimity and swiftness of passage of any motion has much to do with its effectiveness. If there is a disposition in the House at this time to accept the suggestion of the government House leader to bring this motion forward for disposition without debate as an indication of the views of the House, I personally think that is all right. As far as I know, it would, hopefully, be acceptable to all members of the House.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, we are anxious that this motion be dealt with by the House and we would like to see it dealt with today. We feel, however, it would be useful to have a brief statement by at least one spokesman from each party. We would be prepared to agree to such a limitation and we would even be prepared to agree to a special time limitation on their speeches, such as 10 or 15 minutes, but we feel the issue is so important that the motion should not be passed without anything at all being said. If we could agree now or before the Orders of the Day are reached, the House would know what the schedule is to be. At any rate, our suggestion is that some time during the morning there be consultation among the House leaders in the hope that we can deal with this matter this afternoon on the basis of one speaker for each party.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I shall go along with the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that there should be a meeting of the House parliamentary leaders in order that this priority subject may be debated today with only a limited delay.
Oral Questions


Gerald William Baldwin: As I understand it, the position of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is that there should be a discussion among the House leaders. He has imposed some additional conditions in respect of speeches, but his suggestion is that the House leaders might discuss this matter and see what, if anything, might come out of this meeting of men of wisdom.


Mr. Speaker:: Obviously we cannot arrive at a conclusion without further consultation. It appears to be the consensus of the House that there should be consultation between the House leaders, following which a decision might be taken by the House concerning how and when this matter might be considered.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, it was my impression and I expected that, as in recent years, the government would present a list of proposed bills along with the Speech from the Throne. Will the Prime Minister inform the House whether it is the government's intention to present such a list of proposed bills for the session and, if so, when we may expect to receive such a list?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I believe that this practice was initiated by our government four years ago. It is not more ancient than that. We did it at the time because the throne speech itself was couched in slightly different terms than the present one.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: That is the understatement of the week. You did not write it with such a trembling hand in those days.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: So I think the reasons are obvious.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In the absence of such a list and any over-all statement with regard to the legislative priorities of the government in this session, will the Prime Minister indicate to the House the first four or five legislative items in terms of the government's legislative timetable and priorities and also indicate whether he can now give us the date when we may expect to receive a budget?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It will be our intention to indicate, through the House leader, as many bills as are necessary in the coming week to permit the House to see the busiriess ahead of it.


George Harris Hees: Be specific.

January 5, 1973
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As to the second part of the question, we expect that the Minister of Finance will be announcing the date of the budget-


George Harris Hees: In due course.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -in due course.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: Same old gang. No change.


INCOME TAX
Robert Lorne Stanfield: In
view of the answers given by the Prime Minister to previous questions and in view of the confusion that exists in the country with regard to what the government proposes to recommend, if it is in a position to make a recommendation, with regard to the 3 per cent increase in personal income tax that became effective on the first day of this year, will the Prime Minister now clarify this matter and tell the House definitely that the government is prepared to recommend to the House that the 3 per cent increase that has gone into effect will be eliminated?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think that this is obviously a statement which will be made in the context of a budget, and we have said in the Speech from the Throne that the budget will be brought in at a much earlier date than usual.


INCREASE EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 1973-INSTRUCTION TO EMPLOYERS NOT TO DEDUCT FROM EMPLOYEES' PAY
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I follow up the last question asked by the Leader of the Opposition and ask the Minister of Finance whether he and the Minister of National Revenue discussed and was the Department of National Revenue instructed to inform employers across the country that the 3 per cent cut which was to end at the end of last year was to continue in the deductions which employers make from the pay of employees?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we did, and of course the Minister of National revenue had to make some administrative decisions quite apart from whatever policy may or may not be decided by the government later on.


David Lewis: In view of the fact-and I really bristle at the minister's answer-that this cannot be an administrative decision and in view of the fact that, so far as the law is concerned, the 3 per cent cut was to end on December 31, 1972, will the minister tell the House-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition could tell his yahoo friends to be quiet for a minute.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: You are getting mad, Dave.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Finance on what authority he and the Minister of National Revenue decided to make this change in the law, particularly by the end of last year, unless it is his intention to change that law as soon as possible this year in this session?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I cannot accept the preamble to the hon. member's question. When it comes to the matter of the administrative responsibility for collection of taxes, that lies within the jurisdiction of my colleague, the Minister of National Revenue. If the hon. member wants to pursue the administrative aspects of that a little more closely, perhaps he might direct the question to my colleague.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Finance a related question. Was the Economic Council of Canada given a reference by him, by the Governor in Council, or by the Prime Minister to make a study of unemployment and, if so, can he inform the House what progress has been made?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member will recognize that that is not a supplementary question. He himself said he was asking a related question. He can ask a supplementary question, but it seems to me that we have now gone quite far away from the first question asked by the Leader of the Opposition. In fact, I have some doubts whether the hon. gentleman's second or third question was supplementary to the first one. I suggest that we might continue the first round of questioning, and return to this important issue after we have heard the first question from the representative of the other party to my extreme right.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I said I was sure all hon. members would want to co-operate with you. I cannot do other than that myself.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Is his department now negotiating with the government of the province of Quebec concerning reopening of the CIP plant in the town of Temiscaming? If so, what is the nature of these negotiations?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, initial negotiations with my counterpart in the province of Quebec were held this morning. I anticipate that there will be meetings with him
January 5, 1973

Oral Questions


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
[Stage Direction]
early next week, and in the interim I am undertaking a detailed study of the proposals in question to see whether or not anything can be done about this particular industry.

John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in view of the most unusual nature of the resolution in connection with the bombing of North Viet Nam that the government has in mind to introduce, and in which this parliament will be asked to criticize our great neighbours to the south, would the government table this morning the notes, if any, that have been sent either to the President or the State Department of the United States so that we may have some appreciation of what the government has done in this connection?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as the right hon. gentleman has said, we have made representations to the United States at all levels on this question. Of course, it is not customary in exchanges of this kind between governments to publish such communications except with the consent of the other government. This is not what we contemplate doing in any event, but we will be quite happy to inform the House, perhaps during today's debate or otherwise, of the nature of the representations we have made.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, it is no more unusual than the unusual course being suggested, which in my opinion represents the first time that this nation has chosen to criticize another nation in a resolution of parliament.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has not been here long enough to be dry behind the ears. If the minister, during the course of the discussion later, is prepared to give a summary of the exchanges, why can he not do it now?


Mr. Speaker:: Is there a supplementary?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have asked that question, and there should be no pussyfooting about it either.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be more appropriate to give the answers during the debate on the resolution.


John George Diefenbaker: A pussyfooting statement was made.


COST FOR 1972-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT AND EARLY INVESTIGATION BY STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration responsible for unemployment insurance. Has he had an opportunity to delve into the actual cost of this scheme in view of the fact that the figures bandied about have reached some $2 billion? This matter must be clarified. Can he let the nation know just what the scheme cost Canadian taxpayers and the private sector last year? Can the minister make that statement right now?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the final benefit payments made to claimants in 1972 as of the end of December amounted to $1,879 million. The portion chargeable to the employer-employee account is estimated at $1,000,100,000 and the administrative cost to be charged to the employer-employee account is estimated at $120 million. These figures are very close to those I released about a month ago.


Gerald William Baldwin: How about the maladministration costs?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I am pleased that the minister did not say that it is only a drop in the bucket. I should like now to ask the minister when he will be in a position to give the House a definitive statement on why the government was so wrong in its initial statement regarding the cost of the scheme?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure whether the suggestion of the hon. member is that the minister should make a statement now but if he is to make a statement it should be done on motions.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I hope the minister has taken that as notice and I trust he will make a statement in the near future. In view of the importance of this matter, would the minister consult with the government House leader and see that the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration is struck immediately in order that this whole matter may be probed in an effort to find answers to the problems and in order that the Canadian people may be aware of the mess we are in right now?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Trinity on a supplementary question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NUMBER RECEIVING BENEFITS IN DECEMBER, 1972, IN RELATION TO NUMBER OF UNEMPLOYED
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, it is a related question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It is also supplementary as I am sure you will agree, Mr. Speaker, after you have heard it. Can the minister give the House an indication of the number of

January 5, 1973
Oral Questions
people who actually drew unemployment insurance benefits last month and can he tell the House whether that number exceeded the total number of unemployed in the country as was the case in the first five months of the year?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members know that they cannot ask questions that require the giving of statistics. I allowed the first question because it was perhaps general. It is always difficult to judge, until the question is asked, whether statistical information is required from a minister. Perhaps the question might be allowed and if the minister will reply we will then go on to the next supplementary question.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the hon. member's question and your remarks I would prefer and would ask to be given an opportunity to obtain precise figures which I will be very pleased to give the House at the earliest opportunity. I do not have the exact figures for that month available right now.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: At the same time would the minister give an explanation to the House of how it is possible for more people in fact to be drawing unemployment insurance than Statistics Canada lists as being unemployed?


TIME OF INTRODUCTION OF AMENDMENTS TO ACT
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Could I ask the Minister of Labour to tell the House precisely when he will be introducing proposals to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, on those amendments-


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I chose the wrong minister. The shuffling of that deck of jokers makes it difficult to remember. May I ask that question of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, if he is the appropriate minister?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, without accepting the premise of the hon. member's comment about jokers or decks, I hope to offer to tne House the views of the government on amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act in the very near future, and I think that will be a subject for immediate discussion with the House leader with regard to timing and procedures.


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


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Fundy-Royal rises on a question of privilege.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Mr. Speaker, may I say through you how unusual and pleasant it is to have the ministers grace us with their presence today. I hope it is a resolution that will beynaintained.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PROVISION OF ASSISTANCE TO CLAIMANTS AT LOCAL LEVEL
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of nation-wide concern, can the minister inform the House what steps are being taken to provide the type of assistance on the local level to UIC claimants that used to be available and which is sadly lacking at the present time?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to describe the measures that have been taken but I think the reply would exceed the time limit for an answer to a question. However, I believe that early in this session we will have an opportunity to examine all aspects of unemployment insurance including those questions already raised about the cost of the scheme and measures taken to improve the services as well to eliminate abuses.


MEASURES TO ELIMINATE DELAY IN PAYMENT OF BENEFITS
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
Since the minister has just announced that he will as soon as possible introduce amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act, could he state whether, meanwhile, steps will be taken to improve the administration of the act so as to avoid undue delays and unjustifiable errors which now occur?


Robert Knight Andras: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am satisfied that there is an increasing improvement in the administration of the commission's activities although unquestionably it leaves a lot to be desired yet.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


REQUEST FOR MORE LOCAL OFFICES TO EXPEDITE PAYMENT OF CLAIMS
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Will the minister open more local UIC offices in order to speed up payment of legitimate claims and to at least stop the drain on the fund?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, without accepting the premise of the question I might say that we are opening additional offices and providing facilities in manpower offices to deal with unemployment insurance matters. We have many more arrangements that I will be glad to detail to the House.


William Heward Grafftey: Is the minister aware of the cruel hardships that current delays are imposing on many Canadians? They are going on welfare.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
January 5, 1973


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the pre-new year jump in beef prices to the consumer, rising as high as 11 per cent in British Columbia, what is the earliest date at which the government can set up its announced Senate-Commons committee to inquire into food prices?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that this is a matter on which the House leaders will want to consult and I am sure they will look upon it as a matter of urgency with regard to the legislative program.


Winona Grace MacInnis: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In view of the government's oft-repeated claim that it wants more communication with the Canadian public, what is the reason for keeping secret the possible date of the setting up of this committee?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, this is a decision for the House, not for the government, and I hope that the House will make such a decision at an early date.


Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, I have supplementary question. I really cannot believe that this House, in the critical situation that we have-


Some hon. Members:: Order, please!
Mr. Lawrence* -can the minister-


Some hon. Members:: Order, please!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Can the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member kindly resume his seat?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member resume his seat? The hon. member may ask a question but he should not argue.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister tell the House what action the government has taken since the election, what action it is taking today and what action it is going to take tomorrow other than this dillydallying manoeuvre of a parliamentary inquiry-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Yor kton-Mel ville.


An hon. Member:: You have no respect for parliament.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member rises on a point of order.
Oral Questions


Allan Frederick Lawrence: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, there was a reference earlier to yahoos and I did not hear the minister's reply.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair did not allow the minister to reply because the hon. member, I suggest, did not ask a question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I believe the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville has a supplementary.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, may I rephrase the question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has recognized the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville. I will return to the hon. member in a moment.


FOOD PRICES-SCOPE OF TERMS OF REFERENCE OF JOINT COMMITTEE
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the government's expressed intention to set up a joint committee to study the prices of food in this country, can the minister say whether or not the government will be giving that committee terms of reference that will require it to recommend action as well as study the increase in the prices of food?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position yet to outline the terms of reference that will be in the proposed motion. I hope they will be wide enough to permit the committee to do a useful job for the parliament of this country and the population as a whole.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister say whether there will be any interim action or any immediate action before the committee is established?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the government is continuously keeping these matters under review and I am sure will be prepared to take appropriate action.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: My
question is still a supplementary one, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister, or the Minister of Finance, or perhaps even the Prime Minister, indicate whether the government's position has changed since the Minister of Finance, during the election, announced that the government could do nothing with respect to price escalation in this country?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Surely one of the three can answer.


FOOD PRICES-SUGGESTED TIME LIMIT ON DELIBERATIONS OF JOINT COMMITTEE
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister tell the House

January 5, 1973
Oral Questions
whether he will be agreeable to putting a time limit on how long the joint committee may sit, such as two or three weeks, even though they have to sit all day so that we can get some action?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I think that is a decision for the House.


TAXATION
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister responsible for housing and urban affairs, or maybe the question ought to be answered by the Minister of Finance, whether, as it is stated in the Speech from the Throne that one of the problems of the government is that of supplying low cost housing, it is the government's intention to repeal the 11 per cent sales tax which is keeping houses at such high prices that few people can afford to buy them?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, that is properly a budgetary question and is within the purview of my colleague the Minister of Finance.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, may I address my question to the Minister of Finance. He has heard the question in reference to the 11 per cent sales tax. I am sure he is aware that the provision of low cost housing is referred to in the Speech from the Throne. Has there been a discussion about this tax, will it be considered and will it be repealed?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, there was no implication in the Speech from the Throne relating to the 11 per cent sales tax.


HOUSING
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Is the minister aware of the problems facing the purchasers of homes in the Whitson Gardens subdivision in Chelmsford, Ontario? Is the minister prepared to take steps to ensure that those homeowners in the subdivision who are not directly affected will be guaranteed by CMHC that the houses foreclosed by the Toronto-Domin-ion Bank will be used so as to maintain the former value of houses in the subdivision?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the problem and have asked for a full report from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. I have instructed the corporation to co-oper-
(Mr. Nesbitt.]
ate fully in the investigation being carried on by the Department of Consumer Affairs of the government of Ontario. When I have all these reports I will take note of the hon. member's representation to assure that people, in so far as it is within the power of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to do so, are not adversely affected.


John R. Rodriguez: Will the minister consider discussing with the Ontario Housing Corporation the best possible use of the houses foreclosed by the Toronto-Dominion Bank so that the former value of the other houses in the subdivision may be maintained?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to do so.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State.
Is he aware of representations made by friends of Mr. Gaetan Barrette, an announcer employed by the CBC, who is now encountering some difficulties in Europe? If so, would the minister state what he proposes to do concerning this case?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of these representations but I will look into them and bring back a report.


Gerald William Baldwin: In due course, of course.


INCOME TAX
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address my question to the Minister of National Revenue. In view of the very difficult, complex and comprehensive new income tax forms that must be filled out by Canadian taxpayers, is the minister giving consideration to extending the time by which those returns must be completed and returned?


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, from the experience .with preliminary forms which have already been filed by many people leaving the country or on behalf of estates-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: There will be many more people filing who will be coming into the country.


An hon. Member:: Illegally.



January 5, 1973


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: There appears to be no unusual difficulty in completing these forms and there has been no representation on any wide-scale basis for an extension of time. Perhaps hon. members will want to stimulate it, but I do not think it will be necessary. We will certainly keep our minds open-


Gerald William Baldwin: That will be a change.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: -so that citizens will have every opportunity to take advantage of the excellent benefits that are available under the new income tax law.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



AGRICULTURE


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. I think he knows the nature of the question. In light of the extraordinarily heavy incidence of damage sustained by thousands of farmers in northern British Columbia and Alberta as a result of unique weather conditions, is the government giving consideration to providing assistance over and above to what has already been announced in the form of cash acreage payments and protection against foreclosure in order to assist the farmers? I know the minister has been there and is aware of the very grave situation that exists.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Speech, speech!


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, after I say what we have done or intend to do, perhaps the applause will not be all that great.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eugene Whelan: We have made the announcement that we are going to assist farmers in the transportation of the forage and feed that they need for their cattle. We will assist both British Columbia and Alberta with respect to those frozen out areas with vegetable crops, those areas which have suffered from drought, hail, rain and snow, with 50 per cent based on the grant that the provinces are going to give. We are going to give the farmers 50 per cent also. We announced this yesterday, Mr. Speaker.


Gerald William Baldwin: I saw the announcement. That is why I asked the question.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I read the announcement the minister made. May I ask whether the amount of payment referred to in the statement has been decided upon after agreement with the two provinces, British Columbia and Alberta? Second, since it appears that the acreage payment is contingent upon those provinces
Oral Questions
making a payment, if they decide not to make an acreage payment will no payment be made?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I am being presumptuous but, as a result of the proposal that was made by both the Minister of Agriculture of British Columbia and the Minister of Agriculture of Alberta, I feel quite sure that they are going to make payments. Our payments will be made according to the claim forms submitted by those people in those provinces to the provincial Minister of Agriculture in each province. We will work from that- how do you say it-


An hon. Member:: Hypothesis.


Eugene Whelan: -that claim basis.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Am I to take from the statement of the minister that he had not reached agreement with those provinces as to the amount of acreage payment to be made prior to making this announcement? Has he any agreement? Does he not know what they are going to do?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I am pretty sure I know what they are going to do. They are going to make acreage payments, I think up to $4 per acre, and we have agreed to make payments up to $400 or 50 per cent of the payments that the provinces are going to make.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker-


Alfred Pullen Gleave: A supplementary question.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If there are to be further supplementaries, I will first recognize the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar and then go to the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I return to the question I would like the minister to answer. Does he or does he not have an agreement with those two provinces as to the amount of the acreage payments that are going to be made?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we had proposals from them that were submitted to us for our consideration. We worked from the proposals that were made to us by each province.



CROP DAMAGE IN NORTHERN ALBERTA AND BRITISH


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabaska):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Is the minister contemplating any action to forestall foreclosures in respect of Farm Credit Corporation loans and things of that nature?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, my understanding, and I am quite sure it is right, is

January 5, 1973
Oral Questions
that we have stopped all foreclosures on any farm credit loans in that area that are behind in payment.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Prime Minister. I wish to ask him whether he is now prepared-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: Quiet, please.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: Is he now prepared to give a rendition of the theme song of this new parliament entitled "Those nobodies are somebodies now"?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Sing it.


George Harris Hees: I will sing it with him.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



MONTREAL OLYMPIC GAMES, 1976-CIRCUMSTANCE OF SALE OF TELEVISION RIGHTS TO AMERICAN BROADCASTING COMPANY

Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to destroy the harmony, but I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare whose transition from the black to the green chamber I congratulate and welcome. Has the minister investigated the reasons for and the circumstances of the sale of United States television rights for the 1976 Montreal Olympic Games to the American Broadcasting Company whereas a seemingly better proposal from Bobby Orr Enterprises was not even considered?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker, as this is not a matter under my administrative responsibilities.



TRANSPORT


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Is it the intention of the minister to place an immediate freeze on freight rates until such time as the regional conferences on freight rates, proposed in the Speech from the Throne, can take place?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member will have to tell me under what authority or law I can do that.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister and the member know that that question cannot be asked. Perhaps the hon. member has a supplementary.


James Aloysius McGrath: Can the minister give an undertaking to the House that he will take this up with his colleagues in cabinet in order to have an order in council placing an immediate freeze on freight rates because of the devastating effect that freight rates are having on the cost of living in Canada?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think this is a very important problem.


James Aloysius McGrath: Then why don't you do something about it?


Jean Marchand: We are following very closely what is being done. We hope the railways will understand-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean Marchand: They have the authority to increase their freight rates. I hope they will not.



INCOME TAX


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the indication that the bills left over from his old budget relating to income tax, corporation income tax and so on will be reintroduced, is it the intention of the minister that the House consider these bills immediately or that they should be considered at the time he presents his new budget in 1973?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have every intention of bringing in an early budget, subject to looking for House time in consultation with the Prime Minister and the House leader and after obtaining the views of the provinces at the meeting with the provincial Ministers of Finance on January 18 and 19. Subject to those qualifications, I hope to have an opportunity to bring in an early budget for the consideration of the House. At that time we are committed to reintroducing the substance of the budget bills that followed my budget of May 8. The form and timing of the reintroduction of the substance of those bills will be discussed by me with the House leader. In view of the fact that I anticipate an early budget, I think it may make sense to combine all the bills after consultation with the House leader.
January 5, 1973



INDUSTRY


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the new Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that after the existence for seven years of the auto pact Canadian consumers are still paying an average of about $300 more per car than they should be paying, can the minister report to the House on the success of his talks with General Motors and the Ford Corporation concerning their unjustified price increases for the 1973 models?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry. Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I will be very pleased to do that. The first point that has to be emphasized is the government's commitment to the whole question of narrowing that price differential. There are two aspects of the pricing that should be understood. They are important.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Alastair William Gillespie: If you want an answer to the question, you will have to give me time to reply. There are two aspects, those that are associated with safety and emission controls and those that are associated with economics. I think the second point is the one that is important to the House. The United States has a price commission. The United States price commission-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the minister for interrupting. I have to take into account the nature of the question asked by the hon. member, which was very general in nature. I assume it would be somewhat difficult for the minister to answer that question without making a statement on motions. I hope the minister can reply briefly because we will be running short of time very soon. The minister might indicate whether he proposes to give the information on motions on some other occasion.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I think I can give a quick answer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alastair William Gillespie: In my speech during the debate on the Speech from the Throne I can elaborate on this. The point is that the United States okayed an increase with respect to costs of safety and emission controls for the United States. This was followed by the United States companies' subsidiaries in Canada announcing an increase. The second application for a price increase in the United States is with respect to economics. This has been made to the United States Price Commission. Three per cent has been requested.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the minister's short reply.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I have a supplementary question. I see that the spirit of the Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin remains in the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


John Edward Broadbent: In view of the minister's failure to get any concessions from the companies, can he inform the House whether the cabinet discussion on the removal of the duty between Canada and the United States for importing cars has led to a final rejection of that proposal as one means of bringing down prices or is the government still considering that as one means?


Alastair William Gillespie: On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, we did get a commitment. That is the point I was making. The two Canadian companies, General Motors and Ford, have given me a commitment that there will not be any increase with respect to economics regardless of how much that increase may be in the United States. That is a firm commitment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The minister has misinformed the House. My question concerns the announced increases which have already taken place. They have not gone back on that. My understanding is they told the minister they were going to maintain the prices they announced some weeks ago.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is hardly a point of order. It is a point of debate between the minister and the hon. member. As I said, we are running short of time and we should try to get in a few brief questions and brief replies. I recognize the hon. member for South Shore.



GAS AND OIL RESERVES OFF EAST COAST-INQUIRY AS TO AGREEMENT WITH ATLANTIC PREMIERS ON DIVISION OF REVENUES

Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether I should direct my question to the Prime Minister or to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources but possibly one or the other might reply. In view of increased evidence that reserves of gas and oil off the east coast are larger than originally anticipated, has the federal government reached any formal agreement with the premiers of Atlantic Canada concerning an equitable division of royalties between the provinces and the federal government?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: The House will recall that in August of last year a committee of officials was established by the federal government and the four Atlantic provinces and Quebec to explore this and related complex questions. The committee has met several times but the final report has not yet been completed. We anticipate there will be further meetings for that purpose.

Oral Questions



CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

[Stage Direction]
January 5, 1973

Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the new Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. I trust he will show his usual energetic enthusiasm in this field during the short period of time he will be here. May I ask the hon. gentleman whether it is the intention of the Cape Breton Development Corporation to enter into agreements to render assistance, both financial and otherwise, to municipalities on Cape Breton Island similar to the assistance provided in other parts of the country through DREE? Here, I refer to that overworked word "infrastructure".


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I would have to ask the president of Devco where he has any plans in that connection. I will be glad to do so and convey the information to the hon. member.


Robert Muir: In view of the fact the president of the Cape Breton Development Corporation has already stated that he has no part in this, and in view of the fact the former minister responsible for Devco stated that the legislation is indeed flexible enough to encompass anything DREE might do, would the minister give serious attention to this question?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have already indicated we are examining the various implications of the DREE program but if this is one which commends itself to the hon. member, to the area and to myself, perhaps we could work something out.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Would the minister mind answering the note I sent over to him at the beginning of the question period?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Could I see you as soon as possible? Of course. Any time you wish.


Donald MacInnis: Is the hon. gentleman not aware that ministers are not allowed to ask questions of backbenchers?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gerald William Baldwin: Would the government House leader mind my asking at this time what is to be the course of business next week?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am happy to advise the House that we shall continue with the debate on the address.


Mr. Bell:: May I address a supplementary question to the Prime Minister in the interest of getting things done? May we be assured that the roster system has now been finally

scrapped? If not, we want our copy so we may know when the ministers are going to be here.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of the speech delivered by His Excellency the Governor General at the opening of the session.
Mr. J. J. Blais (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, I have been told that I did not have to speak too loud this morning because the interpretation facilities are available. However, I would like to say that I am a young Canadian, at least I think I am, and I have asked myself more than once what led the kind people of Nipissing to send me here to sit in on the proceedings of the House. I am indebted to the right hon. Prime Minister who has confirmed theii choice by asking me to move the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. Such an honour reflects first of all on my constituency and I wish to thank him most sincerely.
I wish also, Mr. Speaker, to congratulate you on your reelection which was a foregone conclusion due to the expertise you have shown in the past and also due to the confidence which your impartiality and good judgement have initiated. I am sure that all Canadians join with me to congratulate you because they have been made aware of your qualifications during discussions in the national media in connection with the appointment of a permanent Speaker.
I would also like to congratulate the new ministers who have no doubt been chosen for a most difficult task. In fact, it will involve not only the administration of government measures initiated by the twenty-eighth parliament but also the adoption of the bills which will be introduced during this session.
Yesterday's Speech from the Throne includes an enormous amount of legislation to be passed and I think the ministers will have to realize the scope of their responsibilities.

I would also pray, Mr. Speaker, that when presenting the Address to His Excellency you convey my personal feelings of affection and loyalty, and, I am sure, those of Canadian citizens wherever they may be. I would also ask Your Honour to convey to him my thanks, even at this belated date, for having so graciously, in the summer of 1965, received my wife, Maureen Ahearn as she then was, in New Delhi, while he was Canadian High Commissioner to India. She assures me that this occasion remains among her most cherished memories.
Canada is indeed blessed in having as head of state, not merely a typical Canadian but, indeed, an ideal Canadian. In an age in which human imperfection is constantly brought to our attention by the retelling in the press of stories in which intolerance, jealousy, hatred, violence and man's inhumanity to man are the principle actors, the
January 5, 1973

Governor General, because of his office, because of his strength of character and of limb, has been divested by the Canadian people of all these human imperfections; he has been idealized as a Canadian par excellence. As an institution, the Governor General, as was stated by His Excellency in his inaugural address, has come to represent the Canadian people as a whole and now symbolizes for Canadians the stability and the continuity of their national life and institutions. In a House divided, as this House finds itself, we must be constantly aware of the importance of these institutions. We must remind ourselves that we are here not to achieve power and to exercise it wisely, but to assure the stability and the continuity of Canadian national life and Canadian institutions. We must preserve them, cherish and ensure them. Mr. Speaker, I wish you to convey to His Excellency the fact that each member of this House recognizes his obligation to the body politic of which His Excellency is the head.

May we ask you, Mr. Speaker, to convey our sympathy to His Excellency on the passing away of a friend and one of his most distinguished Prime Ministers. Lester Bowles Pearson will be remembered as the father of the new Canadian era. The praise bestowed upon him both by the national and international communities will not change what is recorded. He was the man of his time. His experience of international conciliation and his awareness of the viability of the Canadian entity, as well as his acknowledgment of the principle of unity in diversity, have impelled a strong and tolerant Canada and a country which is sure of its future.
Also, I am positive that when he was my own age he certainly did not intend becoming the leader or head of a minority government.
In his book entitled The Prime Ministers of Canada Bruce Hutchison had this to say about Mr. Pearson:
He had no plan for his life but his professors noticed that whatever he undertook was pushed to a conclusion, and perhaps a few of them detected here the makings of a philosophy. Not to plan ahead but to accept every task as it appeared and to do it as well as possible; not to shine in competition but never to fail if he could possibly succeed; not to violate his moral code but not to quarrel with anyone either if he could help it. Such were the instincts of the boy and the methods of the man.

He took office at a time when Canada, in its entity, was becoming aware of its identity. It was a period of intense analysis, when history, the cultural background and the inheritance made our country unique in the world. Everybody was looking for a precedent; nobody found it. This has been the source of often heated debates on the viability of Canada. He himself took part in these debates. And then, finally, we witnessed the birth of a Canadian awareness which resulted in the adoption of the flag which is the symbol of unity, and in the celebration of a centennial which has been unequalled so far.
We are therefore assured of Canada's fate, Mr. Speaker. Through his good-fellowship, his good humour, the flexi-
The Address-Mr. Blais
bility of his dispositions and the firmness of his principles Mr. Pearson has assured us our second century.

Those are the qualities which, if practiced in this House, will make this parliament a memorable, indeed a fruitful, one. I cannot be deemed to be optimistic if I reflect upon the longevity of the twenty-ninth parliament. Just judging from the questions asked this morning, if the same number need to be answered from day to day we are bound to be here eternally.
October 30, 1972 provided us with a full House, jokers included. This House has received 264 men and women who represent all parts of Canada. There is no need to hedge since we have received a legislative program through the Speech from the Throne which indeed is massive in content. There is meat in that particular document for constructive deliberation of the type in which the people of Nipissing elected me to participate when, through their ballot, they indicated that I should attend this particular assembly. They instructed me to come here to participate in the debate and in the passage of legislation. I am sure that no member of this House was directed by his or her constituents to come to the House to squelch debate. If one were to hold such a statement to be true one would be going directly against the type of parliamentary debate which I have been led to believe honours this House and which is at the basis of the existence of this House. Some members have indicated that they were going to defeat Her Majesty's loyal government immediately upon coming to the House, even before they saw the throne speech or received any information as to what it contained. Surely, to adopt such an attitude is to defeat the purpose of this honourable institution.
I have spoken of my constituents and I now wish to speak of my constituency. My constituency is named Nipissing, and if that offers some difficulty, then for tfie enlightenment of the members of the House I should like to spell it out for them. It has one "n", an "i", one "p", another "i", two "s's", a third "i" and an "ng". It is a riding that is 240 miles northwest of here and is the southernmost riding of what we refer to as "glorious northern Ontario".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Jacques Blais: The word "Nipissing" is neither French nor English but was coined by the Indians long before Europeans of whatever background came to these shores. It was in 1615 that Samuel de Champlain, known to all, visited my riding, and lo and behold he made notes along his particular vein. If I may, Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to the words of Samuel de Champlain as they have been related to me at this late date. As I have said, this was in 1615, on July 25, so it was not yesterday.

Pursuing our way by land and leaving the said Algonquin river-

The Address-Mr. Blais

That is "the Ottawa river" for those who are not too familiar with this historical background.

-we crossed several lakes, the savages carrying their canoes, until we entered the lake of the NipisierinjtEnglish]
The first time it was used as a written word. [Translation]
-at a latitude of forty-six degrees and a fourth. And on the twenty-sixth day of the said month, after travelling both over land and through the lakes twenty-five leagues, or therebouts, we reached the huts of the savages, where we stayed with them two days. They received us very well and were in a goodly number; they are people who till the earth very little.

I should like to make a little comment on that. Perhaps that was the best way of dealing with government in those days. Certainly, we would not need a minister of agriculture and would be able to save ourselves a great deal of trouble, I suspect.

The said people were seven to eight hundred in number, who ordinarily live on the lake, where there is a great number of very pleasant islands. The north side of the said lake is very attractive, with fine meadows for the grazing of cattle and several small rivers flowing into the lake.
They did their fishing in a lake abounding in a variety of fish, among which one is excellent, having a length of one foot-

I take it he is referring to the very popular northern Ontario pickerel which abound in Lake Nipissing.

The lake is some eight leagues in width-

That is approximately 24 miles.

-and twenty-five in length-

He was overshooting by about 10 miles; it is not 75 but only 65 miles long.

-and into it flows a river coming from the north west-

That is the Sturgeon River.

-which they take to barter the goods which we give them in exchange for pelts, and that with the inhabitants who make a living out of hunting and fishing in a country abundantly stocked with wildlife, birds as well as fish.
This is what he said.
I should like to indicate that he was well received when he returned, but we do not have any record of what he said then. I would advise you all to do as Champlain did,

as shown by history, and visit Nipissing, each and every one of you individually, not all at the same time.
The period from 1881 to 1891 was a period of railway construction. Another thing that never ceases to amaze me about the ignorance that is manifested concerning my riding, is the lack of knowledge that Nipissing was the jumping off place for the transcontinental railroad. It was in Nipissing that the great ribbon that tied British Columbia to the rest of the country was commenced. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that there was debate as to whether the railroad should go through a portion of the United States to gain access to the great northwest or whether it should take a northerly route. The hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Jerome) and the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), along with everybody in northern Ontario, are very thankful for this decision to follow the northerly route, otherwise we might not even exist there.
At any rate, as the railroad proceeded, it touched North Bay which is now a city of 50,000 people. It proceeded west through the western regions of my riding and in its path it created many small, charming villages including Cache Bay, which is on the lake, Verner, which straddles the Veuve River, one of the lake's tributaries, and the village of Warren. It also created the town of Sturgeon Falls, that town closest to my heart. I mention this town because I am sure that name has not been mentioned too often in the debates in this assembly. The town of Sturgeon Falls is the town in which I was born, and also the town which saw the birth of my parents. It is a lively town on the banks of the Sturgeon River. It was at one time one of the major posts of the Hudson's Bay Company in that particular area, and I speak now of the early 1800's.
Throughout the history of Canada, Nipissing has been a point of reference. At the time of that faux pas, which in the history books is referred to commonly as the battle of the Plains of Abraham, all of that area including the southern reaches of Lake Nipissing was ceded to England. The rest was kept by France.
The next reference to Nipissing in the history books occurs after the revolutionary war, when the Americans decided they wanted to establish the boundaries of the United States at the southern limit of my riding. The British commissioner of that time agreed, indicating the depth of his interest in York. However, the British Parliament refused to ratify that agreement. I often wonder whether that was not an error on their part, because if that agreement had been ratified we might have been rid of that pesky York area which has now reached Torontonian proportions. We would, of course, have lost something in tourist revenues as a result of the absorption of Niagara Falls by the United States, although the advantages might have greatly outweighed the disadvantages. Perhaps we would now have more attention paid to us, as North Bay might then have become the major port of entry into Canada. Of course, we would not have the problem of redistribution we are now facing.
As an aside, if I might speak to redistribution at this time, the commissioners have indicated that northern Ontario will lose two seats and Ontario will gain five because, as we speak of it, Ontario is everything south of North Bay. I suggest that this is something of a paradox.

At a time when we are speaking of a country vhich wishes to evolve and gain more importance thiough increased population and occupation of territory, instead of giving that particular region, which needs attention, greater representation, we are reversing the trend ancj taking away representation. We do not need fewer northerners in this House, we need more. Perhaps I have taken too long to bring to this House the true meaning 0f Nipissing.

If I have taken so much time to show everyone that the Nipissing area is, historically, an integral part of Canada essential in fact to its life, it is because I firmly believe that if we want it to continue to grow as an autonomous country, we must develop our northern areas. The scenery in the North is spectacular and I refer not only to Northern Ontario, but to Northern Canada.
We must change our attitude towards those areas. It is not good enough to introduce merely a few measures meant to please those hon. members who clap on their desks. We must change the whole attitude of the country. I do not merely refer to a vision of the North-such is not my purpose-but rather, we must realize that this is an emergent area fit to live in and in need of incentives. This is the reason why I have devoted so much time to describe my dearly beloved country.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to refer to the past servants of this House who came from Nipissing. Hon. members will remember Jack Garland, who died in 1964 and who was at that time the Minister of National Revenue. His death necessitated the by-election which saw the admission into this House of Carl Legault who retired last year. Both gentlemen devoted their entire time to the service of their constituents and their adequate representation in this House. I am sure this House will bear witness to their presence and the competence they manifested.

On the occasion of my maiden speech and heartened by the experience of my predecessors, I would like to undertake, Mr. Speaker, to always endorse pieces of legislation which will seem to me most likely to promote justice, social welfare, prosperity and peace, for every citizen and the country itself.
Therefore, with this purpose in mind-

It is in that spirit that I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lachine (Mr. Blaker), that an Address be presented to His Excellency the Governor General of Canada, the text of which is as follows:
To His Excellency the Right Hon. Roland Michener, Chancellor and Commander of the Order of Military Merit upon whom has been conferred the Canadian Forces' Decoration, Governor General and Commander-in-Chief of Canada.
May it please Your Excellency:
We, Her Majesty's most loyal and dutiful subjects, the House of Commons of Canada, in parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Excellency for the gracious speech which Your Excellency has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.
The Address-Mr. Blaker


Mr. Rod Blaker (Lachine):: Mr. Speaker, may I join my colleague the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais) in paying respect to the family of Mr. Pearson.

He and many others both from Canada and abroad have, over the past few days, expressed their sympathies to the family of Mike Pearson, and their admiration for the life of the former Prime Minister of Canada. I would add only a single personal thought-that Mike Pearson was probably the personification of Canada as we know it-gentle, humourous, patient and tough. He left us a legacy of pride in him, of commitment to public service, and of concern not only for his fellow citizens but for all the peoples of the world.

It has been a custom of those who move and second the Speech from the Throne to, with the patience of this House, say a few words with respect to their ridings. I should like to observe that custom only briefly, and largely because it relates to another matter which has a great deal of importance for Canada at large. Each member of this House carries with him, of course, a certain pride in the history and geography, the people and the cultures he represents. It is a singular pleasure to represent the riding of Lachine for a number of reasons.

Historically, this House will recognize in Lachine the origins of our nation; the headquarters of the Hudson Bay Trading Company; the canal itself; the days of the voya-geurs, when seven and eight hundred of those incredibly tough and adverturesome men headed out by canoe in the spring, for the waterways of Canada, to return months later laden with furs which were the original basis of the colony's economy.
The famous adverturer and explorer LaSalle was granted the seigniory in 1666, and rumour has it that some of his men, with a view to teasing him a bit about his determination to find the route to China, established the name of the seigniory as Lachine.

Members of this House who may be sticklers about translation may therefore choose to refer to the member for Lachine as a member of parliament for China. Four years later in 1670 the Sulpicians built a fort some distance away, the Fort de la Presentation. The area is now the modern city of Dorval and its airport. The present-day area of Pointe Claire began its existence in the late 17th century. Canada has been good to these three cities; today Lachine is said to be the most highly industrialized city on earth. Dorval and Pointe Claire combine with Lachine to form a remarkable trio of cities, containing 700 corporations doing extensive business as well as residential areas of calm and beauty. I have described this riding as a prelude to a subject which should never have become an issue in this past election, but which did in fact become an issue and I believe to the regret of many people.

In Lachine we are a bilingual community. Side by side and interspersed with one another, in combination with
COMMOiJS DEBATES
January 5, 1973
The Address-Mr. Blaker
other ethnic groups which form the mosaic of Canada, tte two official languages of Canada meet and intertwine.

It will not have escaped the notice of members of this House that the hon. member for Nipissing, who has just moved the acceptance of the throne speech, is a Francophone from Ontario. He is, therefore, a member of a minority language group in his own province. I, too, am a member of a minority in the province of my residence, the Province of Quebec. However, together we agree that our nation is built of two founding language groups; that each linguistic group must be able to deal with the federal government in the language of its choice. In view of the results of the past election, I should like to go even further.

My colleagues and I from the Province of Quebec have not come to this House of Commons to preside over or take part in any discussion as to the right of either language group to address itself to and to communicate with its federal government in the language of his choice. It is not a matter to be discussed. It is a matter of right.
It is not a privilege to be accorded by one government or another, it is an absolute moral and legal right on the part of French Canadians, just as it is on the part of English Canadians, to make use of their language when communicating with this government.

There are those who claim that the bilingualization of the public service has gone too far too fast. May I say with great respect to the members of this House that it has proceeded not too quickly, but altogether too slowly. None the less, the government in its wisdom has seen fit to stress, again because of the confusion,-and I sometimes wonder if the confusion has not been deliberately cultivated and exploited by those opposed to bilingualization- that the process of bilingualization of the Public Service of Canada is limited in scope and absolutely protective of the rights of all members of the public service.
In due course a number of positions-a relatively small number, some 25,000 out of a total of 300,000 public service positions-will be designated as being of a bilingual character. Approximately half of those 25,000 positions are occupied by people who are bilingual. Those holding such positions will have the option of learning a second language or of transferring laterally into positions of equal pay and status and equal opportunity for advancement.
I take this matter to be of the utmost seriousness. Many of us had thought that the great debate on Canadian unity was over; that the issue was at least settled in the sense that Canadians from one coast to another, had accepted the fact that we are a bilingual bicultural nation. It is quite apparent that the subject is not settled, that in the minds of some people there are grounds for further discussion and delay.

My colleagues and I from the Province of Quebec do not come to ask this privilege of the government of Canada; we are not here to debate this principle; we shall not

debate it. It is an absolute right without which there is no meaning to the word Canada as we know it now.

Bilingualism in the federal government is the primary requisite to the unity of Canada. If there are those in our nation who believe that accessibility to government service in both languages is too much of a problem, then permit me as a Quebec Anglophone to assure those of you who feel that way that you shall soon be presiding over the redrawing of the map of Canada.
The people of Canada recently, through the last election, made a statement. That statement has been interpreted in many ways, more often to suit the needs of the interpreters than to suit the needs and the message of the people. A government today is faced with the obligation of assisting those who need assistance, and giving the widest latitude to those who, not hindered by ill health or economic disaster, can handle their own problems and wish to do so. The programs of this government over the past four years have in many cases been designed to assist those in need. Canadians, I think, are sufficiently charitable and solicitous of their neighbour that they would encourage parliament to provide every opportunity for less fortunate Canadians to overcome obstacles not of their own creation.
The abuse of any program of public assistance must be stopped without delay, lest those without conscience misuse the generosity of the nation. Steps have been taken already to cure such abuse, not by denying our less fortunate citizens the right to our assistance but by ensuring that the few-and there are a very few-cannot abuse the generosity of the Canadian people.
Canadians have also underlined another right, namely the right of every individual to succeed; the right to expect the maximum possible benefits from his work, whether intellectual or physical; the right to assume that agressiveness in the market place is and remains in Canada a talent to be rewarded by success and material comfort. The problem of government is to assure a sense of moral justice that we, as Canadians, help our less fortunate neighbours in every way possible while at the same time assuring the entrepeneur and the employee that their efforts and ingenuity will result in increasing material comfort.
[ Translation]
To assist those who have a moral claim upon all of us, the Speech from the Throne proposes a modified guaranteed annual income to assist the unemployed, the aged, the blind, and the disabled.

It is of particular gratification, I think, to every member of this House that the elderly, the people who worked to put this country together so that the younger generation might enjoy it and its benefits, shall be further recognized and compensated for their lives of contribution to Canada.
January 5, 1973



Recognizing that there are regional disparities, it is proposed that various provinces shall have the right to impose variations within the social programs set forth, to better assist those in need in their respective areas of jurisdiction. In matters of urban affairs, those who-and they are the majority of Canadians-pass their lives in cities and metropolitan areas are recognized as having special problems.

With land assembly programs and rehabilitation of older neighbourhoods, we should be able to assure Canada that its cities will not be desecrated as have so many others throughout the rest of the world by unplanned expansion. With co-operation between the federal government and the provinces in matters economic, the recommendations of the Economic Council, proposals in the fields of health and education, the foreign ownership of land, together with a suggested western Canada conference on the economic future of the area as well as an extensive set of programs to assist business and the Canadian private entrepreneur, there is every reason to expect that Canadians will enjoy an economy which leaves no man downtrodden by ill luck or disadvantage occurring through no fault of his own and, at the same time, an economy which encourages the businessman, both extensive and small, to develop his business and to show a profit for his ingenuity and capacity.

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to have been given this opportunity to second the motion of the hon. member for Nipissing. May I thank the Prime Minister and his cabinet, as well as yourself, for your courteous patience with a freshman Member of Parliament.

I take pleasure in seconding the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne.
On motion of Mr. Stanfield the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, may I turn now to the question of the resolution standing in the name of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp). Our consultations have resulted in an agreement that would permit the House to deal with this resolution at 2 p.m. and that the debate be confined to one spokesman per party with a time limit of 15 minutes. We could then complete that debate at the end of an hour and dispose of the question. I should like to suggest that this agreement be put in the form of a House order and that we resume at two o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Viet Nam War


Mr. Speaker:: It is agreed and so ordered. Is it the wish of the House that I call it one o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair.

The House will resume at 2 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mitchell William Sharp: That this House
1.	Has noted with grave concern the continuation of hostilities in North and South Viet Nam as well as in Cambodia and Laos, and deplores the recent large-scale bombing in the Hanoi-Haiphong area;
2.	Is aware of the possibility that Canada will be called upon to play some new supervisory role following cessation of hostilities in Viet Nam;
3.	Welcomes the resumption of the negotiations for a cessation of hostilities in Viet Nam;
4.	Welcomes the cessation of the bombing of the Hanoi-Haiphong area;
5.	Requests all the parties involved in the conflict to refrain from acts of a warlike nature that could jeopardize the success of the present negotiations;
6.	Requests the government of the United States to refrain from a resumption .of the aerial bombardment of the Hanoi-Haiphong area;
7.	Requests the Government to convey the text of this resolution to the participants in the Paris negotiations on Viet Nam.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian people, this House and the government have for many years now been distressed by the continuation of hostilities in Indo-China and by the suffering tnat events tnere have wrought upon all those concerned. As I said on December 17 last, when the negotiations between the United States and North Viet Nam appeared to have broken down, the Canadian government deeply regretted that the negotiations had not yet reached a successful conclusion. We welcome the fact that those negotiations have resumed this week.
In the interval, however, we were shaken by the large scale bombing in the Hanoi-Haiphong area. We found it very difficult to understand the reasons for that bombing or the purpose which it was intended to serve. We deplore that action and we have communicated our view of it to the United States authorities.
When at the end of December the United States government decided to stop the bombing in the Hanoi-Haiphong area, we welcomed that. We said so to the government of the United States and we expressed our hope, as friends and neighbours, that the bombing would not resume. That bombing, terrible as it is, is only part of a larger situation

Viet Nam War
which deeply troubles the Canadian people and which equally concerns the government. There continues to be a high level of hostility and violence on both sides in Viet Nam, and we deplore that as well.
We have not lost sight of North Viet Nam's continued military intervention in the affairs of Cambodia, Laos and South Viet Nam, and in particular the abhorrent disregard for innocent human life displayed in the almost routine attacks against the civilian populations of those countries.
It is, I think, more than a pious hope to say that the issues which have led to a generation of conflict in Viet Nam, and indeed in all of Indo-China, should not be resolved by violence; they should be resolved by negotiations. To all those who believe that, it is distressing to observe the violence which continues while negotiations take place and to contemplate the possibility that the continuation of such violence could endanger the progress of negotiations. Since 1965 when the bombing of North Viet Nam began, Canadian governments have consistently taken the view that resort to force in this form was counter productive in the Viet Nam context.
Canada has a special interest in this matter, and not only because we are close neighbours of the United States. We have been involved in the past 18 years in the thankless task of supervising an earlier settlement and of trying, without success, to make that supervision effective. Beyond that we have been given clear indications of the possibility of our being asked to accept a further role.
It has been indicated to us that Canada would be acceptable to all the parties as one of the members of a new international body which it is expected the present negotiations will create when, and if, they are successful. Canada has not yet been formally invited to participate in this new international presence; indeed, I anticipate that no such invitation will be addressed to any of the potential members until an agreement is concluded. We have, however, been asked to consider the possibility and we have done so most carefully.
Canada would, of course, wish to play a constructive role in assisting a peaceful political settlement if the parties wished it to do so, if that role were within Canada's capabilities and resources and if it held the promise of success. The government has long wished to see military violence end in Viet Nam and to see its friend and neighbour, the United States, disengage itself from that military conflict.
If the parties to that conflict invite Canada to play a role in which we could effectively contribute to a cessation of hostilities there and which would help the United States to end its military involvement in Viet Nam, we would of course consider the invitation sympathetically and constructively. There is no question, however, of Canada, as a part of a new commission, attempting to maintain peace through the use of arms. The implementation of the ceasefire would be the responsibility of the belligerents, and the role being contemplated for a new international commission would be to observe and report on the implementation of those parts of the ceasefire agreement which the commission is asked to supervise.

In considering the invitation to participate in a new commission, however, we would have an obligation to the people of Canada, to this House and to those Canadians who would be asked to go to Viet Nam to implement our role there which, I should emphasize once again, would not be a military role but would involve only observation and reporting, to ensure that Canada's contribution could be a real and effective one and to ensure that Canada's attempt to contribute to peace not be reduced once again to impotence as it has been in the supervisory arrangements in Indo-China that emerged from the 1954 and 1962 Geneva Conferences.
Having our past experience very much in mind, in our discussions with the American authorities and in communications with the other parties to the Paris negotiations, as well as in public statements, the government has developed a number of conditions and criteria on which it would base its judgment on whether Canada should participate in a new international commission for Viet Nam. The first condition, and indeed the ultimate one, is that the provisions for the operation of the new organization, when taken as a whole, should be workable and offer real prospects of being effective.
Moving from the general to the particular, we have also stipulated that all the present belligerent parties, the United States, the Republic of Viet Nam, North Viet Nam and the Viet Cong, should be bound by the agreement the implementation of which the new commission would observe and report upon. In this same category we have required that there would be a "continuing political authority" which would assume responsibility for the settlement as a whole and to which the commission or any of its members would have access through reports or consultations. We would prefer it if such an authority could be provided for in the original agreements, but failing that we consider that it could be established by the international conference which, as we understand it, will be convened 30 days after the ceasefire.
We also have insisted that the proposed new commission should have the freedom of movement and observation within the demilitarized zone and in South Viet Nam necessary to achieve a proper exercise of its functions. Moreover, we have required that Canada should be invited to be a member of the new commission by all of the parties concerned.
In addition to these specific and essential considerations we have, from our broad experience in Viet Nam, put forward a number of other suggestions and requests. The extent to which they were met would also constitute elements in our assessment of the viability of the operation as a whole. As an additional condition we have stated that if all the essential criteria I have already mentioned were satisfied except that which relates to the existence of a "continuing political authority", we would be prepared to consider serving on the commission for a minimum of 60 days during which we would assess the outcome of the international conference with particular reference to the establishment of a "continuing political authority". If no such authority was created or if, once created, it ceased to exist, Canada would have to reserve the right to withdraw at any time, even after the initial two-month period. In
January 5, 1973

any event, the government would not accept a commitment beyond two years, although some other formula for opting out on shorter notice might be acceptable.
We have also said that we assumed that the necessary logistic support for the new commission would be available from the outset to make its operation substantive and effective or even possible. The government has also urged that unrealistic demands should not be placed upon the npw commission in the initial stages particularly, and that no unrealistic expectations should be vested in it. For example, the commission should not be expected to begin functioning in any part of Viet Nam before a ceasefire has been established locally by the belligerents themselves.
In respect of the international conference, it has been our view that it should be free to establish its own relationship with the commission or indeed with other provisions of the agreement or its protocols. The government has also taken the view that participants in the new commission should pay the salary and allowances for their own personnel but should not otherwise be expected to contribute to the general overhead and expenses of the organization. This was an idea originally put forward, that the members of the commission should also pay part of the infrastructure. We took the strongest exception to it.
Should Canada decide to participate, it would signify its acceptance by a formal unilateral communication to the parties. At the same time, the government would also communicate any reservations it may have in respect of the documents embodying the settlement or in respect of the commission or Canada's participation in it.
When all the texts are available, the government will examine them in the light of these criteria, conditions and viewpoints and make its own determination on the viability of the operation and on the existence of a suitable role for Canada. The government is conscious of the fact that there are several possible forms of response open to it between a simple refusal to take part at all to a full and unconditional involvement. The government's assessment of the relevant texts will also take into account the importance of contributing to a scaling-down of hostilities in Viet Nam and to the disengagement of American forces and the return of their prisoners of war. It is conceivable that the result of this examination might suggest a participation limited to certain aspects of the agreement or a participation for a limited period of time rather than an outright refusal or an unqualified undertaking to serve. If so, the parties concerned will be so advised, and if they found this acceptable Canada could take part on a limited basis.
Also drawing on our experience, we are conscious of the dangers of allowing ourselves to be frustrated as a member of the new international organization through the possible application of a rule of unanimity. One way in which this risk could be minimized would be by regarding the new body not as a diplomatic conference held under the normal rules of confidentiality but as an international forum where the proceedings are normally open to the public. Consequently, we would not regard the new commission's proceedings as confidential or privileged in any way unless there was in any particular instance a unanimous decision of all the members to the contrary. We 25714-31
Viet Nam War
would, instead, consider ourselves free to publicize the proceedings in any way we saw fit to ensure that our view of events and, if necessary, the difference between our view and that of others were publicly available.
In putting forward our conditions it was, of course, not our desire or intention to raise unnecessary difficulties or to seek any special position for ourselves. The fact is that Canada is in an excellent position to judge, from its own experience, what is necessary to a successful operation in international supervision, whether or not we become members of the proposed commission. Some of Canada's experience has been positive. Some of it, notably in Viet Nam, Laos and Cambodia where for 18 years we have tried to make international supervision work, has been profoundly disappointing. From that disappointment we have learned a good deal, and it is the light of what we have learned there that we have arrived at the position I have just described which we believe essential to the success of the operation in which we may be invited to participate.
Because of the possibility that we will be invited to accept a new supervisory role in Viet Nam and because of our long involvement in the Viet Nam problem, Canada, apart from the fact that it shares the interest of the whole world in the settlement of the Viet Nam war, has a particular interest in current developments there and in the negotiations which we all hope will bring an end to the conflict. This House embodies that interest, and I think it would be fitting that the House make known its view of the situation. For that reason we have proposed the motion which appears on the order paper. It is in terms which I believe deserve the support of all sides of the House. I conclude by saying, Mr. Speaker, that it is directed to all the parties in the Viet Nam conflict.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, you can well imagine that it is not without genuine emotion that, as the representative of the people of Saint-Hyacinthe, I rise for the first time in this House, in the company of such distinguished colleagues and facing colleagues no less distinguished. Mr. Speaker, that emotion is all the greater because of the profound importance of the resolution we are concerned with, in regard to which I have the honour to speak on behalf of the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and of all members of our caucus.
I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I should have much preferred, and I know my colleagues would have much preferred, that our first speech in this House should deal immediately with urgent problems, the economic problems that are besetting the people of Canada because we are most anxious to deal as soon as possible with unemployment, cost of living, old age pensions. We were elected to alleviate the anxiety of the Canadian people. Mentioning this anxiety may make our friends across the room laugh, but it certainly does not make the people laugh.
Mr. Speaker, despite our national problems, we are not indifferent to what is taking place elsewhere. We have no right to be. We identify with all our fellow humans, those who are suffering and we must remember that. Therefore,

January 5, 1973
Viet Nam War
on behalf of the Leader of the Official Opposition, on behalf of all my colleagues, I am anxious to support the resolution before us. We are aware of the importance of the war in Viet Nam, in Indochina. Human and ecological damages inflicted by air raids are terrifying. To date, there have been over six million casualties of all kinds: killed, wounded, refugees or homeless. This number is said to include at least, some four and haif million civilians.
Studies have established that from 1968 to 1972 more tons of bombs have been dropped over Viet Nam than during the Second World War and the Korean War together, four million tons of bombs or the equivalent, it is said, of an atom bomb every five days. Immense areas have been sprinkled with bombs, rockets and mines, tto such an extent that their capacity to sustain a population is jeopardized. So the economic and social structures have disintegrated in a great many villages.
With such facts and many others there is reason to worry and to publicly intervene on behalf of the whole population. Fundamentally, the Viet Nam war is raising a moral issue for all men. How can we as human beings go peacefully to sleep every night with a clear conscience while so many of our brothers have to suffer the pangs of war? How can we be proud of ourselves if we fail to attempt to put an end to this holocaust probably the greatest in the world history?
There can be no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that Canada would gain little from a position adopted by this parliament that tended in a disproportionate way to side with one or the other sides of the conflict. My party is concurring in the motion because we want to side with humanity.
While there may be those in this House who relish any opportunity to attack our neighbours to the south-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Claude Wagner: -that is not a pastime in which we should indulge, and it is not a pastime that is either productive or necessary.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Claude Wagner: One thing, Mr. Speaker, must be clear. There is never a good side in war for the civilians affected by the conflict. Some wars may be necessary, some may even be just; but for the innocent civilian, war means inhuman suffering and pain. It means incalculable loss.
With regard to Viet Nam I prefer to avoid making distinctions between the North Vietnamese civilians suffering under heavy bombings and the South Vietnamese civilians being victimized by terrorism of the worst order. Vietnamese on both sides of the demilitarized zone have suffered for too long. Their crops have gone unharvested; children have gone without education: indeed, their education has been that of war and suffering for too long. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we concur in the motion. We concur because we believe that both sides have the
capacity to bring about a just peace and, indeed, a lasting one.
We happen to believe that as friends of the United States we have a duty to make our humanitarian concerns known and understood as clearly as possible. No friendship, even between two countries, can thrive if one of the partners in that friendship is anything less than honest about those things that are important to its people.
We believe, as well, as a nation that began under the stewardship of my colleagues, the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees) and the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton), the type of trade partnership with members of the communist bloc from which both sides have benefited, that we can articulate to the communist bloc our desire that it bring its full weight to bear so that the suffering in Indo-China can come to an end.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that all Canadians desire the suffering in Indo-China to halt. I believe it is in Canada's national and quite selfish interest for long drawn-out wars anywhere in the world to be ended quickly and with no more bloodshed. It is in that frame of mind, and with the desire to have parliament move on to the pressing and important domestic problems that threaten the quality of life of Canadians from coast to coast, that I express my party's support for this motion.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, having in mind the solidarity of our oppressed fellow human beings and a true humanitarian feeling, and not because of any anti-Americanism, we second the motion which does provide that all parties to the conflict refrain from military operations which are likely to be prejudicial to the actual and complete success of the negotiations now taking place.
Mr. Speaker, this position taken by our party is an answer to an invitation which was given to men two thousand years ago and which said: "Peace to men of good will".


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to express my congratulations to the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) for his impressive maiden speech in this House and to say that we in this party welcome him as a colleague in the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party will support the motion moved by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp). We do so, not because we would have drafted a resolution in the same language or indeed in the same tone; we feel so passionately about the immense tragedy of the war in Viet Nam and its barbarities that we would like the language to be more emphatic. However, we think it important that the people of Canada through their elected representatives should speak as far as possible with one voice on this matter which is affecting the conscience of the world. We do not propose to move any amendments to the resolution.

January 5, 1973

It is entirely appropriate that Canadians, who by their proximity to the United States have a special and friendly relationship with that country, should speak out at a time when the senseless and cruel destruction of heavily populated urban centres of North Viet Nam by American aircraft has caused horror and revulsion throughout the civilized world, and not least on the part of many Americans.
It is not the enemies of the United States who feel most strongly on this subject. The good name of the United States of America is involved, and it is the friends of the United States who have believed that the United States is a great and. generous nation who most deeply regret seeing the good name of that country besmirched by the action we are discussing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Andrew Brewin: We in this party have consistently expressed our vigorous opposition to the American intervention in southeast Asia. We have done so when it has not been politically expedient to do so. We have from time to time condemned the silence and the evasion of our own government on this issue; therefore, all the more we welcome the fact that this resolution has been brought forward by the government.
We have felt that intervention was totally unjustified by international law. It flew in the teeth of the Geneva agreement of 1954 accepted by the community of nations. Its professed purpose was the defence of the right of selfdetermination for South Viet Nam. In fact, its result has been the imposition of an increasingly repressive dictatorship. The war has had disastrous consequences, not only through massive loss of life and devastation of a whole country but in its implications for the people of the United States itself and, indeed, people throughout the world.
It is fitting that Canada should join leaders of countries such as Sweden and, happily, our fellow members of the Commonwealth, Australia and New Zealand, in expressing what we do today and what has been stated by the Secretary General of the United Nations and religious leaders throughout the world. The leader of the British Labour Party, who is by no means unfriendly to the United States, has seen fit to cancel a lecture tour in that country, to try to impress upon them the feelings of other people on this subject.
We call upon the Congress of the United States to exercise to the full its powers to end the conflict. Just a few weeks ago an official American spokesman used the expression "peace is at hand", yet in a futile effort to influence these negotiations, massive terror has been directed at the civilian population of North Viet Nam. What a Canadian described as "carpet bombing" has been rained down on residential areas, hospitals and embassies. There has been no serious pretence that the bombing has been confined to military targets.
James Reston, the editor of the New York Times, a distinguished American writer, has called what happened "power without pity". Even a Republican senator, Senator Saxbe, has said that the U.S. administration has taken leave of its senses. I do not expect the government to make any such statement but I think we in this House are
Viet Nam War
entitled to echo what has been stated by a Republican senator.
Some years ago a famous U.S. general, General Curtis Lemay, said that American policy should be to bomb North Viet Nam back into the Stone Age. At the time, this was thought to be the mere ranting of an extremist but it now appears to have become the policy of the American administration. We, therefore, welcome the clause in the resolution that deplores the recent large-scale bombing. In our view, however, the resolution would be improved if it called for the cessation of bombing altogether. The present resolution limits this to welcoming the cessation of the bombing of the Hanoi-Haiphong area. We think all the bombing should stop, and we would prefer to see the resolution amended in that light. As I have explained, we do not propose to make any formal amendment but we suggest that the resolution could be strengthened in this way. While we welcome the resolution, we wish it dealt with the question of signing the treaty negotiated in October, thus bringing hostilities to an end.
I do not wish to comment on internal political affairs of the United States, but the confidence expressed before November 4 that peace was at hand and the subsequent actions of the administration seem, to say the least, strangely inconsistent. As far as this party is concerned, we wish to state that all military action should be brought to an end and all U.S. troops and military personnel withdrawn from Indo-China. In our view they should never have been there in the first place, and after these many years of savage and barbaric war the only effective answer is complete withdrawal. The President of the United States has spoken of "peace with honour". There can be no honour without peace.
We hope, although the resolution does not mention it, that our government will raise this matter at the United Nations. It is our view that the United Nations is used too infrequently: it is the conscience of mankind and is an instrument that should be used by mankind in crises of this sort. The Secretary General has expressed his deep concern about the situation, and no doubt an overwhelming majority of the nations of the world deeply deplore the continuation of this war and the barbaric way in which it is being conducted. Surely an expression of world conscience, through the United Nations, would have a powerful impact upon the United States where, as I have said, fortunately a number of powerful voices have been raised against the policy that has been adopted by the administration.
I do not wish to delay the vote by making a lengthy speech on the subject; the sooner this resolution is passed, the better. I conclude by repeating the conclusion of a statement on Viet Nam made by our caucus a few days ago: in the name of humanity, the killing must stop.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gérard Laprise: It is a great pleasure for me to take part in this important debate. I must immediately inform the House that our group support this motion in view of the useless massacres taking place every day in that part of the world. We believe it is important to end this killing which has lasted far too long.

January 5, 1973
Viet Nam War
However, on reading yesterday's Hansard, I was surprised to find the following statement made by the member for York South (Mr. Lewis), in the next to the last paragraph, left column, page 7:
We believe, Mr. Speaker, as we said in a statement yesterday, that it is the duty of this parliament, at the earliest possible moment to express its abhorence of the destruction already produced and to appeal to the President and Congress of the United States to end unconditionally-
-and I underline "unconditionally"-
-all bombing in North and South Viet Nam, to sign the treaty negotiated last fall and to bring an end to all military action on both sides.
Mr. Speaker, I was greatly surprised by this statement, because whether it be a simple scuffle, a street brawl or a war, it takes at least two to fight, and I am yet to be convinced that the United States of America were the only country thrusting itself upon Viet Nam.
I am sure that there is a third party in that war. And when I see demonstrations and hear dissenters like the hon. member for York South shouting in the streets, everywhere: "Yankees go home", I think they should also add "Russia go home, China go home".
I cannot believe that a country as weak as North Viet Nam is said to be can stand up alone to a military power as strong as the combined forces of the U.S. and South Viet Nam. That is impossible.
There has been ample evidence that Russian or Chinese armaments have been found on battlefields. This is an indication that the North Viet Nam communists are having strong support in this war which aims at establishing communism in the whole of Indochina.
* (1440)
Mr. Speaker, in the past wars were often waged for the love of a woman. The ladies will excuse me but this is a fact. On the other hand our modern wars are rather wars for nylon, polyethylene or oil and the Indochina war is an oil war itself and those who will benefit from the huge oil deposits which exist there will have their say since they will control this part of the world.
Mr. Speaker, this nation is composed of seven separate sections and, in my opinion, an additional section should have been inserted between sections six and seven and should read as follows:
That this House requests North Viet Nam to put an end to subversion by guerilla warfare and requests the U.S.S.R. and Communist China to withdraw from this conflict simultaneously with the U.S.A.
Any war is obviously terrible and if we want this war to end soon each party involved should show enough goodwill in their negotiations and actions to prove that it is possible to grant the Vietnamese people, whether from North or South Viet Nam, complete liberty to choose their own government. Thus the neighbouring countries will be reassured, mainly Laos and Cambodia which are quite aware that as soon as the American forces withdraw from Indo-China, communism will extend to their own territory.
Mr. Speaker, as a member country of the International Control Commission in Vietnam, we are not quite sure until now of the importance of our participation as was the case for about all our previous participations of this kind and Canada, through the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp), has stated that, if required, we were prepared to provide a control commission with all possible assistance to see that cease-fire is enforced.
Mr. Speaker, this control commission of which Canada would be a member should have free access to all information. After the cease-fire, it should have carte blanche to have it respected by the parties concerned, otherwise it will not be able to fulfil its task.
So, Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that, for humanitarian reasons, we must make the necessary recommendations and accept this resolution so as to stress, not only to the Americans but also to the other party concerned, the necessity, the urgency and the wish that this war cease as soon as possible.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On motion of Mr. MacEachen the House adjourned at 2.50 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday. January 8, 1973