1973-01-15

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask the unanimous consent of the House to move the following motion, under Standing Order 43, of urgent and pressing necessity, namely, the failure, as yet, of the government to make public any environmental impact study for consideration at the expropriation hearings commencing Wednesday, January 17, 1973, relating to the proposed new runway at the Vancouver International Airport. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Fraser East (Mr. Patterson):
That this House direct the Ministry of Transport to immediately file with the hearing officer any and all environmental impact studies relating to the effects of the proposed new runway at Vancouver International Airport and to make the same available to the objectors who are appearing at the said hearing commencing Wednesday, January 17, 1973.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion presented to the House. Under the terms of Standing Order 43 it requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I seek leave to move a motion in view of a decision of a county court judge in Ontario which challenges the right of a provincial government to legislate aspects of environmental control. I propose to move, with the unanimous consent of the House, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser):
That this house requests the Attorney General of Canada to make a formal reference on this matter to the Supreme Court of Canada under the appropriate provision of the Supreme Court Act.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal. It requires the unanimous consent of the House under the terms of Standing Order 43.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Speaker:: May I refer to the practice which has arisen in recent years with regard to the introduction and first reading of public bills. On today's order paper there are listed some 120 bills for introduction by private members. It was not practical or possible for the Chair to review the provisions of each of those bills. May I therefore suggest to the House that we adopt the procedure which was agreed upon in recent sessions, namely, that we proceed to the introduction and first reading of those bills so that each may be scrutinized between now and its being called for second reading in order to allow the Chair to consider whether there is any defect in the bills in respect of the practices and usages of the House.
I suggest that by unanimous consent all the public bills listed in the names of private members for introduction on today's order paper be deemed to have been introduced, given first reading and ordered to be printed, and to stand for second reading at the next sitting of the House, subject of course to a subsequent examination as to the regularity of each bill. Is the procedure to which I have referred agreed to by the House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


PUBLIC BILLS
[Stage Direction]
Bill C-5, to amend the Pension Benefits Standards Act (Information to Employees)-Mr. Rose.
Bill C-6, to amend the National Housing Act (municipal water and soil pollution projects)-Mr. Alexander.
[Stage Direction]
January 15, 1973
Public Bills
Bill C-7, to amend the Statistics Act (area statistics)- Mr. MacDonald (Egmont).
Bill C-8, to amend the Income Tax Act (section 239)- Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West).
Bill C-9, to better assure the public's rights to freedom of access to public documents and information about government administration (administrative disclosure)- Mr. Mather.
Bill C-10, to amend the British North America Act, 1867 (abolition of the Senate)-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).
Bill C-ll, to amend the Railway Act-Mr. Thomas (Moncton).
Bill C-12, to amend the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1965 (Yukon and Northwest Territories Senate Representation)-Mr. Nielsen.
Bill C-13, respecting National Youth Appreciation Week-Mr. Reynolds.
Bill C-14, to amend the Bank of Canada Act-Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue).
Bill C-15, concerning the Exportation of the Growth and Produce of Canada-Mr. Peters.
Bill C-16, to amend the Indian Act-Mr. Foster.
Bill C-17, to amend the Canada Elections Act (permanent voters list)-Mr. Buchanan.
Bill C-18, to provide for the establishment of the Alaska-Yukon Highway Authority (Alaska Highway)-Mr. Oberle.
Bill C-19, to amend the Financial Administration Act (Public Accounts)-Mr. Hales.
Bill C-20, to change the name of the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation-Mr. Cullen.
Bill C-21, to amend the Harbour Commissions Act (Nanaimo Harbour Commission)-Mr. Douglas.
Bill C-22, to amend the Broadcasting Act (advertising on children's programs)-Mr. McGrath.
Bill C-23, to amend the Fisheries Act-Mr. Barnett.
Bill C-24, to amend the Supreme Court Act (judicial office)-Mr. Fairweather.
Bill C-25, to amend the National Energy Board Act-Mr. Andre.
Bill C-26, to establish the National Urban Transportation Authority-Mr. Stevens.
Bill C-27, to amend the Criminal Records Act-Mr. Rynard.
Bill C-28, to Regulate Election Expenses-Miss MacDonald (Kingston and The Islands).
Bill C-29, to amend the Criminal Code (control of motor vehicle)-Mr. Nesbitt.
Bill C-30, to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
Bill C-31, respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act-Mr. Blaker.

Bill C-32, to amend the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act (notice of representation at hearings)-Mr. Howie.
Bill C-33, to provide for the constitution of a Federal Transport Commission of Inquiry (impartial investigation of transport accidents)-Mr. Forrestall.
Bill C-34, Act to amend the Criminal Code (abortion)- Mrs. Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway).
Bill C-35, to amend the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (seat belts)-Mr. Mather.
Bill C-36, to establish an Administrative Review Board-Mr. Rose.
Bill C-37, to establish a Universal Emergency Telephone Number-Mr. Mather.
Bill C-38, respecting the disclosure of financial interests by Senators, Members of the House of Commons and certain other persons-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).
Bill C-39, to amend the Harbour Commissions Act-Mr. Reynolds.
Bill C-40, to provide for a national plebiscite on the removal of the abortion provisions from the Criminal Code of Canada-Mr. Reynolds.
Bill C-41, to provide the Protection of News Sources (Press Privilege)-Mr. Peters.
Bill C-42, to restrain the use of tobacco-Mr. Mather.
Bill C-43, to amend the Canada Elections Act (prisoners enfranchised)-Mr. MacDonald (Egmont).
Bill C-44, to amend the Canada Labour (Standards) Code (Severance Pay)-Mr. Peters.
Bill C-45, respecting rate fares for disabled persons on federal modes of transport (free or reduced rates)-Mr. Nesbitt.
Bill C-46, to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals)-Mr. Mather.
Bill C-47, to amend the Criminal Code (Harassing telephone communications)-Mr. Mather.
Bill C-48, respecting boating safety-Mr. Mather.
Bill C-49, respecting disclosure of credit rating records-Mr. McGrath.
Bill C-50, respecting the presence of the National Flag of Canada in both Houses of Parliament-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
Bill C-51, to amend the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act-Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West).
Bill C-52, to amend the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1965, with respect to the quorum of the House of Commons-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).
Bill C-53, to provide for the establishment of the Alaska-Yukon Highway Authority (Alaska Highway)-Mr. Reynolds.
Bill C-54, respecting the continental shelf-Mr. McGrath.
Bill C-55, to amend the Canada Elections Act (permanent voters list)-Mr. Fleming.
[Stage Direction]
Bill C-56, to amend the Canada Elections Act (proxy voting)-Mr. Horner (Crowfoot).
Bill C-57, to amend the Small Loans Act-Mr. Rowland.
Bill C-58, respecting the right of the public to information concerning the public business-Mr. Baldwin.
Bill C-59, to amend the Criminal Code (young offenders)-Mr. Woolliams.
Bill C-60, to amend the Canada Elections Act (publication of the result of opinion polls).-Mr. Coates.
Bill C-61, to amend the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1965 (duration of House of Commons)-Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue).
Bill C-62, to designate Major's Hill Park-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
Bill C-63, to amend the Broadcasting Act-Mr. Mather.
Bill C-64, to amend the Canada Labour Code (age or sex discrimination)-Mr. Forrestall.
Bill C-65, to amend the Department of the Environment Act (Fisheries)-Mr. McGrath.
Bill C-66, to amend the National Transportation Act (rail passenger service)-Mr. Whicher.
Bill C-67, to establish the Office of Ombudsman-Mr. Reid.
Bill C-68, to amend the Department of Regional Economic Expansion Act-Mr. MacDonald (Egmont).
Bill C-69, to amend the Criminal Code regarding disturbances in the House of Commons (disturbance in Parliament)-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
Bill C-70, to amend the Inquiries Act (publication of reports)-Mr. Alexander.
Bill C-71, to amend the Veterans' Land Act-Mr. MacDonald (Egmont).
Bill C-72, respecting employment with the Government of Canada not covered by the Public Service Employment Act-Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-73, to amend the Copyright Act-Mr. Rose.
Bill C-74, to amend the Canada Corporations Act (not agents of Her Majesty)-Mr. Fortin.
Bill C-75, to amend the Canadian Citizenship Act-Mr. Andre.
Bill C-76, to amend the Canada Labour Code (increased minimum hourly wage)-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).
Bill C-77, to amend the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs Act-Mr. Mather.
Bill C-78, to amend the Canada Evidence Act (incriminating statements)-Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-79, to amend the Canada Labour Code (provision for ten general holidays with pay)-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).
Bill C-80, to amend the Criminal Code (obliteration of motor vehicle serial numbers)-Mr. Mather.
Bill C-81, respecting the protection of records of Canadian business concerns-Mr. Mather.
Public Bills
Bill C-82, to amend the Canadian Citizenship Act (time off without loss of pay for appearance in Citizenship Court)-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).
Bill C-83, respecting the labelling of hazardous household products-Mr. Mather.
Bill C-84, to amend the Food and Drugs Act-Mr. Mather.
Bill C-85, respecting the designation of the Speaker of the House of Commons as the Member for the Electoral District of Parliament Hill-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).
Bill C-86, to amend the Canada Elections Act (Publication of Straw Poll Results)-Mr. Peters.
Bill C-87, to amend the Criminal Code (preventive detention)-Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-88, respecting the protection of endangered species-Mr. Watson.
Bill C-89, respecting the control of lobbying-Mr. Mather.
Bill C-90, to amend the Old Age Security Act-Mr. Reynolds.
Bill C-91, to amend the Immigration Act (mental retardation)-Mr. Mather.
Bill C-92, to establish a Newfoundland Crossing Authority-Mr. Marshall.
Bill C-93, to establish the Office of Parliamentary Commissioner-Mr. Reynolds.
Bill C-94, respecting the international airport at Ottawa-Mr. Isabelle.
Bill C-95, respecting Sir John A. Macdonald Day-Mr. Macquarrie.
Bill C-96, to amend the Financial Administration Act (Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration)-Mr. Reynolds.
Bill C-97, to amend the Divorce Act-Mr. Fairweather.
Bill C-98, to amend the Public Service Staff Relations Act (arbitration awards)-Mr. Reilly.
Bill C-99, respecting excavations in Indian and Inuit burial grounds-Mr. Harney.
Bill C-100, respecting packaged perishable food-Mr. Mather.
Bill C-101, to amend the Harbour Commissions Act (Commission membership)-Mr. Rose.
Bill C-102, respecting noise in factories-Mr. Mather.
Bill C-103, to amend the Canadian Citizenship Act (Freedom of Conscience)-Mr. Peters.
Bill C-104, to amend the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1965 (duration of House of Commons)-Mr. Rowland.
Bill C-105, to establish an Atlantic Transportation Council-Mr. Nowlan.
Bill C-106, to amend the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1965 (duration of House of Commons)-Mrs. Maclnnis (V ancouver-Kingsway).
[Stage Direction]
January 15, 1973
Public Bills
Bill C-107, to amend the British North America Act, 1867 (National Capital of Canada)-Mr. Isabelle.
Bill C-108, to amend the Canada Labour Code (three weeks annual vacation after three years)-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).
Bill C-109, to amend the Textile Labelling Act (prohibitions and labels)-Mrs. Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway).
Bill C-110, to establish the National Noise Control Code-Mr. Grier.
Bill C-lll, to amend the Public Service Employment Act (age discrimination)-Mr. Forrestall.
Bill C-112, to amend the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1973, (Duration of the House of Commons)-Mr. Peters.
Bill C-113, to amend the Public Service Staff Relations Act-Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-114, to amend the Criminal Code (tire safety)- Mr. Mather.
Bill C-115, to amend the Canada Pension Plan-Mr. Rowland.
Bill C-116, to amend the Department of Justice Act (annual report)-Mr. Fortin.
Bill C-117, to provide for a national plebiscite on the abolition of Capital Punishment-Mr. Reynolds.
Bill C-118, to amend the Broadcasting Act (equal time to opposition parties)-Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-119, to amend the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act (rules)-Mr. Reid.
Bill C-120, to amend the Criminal Code (wire tapping, etc.)-Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-121, to amend the Canada Elections Act (form of ballot)-Mr. Rowland.
Bill C-122, to provide for the protection of news sources (press privilege)-Mr. Fairweather.
Bill C-123, to amend the Regional Development Incentives Act-Mr. MacDonald (Egmont).

Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the unanimous consent of the House to revert to motions in order to table the Governor General's warrants as requested last Friday by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen).


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance when he will be publishing or making public the agenda for the proposed meeting between himself and the provincial treasurers or ministers of finance. Would he also indicate to the House today what are his own priority items that he will propose to the meeting for discussion?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker,
I would be prepared to publish that agenda when I am satisfied that the provinces are willing to have that done and have agreed to the various items on the agenda. Speaking in terms of my own priorities for discussion, I would want a thorough canvassing of the economic situation of the country, of the fiscal position of the federal government as we see it, and of the provincial governments as they anticipate those positions to be during the course of the calendar year and next fiscal year. There will be an opportunity for the chairman of the Economic Council of Canada to appear and discuss the ninth annual review, with the 15 indicators that he sets as informal targets for the country. There will be an assessment of the winter works program announced by the federal government, with particular emphasis on capital projects. I could outline the whole matter, but my priorities are the economic and fiscal situation of the country.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I assume the minister will be discussing also the matter of co-ordination of borrowing abroad during the coming year. I ask the minister whether he proposes to go further than that and whether he will be canvassing the possibility of establishing guidelines or some actual terms of agreement or understanding with regard to the co-ordination or phasing of large capital projects over the next four or five-year period? I am speaking of such projects as James Bay and others that might involve large demands upon foreign markets and might have an important effect on the fluctuation in our dollar.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I understand the import of the hon. member's question. As a matter of fact, at the meetings I held with the provincial finance ministers during the month of June I impressed upon them the need to orchestrate and properly co-ordinate capital requirements across the country, coupled with an effort to persuade the provinces to seek their financial requirements within the Canadian capital market where possible. At that time I was able to obtain from the provincial governments an agreement to constitute a centralized information centre so that the federal government and the provinces will know at one central point the requirements of the provincial governments, preferably here and, if necessary, abroad. Maturing that information centre into a co-ordination centre is some-

January 15, 1973

thing I have not been able to achieve, but it might be well worth raising the matter again this Thursday and Friday.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Does the minister propose to go beyond the current year in terms of information and has he taken any steps yet or does he propose to take any steps at the upcoming meeting to establish an information centre, let alone a co-ordination centre, with regard to a longer phase period such as four or five years involving large upcoming capital projects?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, a rather thorough analysis is now being conducted within the Department of Finance and the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources as to capital requirements, particularly for energy resources, during the next decade and thereafter. I am not sure whether at this stage I would want to bring that into its co-ordinated phase with the provinces.


MEETING OF FEDERAL AND PROVINCIAL FINANCE
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. Will the minister be seeking jointly with the provincial ministers of finance means of relieving the tax burden on rural people? I ask this in light of the fact that the number of people employed in agriculture dropped by 31,000 in the recent 12-month period.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, that is certainly a relevant consideration. I would think the terms of reference of the meeting are wide enough for that to be brought up.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for York South on a supplementary.


Mr. Lewis:: No, Mr. Speaker. My question is not supplementary.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps we might have a few supplemen-taries and then recognize the hon. member for York South.



Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Minister of Finance. Can the minister indicate whether he will be making any specific proposals at the impending federal provincial conference with regard to estate tax and capital gains taxes on farm lands and small businesses in order to promote some equity and consistency in these important matters?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can be as specific as the hon. member would like.
Oral Questions


MEETING OF FEDERAL AND PROVINCIAL MINISTERS- POSSIBLE REDUCTION OF PERSONAL INCOME TAX IN RESPONSE TO QUEBEC REPRESENTATIONS
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance.
In the course of this federal provincial conference, does he intend to give a precise answer to the request that the Premier of Quebec has made to the federal government to set up a coordinated program of tax reductions so as to avoid an increase in personal income tax and in borrowing from external sources?
Hon. ]ohn N. Turner (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, of course I shall answer the letters from the Quebec Premier and the proposals from Quebec Finance Minister Raymond Garneau. Their argument is almost the same as that put forward by representatives of the Ontario government on the whole question of distribution of taxation sources. At any rate, this item will be formally put on the agenda.


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put another supplementary to the Minister of Finance.
Does he feel that there should not be any increase in personal income tax this year?


COMMUNICATIONS
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications. Last Friday my colleague, the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore, inquired of him whether the federal government was going to join the Ontario and Quebec governments in opposing the applications of Bell Canada for further increases in their rates. In view of the hon. member's question, may I ask the minister whether he has done so, and whether the federal government is now prepared to make representations to the Canadian Transport Commission against the Bell application for increases?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the question is yes and to the second part, no.


David Lewis: I have a very short supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

-yes and no in the same answer, that is good.

May I ask the minister to tell the House whether the government has considered the matter of these gouging increases sought by Bell Canada, and is his decision not to

January 15, 1973
Oral Questions
make representations to the CTC the result of his agreeing with the Bell applications?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, since my answer was so brief, I realize the hon. member has not understood it. He asked me: Is the matter under consideration? I answered: yes. Then, he asked: Has the consideration of this matter been completed and what decision has been arrived at? To this last question the answer is no.


David Lewis: I accept these answers, Mr. Speaker.

May I ask the minister whether he could, for the moment, cease being semantic and inform the House whether he is seriously considering making representations to the CTC on this important matter, or whether he is merely answering "yes", that he is considering, in order to have an answer to a question that may be uncomfortable?


Gérard Pelletier: I never give such answers, Mr. Speaker, because I never find a question uncomfortable; only answers can be so.


Mr. Speaker:: I believe there are a few supplementaries that hon. members wish to ask the Minister of Finance relating to the first matter raised.


FINANCE
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'appelle-Moose Mountain):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question to the Minister of Finance is this. In view of the negative findings of the Porter Royal Commission in connection with advice submitted to ministers of finance by the financial advisers of the government, and in view of the consistent record of the government since that royal commission report was made, may I ask whether it is the intention of the government to adopt a completely different approach to monetary and fiscal policy in line with that negative report? I am referring specifically to the theory of potential budgeting as opposed to the restrictive budgeting which has been followed during the last 25 years.


John Napier Turner: The hon. gentleman and I could engage in a debate at some time about the theory of the Porter Commission and full employment budgeting.


TARGET FOR RATE OF INFLATION
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also to the Minister of Finance. Bearing in mind the close relationship between United States and Canadian economic policies, and the announcement last week by the

United States government that they were going to aim at a 2i per cent rate of inflation on a year to year basis in 1973, could the minister tell the House what rate of inflation is being aimed at in our policy making?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt that the question as asked by the hon. member is in order.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice arising from my earlier intervention under Standing Order 43. Will the minister consider the implications of a decision by an Ontario county court judge, which challenges the constitutionally of environment legislation in Ontario and, of course, will have effects in other provinces, and will he consider making an immediate reference to the Supreme Court of Canada in order that the matter may be settled and the public concern alleviated?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, it will certainly be my intention to consider the impact of this decision and to consult with my colleague, the Minister of the Environment, and with the provincial ministers. I also agree that if a vacuum were seen to exist in this extremely important field, such action as a reference might be desirable, although in the ordinary course the better practice would be to allow the case to proceed to the court of appeal. As I say, if a vacuum existed a different course of conduct might be required.


FINANCE
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. Can he tell the House whether he will be outlining to the finance ministers' meeting later this week the contingency plan on wage and price controls that the Prime Minister referred to last Friday?


John Napier Turner: No, Mr. Speaker.
January 15, 1973


BANKRUPTCY ACT
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Sheiford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
In view of the promise made to us in the House many years ago-I raised the matter on many occasions-of a thorough reform of the Bankruptcy Act, could the hon. minister tell us whether a really thorough reform will be carried out, and not merely "reformettes" such as we have had so far?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, we are working on such a reform in the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and the government will decide when we can introduce this new bill in the House.


Mr. Baldwin:: We have been waiting three years.


OLD AGE SECURITY
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should-like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare based on his speech last Thursday which I am still carefully analysing. Can he say whether the proposed "non-token" increase in the old age pension will be brought forward in the House before the dominion-provincial conference of welfare ministers, and can he indicate what "non-token" really means?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr.Speaker, the increase referred to will be put before the House long before the federal-provincial conference scheduled for April.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, can the minister indicate whether the legislation is now ready and when he intends to put it on the order paper?


Marc Lalonde: This legislation will soon be brought before the House, Mr. Speaker. I think that pensioners and older people will be very happy with the results.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. lack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister
Oral Questions
of Veterans Affairs. In view of the fact the increase in the cost of living has an effect on the fixed incomes of veterans receiving war veterans allowances and disability pensions, and in view of the fact there was no mention in the throne speech in respect of veterans, will the minister advise the House and the country what plans he has for legislation on behalf of this segment of our society?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I can inform the hon. member that when we deal with the other legislative item in respect of pensions it will be related as well to veterans legislation and their pensions will be increased accordingly.


WAR VETERANS ALLOWANCES-REQUEST THAT ANY INCREASE NOT BE CHARGED AGAINST SOCIAL ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS
Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question I should like to direct to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact some veterans with fixed incomes and large families have had to resort to social assistance to supplement their incomes, would the minister bring forth for consideration at the federal-provincial conference the suggestion that increases in war veterans allowances should not be charged against social assistance payments?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the whole question of social benefits will be reviewed. We are considering a complete review of the whole social security system with the provinces and I am sure the problem raised by the hon. member will be discussed at those conferences.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will recognize the hon. member for Calgary North for one or more supplementary questions and then the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, in light of the answers given by various ministers in respect of pension remedies to assist people at a time of high cost of living, continually increasing from day to day, would the Prime Minister consider setting aside the debate on capital punishment as a priority and take up the economic measures so important to the livelihood of Canadians?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I may have missed the meaning of the hon. member's request, but I will look at his question. For my own part, I would find it difficult to answer the question without

January 15, 1973
Oral Questions
knowing whether he wants to have the capital punishment debate first or the economic debate.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the Prime Minister did not understand my question. I know he was working on something and I do not object to that, but I did put the question very clearly to him. In light of the fact that a reading of the order paper would indicate that the capital punishment debate would appear to take priority over economic issues and measures such as pension legislation to assist people to cope with the high cost of living, will the Prime Minister set aside the priority of the debate on capital punishment in favour of economic measures to assist those people who need assistance?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, the hon. member knows that the order in which measures appear on the order paper is not necessarily that in which they will be called. We will let the House know in advance, through the House leader, in what order they will be proceeded with.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am not getting the answer, Mr. Speaker, and I think I should have the right to put one further question. In light of the fact the Prime Minister is the head of the government, and no doubt plans are being laid as to what measures will have priority, would he not tell the House that the priority of the debate on capital punishment will take second place at least to those economic measures that have been discussed with his ministers today?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I certainly could not tell the House that because I do not know if, in conceptual terms, this is a correct way of putting it. The two questions are extremely important. I do not think that the issue of capital punishment is of lesser importance.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is the point; some of us do.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, the question of knowing whether a man should be hanged or not is not of lesser importance to this government.


AGREEMENT WITH RAILWAYS RESPECTING
Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. In view of the fact that a number of hopper cars for moving grain are now out of service, can he tell the House whether an agreement has been reached with the CPR and the CNR on depreciation charges and maintenance costs for these cars, whether the railway companies will bear these costs, and also inform the House of the type of contract agreed upon?


Otto Emil Lang: Yes, Mr. Speaker, an agreement was reached between the railways and the Canadian Wheat Board. I think the simplest thing

would be for me to make that agreement available to the hon. member.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Can the minister also inform the House whether he has an assurance that the CPR and the CNR will maintain their normal numbers of boxcars and other rolling stock in service so that the hopper cars will be in addition to what normally would be in service for the movement of grain?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member will find that there is a clause in the agreement covering this issue.


INQUIRY AS TO TRANSFERRING OF CANADIAN BOXCARS TO UNITED STATES TO FACILITATE U.S. SHIPMENTS
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell us whether or not, during the recent crisis in the United States as a result of the shortage of U.S. boxcars to move all shipments of grain to ports for its overseas customers, Canada was requested to supply boxcars, and did Canada do so?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, so far as I know there was no question of Canadian boxcars being made available, although I would like to doublecheck that. What I can tell the hon. member is that for the purposes of grain movement the railways have been supplying cars at the times and in the volumes essentially required by the Canadian Wheat Board. That fact is demonstrated by the other fact that exports from this country this year are running ahead of last year, even though last year was an outstanding record year.


Stanley James Korchinski: May I ask the minister whether, if there is no formal agreement, there is an understanding between the two countries that in the event that problems such as this arise each country will help the other in a crisis?


Otto Emil Lang: I know of no such agreement, Mr. Speaker.


FISHERIES
Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of the Environment and Fisheries. In view of the importance, particularly to eastern Canada, of the forthcoming Law of the Sea Conference, can the minister tell the House whether he intends to make a statement shortly on the nature of the government's preparation and the positions to be taken by the government at that conference?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: I might say yes, Mr. Speaker. I might also add that there is a meeting in Vancouver where Canada is hosting discussions with all fishing nations on the basic policy approach that we might take at the next Law of the Sea Conference.
January 15, 1973


Walter C. Carter: Can the minister tell the House whether representatives have been selected to attend the conference, and whether or not he will be consulting with the fishing industry in the various provinces on the selection of representatives?


John (Jack) Davis: The answer is yes to both questions, Mr. Speaker.


DATE OF LAW OF THE SEA CONFERENCE
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the constantly declining fishing resources off the Atlantic coast, as evidenced by the recent ban on east coast whaling, can the minister indicate whether a firm date has as yet been set for the discussions which will be held at the Law of the Sea Conference?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. My understanding is that there will be a meeting in 1973-1 will get the date if it has been announced-followed by further meetings in 1974, but there is a definite agenda now agreed upon.


FOOD PRICES
Mr. Harry Olaussen (Coast Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct this question to the Minister of Finance. In view of an article that appeared in the Financial Post on December 9, 1972, would the Minister of Finance inform the House whether he and officials of his staff sounded out food industry executives for opinions on the feasibility of a study of food prices in November and December of last year and, if so, could he inform the House of the outcome of those soundings?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I would have to look into that.


Harry Magnus Olaussen: Would the minister inform the House whether he considered that such an approach to the food industry well in advance of the announcement of the proposed establishment of the food prices committee in the Speech from the Throne would have the effect of accelerating industry decisions to increase prices?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will recognize that that question is debate.


DISCUSSION WITH LABOUR AND CONSUMER ORGANIZATIONS PRIOR TO ESTABLISHMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE
Mr. Bill Knight (Asainiboia):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Could the minister inform the
Oral Questions
House whether, in addition to discussions with the food industry, the minister also had discussions with labour and consumer organizations regarding the establishment of a committee to look into food prices?


John Napier Turner: So far as I
know, Mr. Speaker, no advance notice was given to any sector of the economy, but I make it a practice to stay in touch with the Canadian Labour Congress and the Consumer Association of Canada on the general economic posture of the government.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact it is becoming quite obvious that many people who sought a home in Canada are now undergoing severe hardship as a result of the department's announcement of the sudden cut-off date, which I believe was November 3, is the minister now prepared to indicate to the House and to those who are suffering unduly that he is prepared to approach this matter in a compassionate and humanitarian manner?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, if the question was addressed to me, I am sorry but I did not hear the opening comment. Would the hon. member kindly repeat it?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I will put my question more briefly. Is the minister now approaching the problem of those who are suffering as a result of the cut-off date of November 3 in a compassionate and humanitarian way? I ask him this question because it appears to me that many people sold all their possessions in order to come to Canada and as a result of the department's edict they are now suffering unduly.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I would hope that I would approach any of these matters in that fashion. It is a very difficult problem that faced us. I cannot really offer a great deal of solace to the large number of people who came to Canada and were caught by the removal of section 34 of the act. We have indicated that in absolutely clearcut cases of undue hardship we will look at the problems of these people compassionately, but I do not think we can look at this matter in terms of thousands. Indeed, there is some contradiction in the approach in the case of those people who spent all their savings to come here as visitors in the first place and then applied for landed immigrant status.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: There may be a contradiction, but I would like to advise the minister that these people were taking advantage of the law that was in effect then. Notwithstanding that, may I approach the matter in another area of some concern. I refer to students who came to

Oral Questions
Canada on student visas and who will be graduating in June this year. Will they be affected by the edict that was handed down on November 3? In other words, are the students who have been here for the past four years going to be classed as visitors and therefore be caught in this trap?


Robert Knight Andras: I would have to examine the second question very carefully. It depends very much on the category in which they declared themselves to be when they came to Canada. If they came as visitors and are now applying for landed immigrant status, the revocation of section 34 is probably applicable.


PROHIBITION OF APPLICATIONS FOR LANDED IMMIGRANT STATUS BY VISITORS-NUMBERS INVOLVED AND SUFFERING HARDSHIP
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration whether he has conducted any investigation to ascertain how many people who came here as visitors were caught in this way, to what extent actual hardship does exist, and how many of these people were brought here by so-called immigration consultants?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would suggest to the minister that perhaps this information should be given to the House by way of a statement on motions rather than by way of a reply to a question during the question period.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: May I say with respect, Mr. Speaker, that I hope I did not ask for too much. May I ask the minister whether he has conducted an investigation into the numbers involved and how many are suffering hardship as a result of this new law?


Robert Knight Andras: We are receiving representations from organized groups now and I think that before too long we will have some indication of the numbers. Whether or not we will ever have a complete story in precise detail I cannot say, but we are certainly getting an indication of the size of the problem. As to the second part of the question, yes, I think there were some representations by organizations or people who call themselves immigration consultants.


PROHIBITION OF APPLICATIONS FOR LANDED IMMIGRANT STATUS BY VISITORS-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON SITUATION
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister whether he will take the suggestion contained in Mr. Speaker's comment a moment ago and make a statement, not necessarily in a day or two but in a week or so, about the situation he has found in his determination to respond to the Tory backlash against immigration?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest we are now in the field of argument and debate. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Egmont on a last supplementary question. Hon. members will appreciate that only ten minutes are left before the end of the question period and in view of the number of hon. members seeking the floor
rather urgently and aggressively on other subjects, I think we should make an effort to give them an opportunity to put their questions.


PROHIBITION OF APPLICATIONS FOR LANDED IMMIGRANT STATUS BY VISITORS-AID TO PERSONS POSSIBLY SUBJECT TO IMPRISONMENT IF RETURNED TO COUNTRY OF ORIGIN
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, can the minister indicate what steps his department is taking to assist people who find themselves in the position of possibly being forced to return to a country where, for political reasons, they may end up serving a long term of imprisonment in view of this new regulation? Is there a policy with regard to people in this category?


Robert Knight Andras: In most cases people in that situation have entered an appeal to the Immigration Appeal Board, but most certainly, as a general principle, where there is clear evidence that there will be political retribution or political punishment when they return to their country of origin they would fit into what we call the refugee class, into a category of special hardship cases, and we would most certainly be in a position and want to be in a position to review their cases. I say that without committing myself in any particular case.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Mackenzie on a last supplementary question on this subject, but again I insist that an effort will have to be made by hon. members to limit the number of supplementary questions because we are certainly not making much headway when we have five, six or more supplementary questions to every question. If this is the way that hon. members wish that the question period should proceed, that every day we should choose four or five subjects and hdve a dozen supplementary questions on each of them, that would make it easier for the Chair but I do not think it would satisfy hon. members.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact there is a conference on hijacking under way at present I wish to ask the minister whether the statement he has just make is not in conflict with any criteria that may be set down for the negotiations at that conference or whether political implications may be involved here regarding whether or not a person wants to go to any particular country?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any connection and if there was any implied in what I said I should like to make it clear that I do not have that in mind with regard to the hijacking problem.
(Mr. Alexander.]
January 15, 1973


TRANSPORT
Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport regarding passenger service in southwestern Ontario. I believe representations have been made to him in this regard. Is the minister going to take early action on these reports?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have to meet with the government of Ontario before we reach any decision here.


Robert Elgin McKinley: Will this meeting be in regard to setting up a joint study group with the province and municipalities as the committee report suggested?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to give the results of a meeting before the meeting takes place.


DATE OF TOTAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM STUDY
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Thansport. Can the minister advise the House as to the date of the joint study on the total transportation system, referred to in the Speech from the Throne?


Jean Marchand: Does the hon. member mean for the whole country?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That is right, Mr. Speaker. It was stated in the Speech from the Throne that a total transportation study would take place.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I have already mentioned that I intend to meet with provincial authorities on this matter before reaching any conclusion.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Can the minister advise whether this study has any priority or will it be sloughed off until next year?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A question asked in those terms is irregular.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Is the minister having discussions with Canadian National Railways concerning the desirability of amending the Canadian National pension plan to provide for pensions on the basis of 2 per cent for each year of service as is the case for Air Canada employees and federal public servants?
Oral Questions


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific are now negotiating with the railway employees' unions and this is one of the items to be discussed. When I met the two presidents a few weeks ago, I indicated that I was certainly interested in the issue of the pension fund and I expressed hope that they would find a solution to this problem which has been pending too long already.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to the one asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. In the discussions about transport at the meeting with the western provinces, will security of tenure or job security for the employees and the subject of their pensions be included? [Translation]


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, this is certainly a problem which must be discussed with the provinces and the railway companies. For the time being, I am not in a position to decide on that question which is certainly an important one to be settled.


AIRPORT
John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Has the minister prepared any environmental impact study relating to the effects of the proposed new runway at Vancouver International Airport and, if so, will it be filed with the hearing officer and the objectors in time for consideration at the expropriation hearings which commence next Wednesday, January 17, 1973, in Vancouver?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, before a runway is built, the department examines all the aspects of such a project-the environmental aspects and the technical aspects. So, I cannot give a specific answer about the Vancouver case, but the study has certainly been made.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his answer but the point is that when these hearings close the expropriations will be confirmed. I want to know whether any environmental impact study is going to be put before these hearings before they are closed. Once they are closed it is too late; expropriation will take place.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is making a speech. He can ask a question.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, the question is whether this environmental impact study will be put in front of this hearing before it is closed, not afterwards.

January 15, 1973
Oral Questions
[ Translation]


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, we are making an inquiry about expropriations, which has nothing to do with the environment.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Peel South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Is the minister satisfied with the progress being made by the United States in discharging its obligations under the Great Lakes Treaty to date?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the minister could reply to the question in other terms. Would the hon. member resume his seat. The hon. member cannot ask whether the minister is satisfied. At this point he is asking for an expression of opinion. A question asked in those terms is irregular, but perhaps the minister might like to reply to the hon. member's question in some way.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, when the agreement was negotiated with the United States provision was made for follow-up procedures. Later this month there will be a meeting of Canadian and United States officials following which I shall have a more precise answer to that question.


AIRPORTS
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport, notice of which has been given. In view of the statement made in Halifax by the regional director of Air Canada to the effect that they would not be able to carry out the scheduled placing into service of the Lockheed Tri-Star at St. John's airport unless the Department of Transport is prepared to carry out immediately certain renovations of the airport facilities and in view of the urgency of this question, can the minister inform the House whether the renovation of the terminal and other facilities will be carried out in time?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, representatives of my department will meet with Air Canada tomorrow, January 16, and I hope that as a result the problem of space requirements for the Lockheed TriStar can be solved.


VANCOUVER INTERNATIONAL-RUNWAY EXPANSION- REQUEST THAT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY BE PROVIDED TO EXPROPRIATION HEARINGS
Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to the one addressed to the Minister of Transport by the hon. member for Vancouver South but I should like to address it to the Minister of the Environment. Has the Department of Transport requested the Department of the Environment to do an environmental impact study on the expansion of Vancouver international airport and, if so, will this report be presented to the hearings which commence next Wednesday?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that it has but I believe it has. I will give an answer to that question to the hon. member tomorrow. Our basic policy is that we should prepare environmental impact studies and that they should be made available to the general public.


John Douglas Reynolds: Have environmental, impact studies also been done for the Pickering airport and the St. Scholas-tique airport and are they ready and available?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, studies have been carried out with respect to those airports.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr.   Terry@: My question is directed to the Minister of Transport, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister advise the House when the government will announce which of our international air carriers will be awarded reciprocal landing rights with Alitalia in Milan, Italy?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I hope that we will be in a position to announce that soon.


Mr. O'Connor:: In view of the fact that last year the government said it would make this announcement by January 1, 1973, does the minister not feel that the government has been derelict in its duty to the Canadian people.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That, of course, is not a question and cannot be asked.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the most attractive member of the Cabinet-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

January 15, 1973


Frank Howard: -and ask the Minister of Science and Technology-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Frank Howard: -whether steps have been taken within the minister's department to ensure that women scientists and technologists receive equal consideration with men for appointments, and, if so, what such steps are?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. In line with the instructions of this government to the Public Service Commission, my department is taking care to see if women can participate whenever nominations are made for tasks within the department.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence of which I have given short advance notice. If I might be permitted I should like to express my sympathy to the minister and his family. Can the minister give the assurance that the rumour suggesting removal of the royal designation of "Her Majesty's Canadian Ship" from our naval vessels is unfounded?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to be able to reassure the hon. member that all our naval ships are designated HMCS, which of course stands for Her Majesty's Canadian Ship, and they will continue to be so designated.



SHIPPING


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Transport. In view of the minister's reply to a question about the Darling report last week, found in Hansard at page 175, would he assure the House that his consultations with the premiers of the provinces on all matters stemming from that report will include consultation with the premier of British Columbia on matters of interest to British Columbia?


Jean Marchand: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Oral Questions INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY


Mr. Peter Reilly (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister arising from an answer he gave in the House earlier. Did I understand him to say that the academic question of capital punishment takes precedence in this government's list of priorities over the plight of the several hundreds of thousands of unemployed and pensioners on inadequate pensions? Is that the doctrine he now preaches to the House?



AGRICULTURE


William George Knight: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. As great concern has been expressed by a number of farm organizations in the past as well as at present over the increase in the price of fertilizer for the farming industry, and as fertilizer plants suggest that the increase results from a lack of potash and other ingredients which are in over-supply in Saskatchewan, can the minister inform us whether there will be action on this matter?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, this has been reported to me. What the hon. member says is true, according to the representations which have been made to me, namely, that because of so-called shortages of nitrogen and potash it is proposed to increase prices. We are investigating this. We are contacting the premier of Saskatchewan to find out if it is true that there is a shortage of potash in Saskatchewan and investigating the other chemical companies that are responsible for the manufacture of nitrogen.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Mr. Nielsen:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order involving the President of the Treasury Board. On Friday last I asked the minister, as reported at page 230 of Hansard, if he would see to it that the Governor General's warrants of which we were speaking at that time were tabled on Monday so that members might have full information. At page 231 he said yes, he would do that. What he tabled today is a copy of the statement of the special warrants issued under Section 23 of the Financial Administration Act which is not, as I am sure the minister will agree, a copy of the warrants themselves. In order to facilitate the provision of full information to members both here and in committee, would the minister see to it that the warrants themselves are tabled?


An hon. Member:: Or exact copies of them.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. gentleman will not ask that the warrants be tabled but copies of them. The second document I tabled this morning, which was filed privately with the Clerk, is the one the hon. member has now. The other documents I tabled, and I think they are still on the table, are copies of the Governor General's warrants and the schedules thereto.

January 15, 1973
The Address-Mr. Foster


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I checked with the distinguished officers at the table. The only document that was tabled was the statement. I am informed by the officers at the table that the warrants themselves or copies thereof were not tabled.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure this matter can be straightened out in due course.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Broadbent:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, for some six days now the hon. member for Brant has been trying to get the Speaker's attention. Since he is neither a freshman member nor an old veteran, I wonder, before the emergency passes, whether Mr. Speaker could perhaps notice him tomorrow.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, January 12, consideration of the motion of Mr. J. J. Blais for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Crouse (p. 245).
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to continue my speech on the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne I wish, first of all, to extend my congratulations to you, Mr. Speaker, on your re-election as Speaker of this House. You have distinguished yourself in this position in the last two parliaments. You have shown courage and dedication by agreeing to accept this high office again. Whatever the difficulties of this parliament, and judging by the breakdown of the numbers in each party there will be many, your wisdom and firm hand will maintain the dignity and decorum of the House.
I also want to extend my congratulations to the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) on his election to the position of Deputy Speaker. I have confidence in him and count him as a friend. We spent several weeks together at an Interparliamentary Union conference in 1969. I believe that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the House have shown real wisdom in appointing him Deputy Speaker. It will require all the sagacity, good will, and humour that the Chair can muster to make this a productive House.
I consider it a great honour to be re-elected to represent Algoma in the House of Commons and I thank my constituents for this responsibility and the opportunity to serve them. Election campaigns bring a person in to close contact with many people in a compressed time frame, they are more effective than any other methods I know of. The excitement and celebration of winning an election campaign can only be justified by hard work both in this chamber and in the constituency.
I congratulate the mover and seconder of the address in reply. They have youth, vigour, and eloquence in both our

official languages and show great promise of becoming competent Members of Parliament.
I am especially pleased that the hon. member for Nipiss-ing (Mr. Blais) was chosen because he comes from northern Ontario. We are often concerned that not enough attention is paid to northern Ontario. Part of this problem stems from the fact that we are from a "have-not" area of a "have" province. We have many problems similar to those of the western and eastern provinces, such as high transportation costs, declining population and slow economic growth. However, because we are part of a wealthy province our needs are not fully recognized either at the provincial or federal level in many instances.
This is brought home only too forcefully in the proposals of the Representation Commissioner which were published on December 27, 1972. These proposals suggest that there will be two fewer Members of Parliament to represent northern Ontario in the House of Commons. This means that ridings which are already too large will be larger. Members who now divide their time as carefully and fairly as possible between dozens of communities will have to add many more towns and villages. City Members of Parliament do not fully appreciate how much the smaller communities depend on their Member of Parliament to help them in making approaches to government with a maze of what might be considered small problems. In the totality of government expenditures they may be relatively small problems, but for these communities they are big and important matters concerning their progress and development. When I see the ridings enlarged in northern Ontario I am not concerned so much about the extra miles I will have to travel as with the fact that the members for such enlarged ridings will have relatively less time for each community. I am also concerned that the total impact of members from northern Ontario will be made by 10 members instead of the present 12. It seems to me that the Representation Commissioner in the final determination should consider these facts before reducing the total number of members in the north.
An important step was taken in 1969 to rectify the discrepancy between the north and south by the establishment of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the designation of northern Ontario as an area where special assistance was available. It is strange that the provincial government, with all its wealth and power, does not have special assistance available to the slow growth areas of the north.
The DREE program has been criticized by many during the recent election campaign as being ineffective. I want to see the program strengthened, improved and made more flexible. I think that the minimum size for enterprises which can qualify for incentive grants should be reduced. I am pleased to see that the department is to be decentralized as this should bring it closer to the areas to be served. It will make personal consultation and discussion possible.
I was pleased to read in the Speech from the Throne as well that there will be improved assistance to strengthen management and consulting services for small businesses along with improved access to financing facilities. It is a
January 15, 1973

constant problem for the small businesses in my riding to secure financing for their enterprises. It seems there should be increased management services available to recipients of DREE grants to ensure that these companies not only meet the equity and other requirements of the act and regulations to qualify for a grant, but also to continue to keep the project operating viably.
I would like to see DREE grants available to the tourist industry as well. In many areas of Canada which are now designated for these grants, such as northern Ontario, we have all the natural beauty for tourism. We have, in the Algoma riding alone, hundreds of miles of shoreline on Lake Huron and Lake Superior as well as a multitude of lakes and streams. However, the financial wherewithal is lacking to develop our tourist industry fully. The Speech from the Throne outlines help for the tourist industry. I hope this is help which will be beneficial at the local level and not just some national survey system which will have little effect.
I am looking forward with interest to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) introducing changes to extend and improve the Industrial Development Bank. This will be good news for the small businessmen who in the past have found it a hard-nosed organization with high interest rates and closed-end mortgages in which no one could get very interested. The rates should be lowered and the pay-off arrangement should be open-ended. I am told by businessmen in my riding that the funds available and the interest charged by the bank in making loans have increased in the past several months. This is encouraging. When the amendments are introduced I hope they will contain provisions to make the terms of the loans more attractive.
The Speech from the Throne proposes that the federal government will meet with the provinces to examine the impact of freight rates on economic development and consumer prices. There can be little doubt what the results of this examination will show. It will show that freight rates and transportation costs raise consumer prices in northern Ontario and inhibit economic development. The DREE program of incentive grants is designed to be a stimulus to overcome this effect on economic development, but it does not fully compensate for the transportation costs. The costs of transportation are likewise detrimental to consumer prices in the Algoma riding. This meeting of federal and provincial governments should produce a solution to this problem which is as old as confederation itself.
I suggest that when these discussions are held with the province of Ontario they be held in northern Ontario. We are the people who suffer from the high freight rates. We are the people most concerned in this province. The good will of both the federal and provincial governments in these discussions could be demonstrated by holding these meetings in northern Ontario.
The Speech from the Throne gives an outline of the measures to provide jobs on a direct employment basis to counteract the unemployment problem. These include the local initiatives program, the on-the-job-training program, direct employment by the federal government on labourintensive projects and the winter capital projects fund.
I believe that the winter capital projects fund will be a most beneficial program to municipalities. It will be a
The Address-Mr. Foster
loan fund of $350 million for community projects. As I understand the program, it will operate for two and a half years. One half of the on-site labour costs will be forgiven during the summer months and all of the labour costs forgiven during the winter months. The advantage to the local municipality is that it provides a source of loan funds in which labour costs are forgiven. However, all the construction does not have to be undertaken during the difficult winter months, although there is additional incentive if it is carried out then. I hope the Minister of Finance will be sending the information on this program in the very near future to the provincial governments who will administer it. There is interest in this program, but detailed information is just not available.
Likewise, with the local initiatives program the approvals are coming through so late this year that the total impact of the program is reduced. Henceforth, the program should be started with the approval of projects so that work can begin in November and, where projects are not completed by May 31, extensions should be made.
The Speech from the Throne outlines several measures concerning our social policy. The relationship between social aid, unemployment insurance and work in our society is one Of the most complex because it involves all levels of government, the private sector of our economy and a person's ability to work and get a job. It is proposed that the blind, disabled and aged will receive an equitable guaranteed annual income, that there will be an incentive to work built into our social welfare system and a more equitable relationship between those who require social aid and those who work at the minimum wage level. There has been increasing criticism of these problems recently in my constituency. Good co-ordination between the welfare board and community local initiative programs has been beneficial in some areas of Algoma. However, this has only been helpful in the winter months. I hope these proposals contained in the Speech from the Throne will be useful in building a system which will utilize the employable recipient of welfare or unemployment insurance benefits for worth-while community projects when no work in the private sector of our economy is available.
The speech also outlines the intention of the government to increase the benefits of old age pensioners. This will be welcome news to the pensioners in my constituency. I am surprised that more people are not aware of the automatic escalator clause in the old age pensions which we passed last spring after the budget, it is my understanding that the basic old age security pension is now raised to $86.51 per month. The maximum benefit under the guaranteed income supplement and old age security is now $156.75 per month for a single pensioner and $297 per month for a couple. The Minister of Finance should immediately introduce the bill to increase the additional exemption for old age pensioners to $1,000. I have received many letters from constituents requesting that this provision of last June's budget be implemented.
We have seen some interesting politicking going on in the House this week. We see the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) hungry for power, ready to move any motion and pursue any strategy to achieve it. We have seen "Prince George" of Hastings try to adjourn the

January 15, 1973
The Address-Mr. Hellyer
debate on the Speech from the Throne before the fundamental constitutional vote of confidence in the government was taken. I am glad to see that the other parties in the House are not buying this nonsense. It is interesting that the government won that vote 154 to 104, which is a larger majority than many of the votes in the last parliament. I do not believe the people of this country want this kind of politicking. I do not believe the people of this country want another election. I have talked in my constituency to voters from all political parties and they say: get on with the job of governing; bring in legislation to build a better economy and to build a better society, a better Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maurice Brydon Foster: This should be our goal this session, utilizing the outline of legislation contained in the Speech from the Throne to ensure that the real winners as a result of our efforts are the Canadian people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say how pleased I am that you have been unanimously chosen to preside over us once again. As your seatmate during part of the last parliament, I came to know your human qualities of understanding and compassion as well as your more public characteristics of a sense of justice and unfailing good humour. In the performance of your duties I know you will be supported and encouraged by your lovely and gracious wife.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I should like to extend my congratulations also to the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) who will act as your deputy. Few members of this House are as universally regarded with both respect and affection as he.

I also wish to congratulate the hon. members for Nipiss-ing and Lachine (Messrs. Blais and Blaker) on their being elected to the House of Commons, and on having had the honour of being chosen mover and seconder of the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne which task they fulfilled with eloquence. They are fortunate in being able to speak with such ease both official languages of our country. I wish them much success in their parliamentary career.

Although the quality of this debate has been unusually high, Mr. Speaker, I must say I was disappointed in the speeches made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand). Fairly interpreted, their speeches have indicated that they have learned nothing from the election results. The people have spoken but the message has not been received by the government. The big three, now augmented by the incarnation of the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) to the big four, have not got the message. They did not listen to their colleagues in cabinet; they

largely ignored the warnings of caucus; they totally ignored the most important policy decisions of the Liberal party and now they demonstrate by their attitude and by their intemperate language that the people, too, count for nothing.
Bilingualism was not a big issue in the election. It was important in the Ottawa area because the pledges given by Prime Minister Pearson and then by the present Prime Minister were not honoured. This created an atmosphere of suspicion and mistrust which was bound to be reflected in the vote. But in so far as the rest of the country is concerned, the issues were far more complex and represented, for the most part, a rejection of governmental incompetence and bungling in economic matters. This government failed to solve the ordinary issues of jobs and prices and housing as they affected many citizens, and the vote said so. It was an amalgam of unemployment, inflation, the abuse of unemployment insurance, the failure to take realistic steps to increase Canadian participation in the ownership and development of our own industries and resources, questionable LIP and OFY grants, failure to alleviate regional disparity, and a generally makeshift and amateurish approach to the solution of economic problems that destroyed the credibility of the government and its leaders.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The unemployment rate in Canada is too high. It is the worst of any industrialized country in the western world. This is a shameful situation, and, and as one United States economist said in Toronto a few weeks ago, it is totally unacceptable-he could not understand how it could be tolerated. His view was typical of the view held by others. A couple of years ago when I travelled around the world talking to some of the best economists, labour leaders and bankers, I was asked from time to time what the unemployment rate was in Canada. My answer was received by them with disbelief. In several instances, the person to whom I was talking asked: how could any democratic government survive with an unemployment rate as high as that?
We do not need United States economists or others to tell us about unemployment. We know it is a totally unsatisfactory situation. We know it is totally unacceptable to many Canadians and that something must be done about it. On Sunday I interviewed a number of constituents who were passionately-and in some cases desperately-seeking work at a living wage. The fact that they cannot find employment at a living wage underlines the contention that our unemployment rate is the number one indicator of gross incompetence. It is also the number one indicator of moral failure. When we have such a high unemployment rate, is it not a strange anomaly that there are, at the same time in Canada, tens of thousands of unfilled jobs? Many reasons are cited for this paradox. Some suggest it is because the unemployed do not have the proper qualifications for the jobs being offered. Close scrutiny indicates this is not normally the case. It is also suggested that many unemployed persons do not really want to find work. While this may be true of a small minority, a more credible and accurate explanation lies in the fact that in many cases the wages being offered are not sufficient to live on, and that in tens of thousands of
January 15, 1973

cases the relative advantage of working as against drawing unemployment insurance or welfare provides no incentive. Many individuals are financially better off not to work-or at least not to work full time.
The net result is business and moral chaos. Dress and garment manufacturers cannot hire needleworkers because potential employees can make more on unemployment insurance while doing piecework at home for cash. Tobacco growers could not get enough help to harvest the crop without hiring illegally, under assumed names, young people who were already in receipt of unemployment insurance. Tomato growers could not hire students at $20 a day to harvest their crops. Florists cannot hire workers to tend their greenhouses. Farmers are selling dairy herds because they cannot compete with unemployment insurance. These are some of the symptoms of distortions in our economy, Mr. Speaker. The root causes are deeper. Since 1970 there has been inadequate demand to provide enough jobs for everyone. The big powerful companies and their equally powerful unions have used their monopolistic or oligopolistic power to their own advantage and to the detriment of the weak. Small businesses and non-union labour have been unable to keep up. They, along with the old age pensioners and others living on fixed incomes, have been squeezed unmercifully. The maldistribution of income both regionally and vertically between citizens not only remains but has been exacerbated. Some people were so naive as to believe that the Department of Regional Economic Expansion would achieve miracles. But with its subjective approach to decision making, how could it hope to succeed.
My makeshift lectern, Mr. Speaker, consists of nothing but press releases and reports from the Department of Regional Economic Expansion telling us how much money it has spent and how many jobs it has created, or so we are told. But the jobs have evaporated. In December 1968 there were 152,000 unemployed persons seeking work in Quebec. In December 1972 there were 206,000 unemployed persons seeking work in Quebec, 54,000 more unemployed people in that province than when the Department of Regional Economic Expansion was established. Hundreds of millions of dollars down the drain, and for what?
In some cases money was given to businesses to do what they had planned to do in any event. In other cases, the departmental assistance merely resulted in moving unemployment from one part of the country to another at the taxpayers' expense. In these circumstances, how dare the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) say that the criticism levelled at him and his former department was based on anything other than gross incompetence.
At the same time that the minister was doing his inadequate best to create a few new jobs through the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, the government wiped out a larger number of jobs with its restrictive monetary policy. It was this schizophrenic approach to economic policy which Eric Kierans, and others, could not stomach. The shortage of aggregate demand caused by the tight money policy persists to this moment in spite of the government's best efforts. This is not news. No reliable forecaster has suggested that full employment was
The Address-Mr. Hellyer
just around the corner. No government spokesman has been so bold as to suggest that it is. But in spite of this, the government is still running a crisis operation without benefit of long-term planning.
As long ago as last June, the provincial premiers warned that policies to provide additional job opportunities would have to be launched at once to be effective in the winter months. Yet, notwithstanding this unanimous warning, the government procrastinated. Once again its makeshift programs were too late. The LIP program and the training on the job program were too late for efficient administration. The result is waste of precious funds, Mr. Speaker; inefficient, frustrating waste. I was interested to note that the Liberal speaker who preceded me agreed with my analysis.
On the more positive side, Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat encouraging to see the government's new-found interest in small business. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) reminds us that 60 per cent of the Canadian labour force is working for establishments having the essential characteristics of a small business. Under the circumstances, one might wonder why this sector has been so badly neglected until now.
The package of assistance outlined by the minister is quite impressive on paper. I hope it will produce results. Anyone who is experienced in small business is entitled to be a bit sceptical, however. It would take a tremendous boost to compensate small business for the hurdles which have been placed in its way. Our tax laws, especially death duties, discourage entrepreneurship. Our chartered banks are unduly concerned with potential losses from small business and consequently adequate financing is not readily available in many cases. And in this context, an uneven monetary policy and periodic reliance on monetary restriction have put thousands of small businesses into bankruptcy unnecessarily. On top of this, several levels of government are driving small businessmen up the proverbial wall with the number and complexity of laws and the paper work accompanying them.
I would just like to read one letter in support of that contention, Mr. Speaker. It is a letter addressed to the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro), dated December 7, 1972, "Re: Statistics Canada". It is as follows:
Dear Sir:
I wish to register a complaint regarding the activities of the above agency.
Recognizing the need for providing our government with information concerning the operations of Canadian business and the wages paid, I have conscientiously endeavoured to comply with all requests of the above agency covering a period of some twenty-five years.
However, during the past two or three years, businesses have been deluged with an ever mounting variety of forms, many of which ask for the same information previously supplied.
The latest outrage is Form ES24 which calls for wage information covering the period August 1971 to July 1972, which has already been reported on a monthly basis on Form ES-1A for the past several years.
For your further information the following forms all relate to wage information demanded by the above agency:

January 15, 1973
The Address-Mr. Hellyer



JVS -6B LER40-005 8003 - 73 8003 - 251

[Stage Direction]
The manner in which information is requested suggests to me that the persons compiling these forms do not possess business experience, as some of the questions cannot be answered in any rational manner.
Compliance with these requests require the small business man to pay fees to have this work done and I submit that this is nothmg more than taxation.
I have refused to file the Form ES-24 as records previously filed should provide the information requested.
Your early reply will be appreciated.
Yours very truly,
"C. S. Massey"
C. S. Massey
Accredited Public Accountant Anyone who has operated a small business will say "amen" to that complaint.
The lack of encouragement for Canadian small business and the constant harassment of officialdom has resulted in the sale of many businesses to foreign owners. The screening agency proposed by the government at the last session of parliament would accomplish little. Now the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce promises more.
But he did not explain how the present trend would be reversed. He did not say how Canadians would be encouraged to save more so that they could participate more fully in the ownership of Canadian resources and industry. He did not promise that the government would curtail its appetite for new programs. He did not explain how the combined effects of confiscatory tax laws and inflation would be overcome.
The consequences of the combined effects of taxation and inflation on savings are not well understood. Let us take last year's Canada Savings Bonds as a case in point. The coupon rate for the first year is 5.5 per cent. From that must be deducted the inflation for the year, namely 5.1 per cent. That leaves a net return before tax of four-tenths of one per cent. Now if a taxpayer had a 30 per cent tax rate he would have to pay 30 per cent tax, not on the four-tenths of one per cent but on 51 per cent. That would be 1.65 per cent.
The net result is that anyone with a tax rate of 30 per cent who bought Canada Savings Bonds in 1972 and held them for one year only would not only be lending the government money with no return but would actually get back H per cent less purchasing power than he had at the outset. Only if he held the savings bond until maturity, and assuming that inflation will not rise above its present level, would the investor break even. In 1984, the poor sucker would get his money back without loss, once again, assuming that he did not have to pay to get his income tax forms and other accounting done for him. A grateful government would have the use of the taxpayer s money for 12 years without cost.
Unfortunately many other Canadian investments are equally discouraging. Many investors are hard pressed to place their savings where the purchasing power at the end of the year, after tax and inflation, will be as great as it

was on New Year's day. Is this the climate of opportunity that will encourage Canadians to scrimp and save in order to invest in their own future? I doubt it. It is hardly a healthy climate for business of any kind, small or large.
As important as inflation is for the investor or potential investor, it is 10 times more important for people at the bottom end of the income scale who cannot afford to live, let alone invest. Prices are going up-up-up. There has been a total failure on the part of the government to cope. The 5.1 per cent increase in the consumer price index in 1972 is the largest increase in 22 years. The Canadian experience has become, as one OECD economist put it, "a classic example" of what to avoid in fighting inflation.
In human terms, inflation spells tragedy. A case which came to my attention Saturday is typical of many I know. A constituent, a married man with two children, one aged 11 the other an infant, earns $4,900 a year. This leaves him $80 a week, net, in his pay envelope. He pays $35 a week rent plus $5 a week for coal. That leaves $40 weekly for a family of four. The wife requires special medication costing $15 weekly, leaving $25 for food, clothing and all other necessities. Last week she did not have $6 to pay the hydro bill and was threatened with having the service disconnected. When this man looks at some of the makeshift government programs on which his money is spent, he is full of resentment. Can you blame him, Mr. Speaker? How is a family going to survive under such circumstances? It is a desperate situation. Something must be done, now, to alleviate the suffering, both physical and psychological. A lengthy investigation into food prices will not satisfy this family, Mr. Speaker. They want action now.
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Although the nature of our cost-push inflation is not yet admitted by all economists, the consensus is shifting. The threadbare orthodoxies which have governed official thinking are coming into disrepute. A total revision in thinking is necessary to avoid total catastrophe. The ability of the strong to exploit the weak must be curbed. A fairer distribution of income is essential to offset the distortions created by monopoly power in the so-called market place. A system under which a construction union can get a 35.7 per cent increase in 18 months while the minimum wage in nine of the 10 provinces is less than $2 must be re-examined, not after a royal commission or a task force has studied the problem to death, but now.
In summation, then, Mr. Speaker, the present situation will not wash. We have the highest unemployment rate in the western world while tens of thousands of jobs go unfilled. Confiscatory tax rates discourage savings and encourage sell-out to foreigners. Makeshift programs that result in frustration and waste, distort priorities while undermining accepted values of prudence and administration. Some people have never had it so good while the underprivileged and disadvantaged are desperate. Rising prices are causing real hardship and eroding the savings of innocent and helpless citizens.
January 15, 1973

This sad catalogue more than justifies support of the amendment now before us, Mr. Speaker. In particular, the members of the New Democratic Party, if they have not lost their compassion, should support it vigorously. Their reticence is inexplicable.
The hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) said in Toronto last week that members of this party would vote for the Communist manifesto in order to gain power. He is wrong, Mr. Speaker. We would not even vote for the Regina manifesto in order to gain power.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Theodore Hellyer: This is not difficult to understand. More difficult to understand would be support by the hon. gentleman of reductions in corporation income tax in order to save, temporarily, his electoral skin while at the same time aiding some of his favourite corporate welfare bums. That would confirm the suspicion that the unholy alliance between the NDP and the government will be remembered as the most notorious fuddle-cuddle in Canadian political history.
When the vote is taken tonight, Mr. Speaker, I hope that all those members of this honourable House who really believe in their hearts that action is the handmaid of compassion will vote for the amendment.


Mr. B. Keith Penner (Thunder Bay):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to join with all the other honourable members of this House in saying how pleased I am to see you installed again as the Speaker of this Chamber. For you the burdens of office are particularly heavy, but we are all reassured that because you preside here our deliberations will be more orderly and, hopefully, more beneficial to those who sent us here. As well, I am personally very delighted with the choice of our new Deputy Speaker, a man who has the good reputation for both graciousness and fairness. I also know him to be a very hospitable person. This I discovered during a visit to Halifax in the summer of 1971 when I attended in that city an area conference of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.
I also wish to commend the hon. members who moved and seconded the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. The excellent quality of their speeches has set a high standard for this debate.
As one who comes from northwestern Ontario, which is a developing region of Canada, I note with considerable satisfaction in the Speech from the Throne that in the area of economic policy the government remains committed to a program of regional economic expansion. Because of federal government assistance particularly since 1968, much has been achieved in this region which I am honoured to represent. That, of course, is quite contrary to what was just expressed by the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer). But we all recognize that a great deal more remains to be done. It was for that reason that I sought re-election, and it was for that reason that the electors in my contituency sent me here for another term. Indeed, I am most honoured to represent the people who live in that important area of Canada.
We in northwestern Ontario will be most interested to learn from the government how decentralizing the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and
The Address-Mr. Penner
extending and improving the Industrial Development Bank will assist us in lessening the continual economic disparity which exists between us and the more affluent regions of Canada. We have every intention of sharing in the good life that Canada has to offer, and we will work very hard to accomplish this goal.
The people who live in northwestern Ontario share to some considerable degree the kinds of grievances which are often expressed by those who come from western Canada. Our region belongs to neither the east nor the west, but is is the vital land bridge between the two. In common with those who come from the west, we know that the present freight rate system works against us. Because of high freight rates, the goods that we require in northwestern Ontario cost us more than the price paid by other Canadians. The development of secondary industry is discouraged because of the high cost of getting our products to markets. Meanwhile, Toronto and district are choking in their own growth, but we remain underdeveloped and underpopulated. It often seems to us that if the gluttonous south has had too much of highway building, airport development and expansion of housing, then why not let the people there look towards the mid-north where we desperately need all of these things and, of course, much more besides?
We in northwestern Ontario welcome the promised conference to examine the impact of freight rates on economic development. I would just remind the government, Sir, that although we are part of the great province of Ontario, northern Ontario is also a distinct geographic and economic region of Canada. We will therefore insist very strongly on having regional representation at one or more of these meetings which will consider the economic impact of the present freight rate structure.
We in northwestern Ontario are just as concerned about national unity as are Canadians anywhere else, but for us the question of national unity has little to do with language. It has, however, a great deal to do with the equality of opportunity and the availability of services which are considered essential by most other Canadians. In our region, we speak many different languages, including English and French, but we speak with one voice, we speak in unison, when it comes to asking for what most other Canadians take for granted, namely, an adequate level of health services throughout the region, decent housing, hydro electric power at the rate paid by our fellow citizens elsewhere, and adequate accommodation for our senior citizens so that they do not have to go hundreds of miles from where they lived and worked. We ask as well for reasonably prompt mail service; good, clear, television reception with a choice of channels; a say in some of the decisions which directly affect us; and more job opportunities for our young people, which, undoubtedly can be brought about if we would do more of the processing of our natural resources on the site before we send them south or export them abroad.
Later in my remarks I hope to say more on the subject of resource development, but now I would like to make a brief comment about television in our area. Many of our communities still have very poor or no television reception at all. It is the CBC's stated objective to extend its

January 15, 1973
The Address-Mr. Penner
television and radio service to every community of 500 persons or more. The government has authorized the CBC to extend its services in a comprehensive fashion, but we in northwestern Ontario feel that there is a great deal of foot dragging by the Corporation. The CBC loves to complain about its restricted budget, and yet there always seems to be money to send large crews abroad to cover sports extravaganzas such as the Olympics. Incidentally, the Olympics are one international sideshow which I hope does not come to Canada. The CBC has no difficulty in finding a large sum of money to produce an abortive drama series like the "Whiteoaks of Jalna"; the capital budget is never so restricted as to prevent the CBC from building huge broadcasting cathedrals to house the modern day priests of culture and communication. We in northwestern Ontario question the priorities of the CBC. We believe that the corporation is inefficient and wasteful, and we object to the CBC's expensive pampering to the prissy, over-sophisticated tastes of a mere handful of Canadians. It would certainly be refreshing if this corporation could rediscover the meaning and value of popular entertainment.
To go to another topic, let me say that during the recent election campaign many residents of northwestern Ontario raised the question with me and other candidates about the ownership of land in Canada by aliens or nonresidents. I hasten here to define the meaning of non-resident in this context. By non-resident is meant an individual who does not have Canadian citizenship or landed immigrant status. The throne speech refers to measures dealing with the sale of land to foreigners. What is needed now is a moratorium on the sale or lease of private or public land to aliens until such time as suitable legislation can be prepared and enacted. The moratorium ought to take effect immediately.
I subscribe to the view of those who argue that Crown land, whether in the federal or provincial jurisdiction, should not be sold under any circumstances. Further, Crown land should not be leased to non-residents. Where non-residents now own land in Canada, they should be subject to double taxation, and certain areas of high recreational potential must be expropriated and returned to public ownership.
The Speech from the Throne mentions that steps will be taken to assist in the development of the tourist industry in Canada. One of the ways in which this can be done is to reduce the number of non-resident owners of recreational land in a tourist region. Since one of the main objectives in tourism is to maximize profits, we should consider the relative economic benefits of two groups of tourists. The first, and the largest group, consists of true tourists, those who are travelling through an area, eating in restaurants, staying at camps, campsites or motels, and possibly paying admission to certain attractions. The second type of tourist is the non-resident owner who makes directly for his or her own private spot of seclusion and remains there. As a group, the non-resident owners are smaller and much less economically important than the travelling visitor or "guest" type of tourist.
To help attract even more of these travelling tourists, governments should be doing much more. They should become much more active in the establishment and the
running of local family-centred summer and winter tourist facilities. No subsidies should be given for the operation of tourist facilities by non-residents. Both levels of government should determine the requirements of the private tourist industry to help meet the growing pressures on facilities from the rapid increase in tourist traffic from the United States. Again, no subsidies should be given to non-resident tourist industry operators.
Northwestern Ontario is a vast area, and at present tourists are permitted to wander almost at will and without the help of qualified guides. This, of course, has reduced suitable employment for many of our native people and also results in many of these tourists becoming lost in the bush and sometimes dying there. Many of us are of the opinion that non-resident tourists should be restricted to the use of recognized campsites on Crown or private land, managed either by the government or by private enterprise. The non-resident should not have the privilege of placing his tent, camper or trailer in any unposted area and using the natural facilities at will, leaving nothing behind except his garbage. Non-resident canoeists should have a prepared route and alternate route designated by the provincial department of natural resources. Non-resident tourists flying in by private or chartered aircraft should have an approved destination. Areas open to use for "fly-in" tourists must be designated and controlled, and only in this way can we prevent the prevalent poaching which is presently going on throughout northwestern Ontario.
Provincial and National parks in Canada, particularly those which are close to the U.S. border, are under very intensive pressure. One of the ways in which we could increase the revenue for park maintenance would be to charge much larger park admission fees for non-residents than is paid by Canadians. This may sound discriminatory but remember that most United States jurisdictions do this, and we are certainly foolish not to follow their example.
Returning to the question of the sale of private land to non-residents, there are some who will argue that there are legal problems associated with measures which would restrict the sale of land to non-residents. The proposition is put forward that the Canadian citizen has the constitutional right to dispose of his property as he sees fit. I submit that this is not the case. Government has the inherent power to act in its social and material interest in laying down conditions respecting aliens. The ownership of our land by large numbers of aliens does have an adverse effect on our social and material well being. The federal and provincial governments not only have the right but also the duty, to enact legislation to deal with this growing and serious problem.
It is interesting to note in the Speech from the Throne, Mr. Speaker, reference to these three items: extending and improving the Industrial Development Bank; assistance to credit unions, and aid for small businesses by improving their access to financing facilities. I approve of all these proposals, Mr. Speaker. The Industrial Development Bank has helped entrepreneurs when there was no other place for them to turn. It is true, as the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster), has mentioned, that they had to

January 15, 1973

pay a rather high rate of interest to get the money, but at least they have been able to establish or expand their enterprises. There is no question about the fact that it is a matter of urgent concern that we help small businesses with their financing, and everything that we do to assist credit unions will certainly benefit Canada and Canadians. There are now 55,000 credit unions throughout the world with 38 million members. In Canada, every fourth person is a member of a credit union, and 53 million Canadians are enrolled in 4,500 credit unions. Ontario has over one million members in 1,400 credit unions. When the Speech from the Throne speaks of extending and improving the Industrial Development Bank, of improving financing facilities for small businesses, and of assisting credit unions, I certainly agree that these are necessary measures.
The question arises, however, as to what the chartered banks are doing in this country besides paying healthy dividends to their shareholders. Bank stocks are once again among the favourites this year, and no wonder. The combined after-tax profit of eight Canadian chartered banks was $229,956,000 in the year ending October 31, 1972, an increase of 23.2 per cent from the profits in the 1971 fiscal year. Banks are able to maximize their profits by depressing the rates of interest paid on deposits, by raising service charges as much as the market will bear, and by lending only to low risk projects.
It is obvious that projects sponsored by large United States companies will be preferred over ventures by smaller Canadian groups. Mr. Speaker, it is not right that our banks should be helping United States businesses buy out Canadian companies. It seems to me that our banks ought to reflect the national interest in their money lending policies. They ought to invest in Canada in proportion to the resources they derive from Canada. Recent studies have shown that there is no shortage of capital in Canada. New American capital that comes into this country is far exceeded by the export of capital to the United States by Canadians. One of the big failures of our banks is that they do not go far enough in allocating funds to specific regions of Canada, especially developing regions, and in permitting branches there to utilize the money in the best interests of that area.
The Speech from the Throne speaks of measures to increase Canadian participation in the ownership and control of resource projects. There may be some jurisdictional disputes in this regard, Mr. Speaker, but it is clear that action is required if our resource regions are to be truly Canadian rather than merely economic frontiers of the United States.
The rapid increase in the American demand for particular Canadian raw materials arising from the expansion of American industry and the progressive depletion of American domestic sources of supply, has placed Canada in an advantageous, and yet very dangerous position. In the short-term, the effects of this trend are obviously beneficial for Canadian producers, but this in turn leads to a potentially dangerous drain on the total Canadian resources in the long run. A good deal today can become a sell-out tomorrow.
The history of resource development m Canada includes varying degrees of emphasis at different times 25714-19
The Address-Mr. Ritchie
on exploitation, conservation and management. Today, as a basis for resource development and in the making of any new resource policy, the need for orderly management of our resources must be recognized. Although research has not indicated any short-term scarcity, the long-term outlook underlines the need for immediate action to prevent the rapid depletion of our non-renewable resources. Only a policy of orderly management will secure for future generations the optimum benefit from our resources; only a policy of orderly management will be able to rationally bring about a reconciliation of the goals of economic growth and environmental quality.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a brief word about water resources in northwestern Ontario. We have one of the most abundant supplies of fresh water of any region in the world. The government of Canada and the Ontario government are currently engaged in a jointly sponsored study to assess the extent of the water resources in this region. This activity makes us very nervous and just a little uncomfortable, Mr. Speaker. We have had repeated assurances from both the federal and the provincial governments that no massive diversion schemes for our northward flowing rivers are being contemplated. We want very much to believe that, but it is often difficult to trust the word of governments, as the citizens of Manitoba recently discovered with reference to a hydro project in that province. Mr. Speaker, I call on the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis) to cease and desist from all studies of our water resources which include the possibility of river diversions. Instead, why not transfer these funds into archeological and ecological research and into economic development projects which will benefit our native people.
I would ask the Minister of the Environment to withdraw, on behalf of the federal government, from this agreement with Ontario, which we believe may be a first step toward another huge hydroelectric project involving damming, flooding and general environmental destruction on a terrifying scale. We in northwestern Ontario do not want something like the James Bay hydro project in Quebec or something like the proposed Churchill River diversion in Manitoba. We respectfully ask both levels of government to recall their engineers and hydrologists-to please get out and stay out. Any attempt to divert our great northward flowing rivers in northwestern Ontario will be met with well organized, lawful resistance. There is now in existence an active citizens group to watch carefully and closely all and any activities related to river diversion in our region. We ask the Minister of the Environment for yet another word of reassurance that diversion schemes are not being contemplated and that any studies of such a possibility will be terminated.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, may I join with other hon. members in offering you my congratulations on your election once again as Speaker of this

The Address-Mr. Ritchie
House. I wish Your Honour the very best. I would like also to congratulate the House on its choice of Deputy Speaker. I feel that this choice is a good omen, since I understand that this is the second occasion in Canadian parliamentary history on which the Deputy Speaker has been chosen from the opposition side. This is an important deviation from custom, and we welcome it. In future, perhaps not only the official opposition but other opposition parties might have a representative in that important post.
I also wish to echo the sentiments of the hon. member who spoke just before lunch. I am at one with him in his comments on the CBC, as I come from a riding much the same as his which is served by only one television station. I think the CBC and CRTC have neglected in many ways the primary duty for which the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation was originally established, the duty of giving service to outlying areas which normally cannot expect to be served by commercial channels. The CBC and CRTC have been far too concerned about the content of programs available to that part of the population which is able to tune in to the American stations, and have forgotten about those portions of the country which can exercise little or no choice in the selection of television programs.
Having said that, may I now turn to the Speech from the Throne. On Monday last, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) launched into his reply to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr.Stanfield). During the course of his discursive and rambling dissertation, he attacked those who had brought his government to a minority position by suggesting that this result was achieved by a misguided group of candidates on my side of the House leading the electorate astray on various subjects, particularly his bilingualism program. Nevertheless, a short study of our recent history will disclose that this is not so.
A review of the past 12 elections will indicate, I suggest, that if the present party system is to continue, we shall be in a minority situation on many occasions to come. In the seven elections since 1957, as opposed to the five before 1957, the Conservative party has had strength in western Canada. In the five elections between 1935 and 1957 the party I support won an average of only eight seats west of Ontario. Since 1957, in seven elections the Conservatives won an average of 42 seats west of the Ontario-Manitoba border. The number of Tory seats in the present parliament is the average that the party has won in the past seven elections. That means that there is a great possibility of increasing Tory strength in western Canada. If present voting trends continue, it is apparent that there will be a good many minority governments.
It gives me great pleasure to note that the vote of Tuesday last found the NDP supporting the Liberal party. We have ample evidence in western Canada to indicate that the NDP is only a wing of the Liberal party, or else how could the minority government of the Pearson regime have withstood the many votes necessary to keep it in power for five years? I welcome this support of the NDP party for the Liberal cause, because it means there has been a polarization that will be good for the politics of Canada. In the last 50 years, western Canada has dissipated its political power in ideological groups supporting

vague causes without any practical possibility of bringing their aims about. Perhaps we are witnessing merely a maturing of political thought in western Canada.
In the past seven elections the decision of western Canadians to give the preponderance of their seats to the Conservative party indicates that they are merely following the lead of Quebec. Quebec in the past 70 years has only deviated on two occasions from supporting the Liberal party. One was in 1958, a period of recent history well known; the other was during the 1920's, when agricultural problems so seriously upset the rural population of Quebec that they voted for a change. This polarization will almost certainly continue and will be a new factor in voting in Canada, particularly western Canada. After all, in our regional country western Canada is in conflict with Quebec on language and culture and with Ontario on economic matters.
The past 100 years of Canadian history show that there has always been a confrontation and compromise between the regions. The main added new factor will be that the compromises will have to take into account the third party, western Canada, and not just Ontario and Quebec. In the book "Pendulum of Power", written by James Beck, Mackenzie King was quoted as saying that during his years as Leader of the Liberal party, in the final analysis he always had to depend on Quebec for his political support.
The Prime Minister suggested that his bilingual program was misunderstood and used by his opponents in a bigoted and unfair way. Mr. Speaker, bilingualism was a factor in western Canada, in my experience at least, but there were many more long standing grievances against the government. Bilingualism was only one of many, many grievances that people expressed. The bilingualism program was an intellectual solution to a very difficult problem. Language is always a divisive force in any nation or group, as often as is religion. In the total population of our country, there are very few bilingual people. To pick out of this small group 25,000 of the 300,000 civil servants who, just because they are bilingual, are to make the executive decisions for this country, will cause intense resentment on the part of those who are unilingual.
It is small wonder the western Canadian voter feels he is largely shut out of the decision making process of the government and that there is little likelihood of any of his representatives attaining a place in this area. It might be said they should accept bilingualism as being necessary for Canadian unity, but I doubt whether most unilingual individuals are willing to accept a second class citizenship because they happen to be unilingual. The farther away from Ottawa these people are, the more unpleasant the policy of bilingualism appears.
The Prime Minister stated there would be some modifications. With a little imagination, the language problem could be solved in a more acceptable manner. If this is to be a two-language country, it is obvious that Canadians must belong to one or the other of these two language groups. The use of the two languages in the civil service will allow both languages to be represented in a way which will correspond to their statistical numbers in the
January 15, 1973

population. This will prevent injustices and imbalances occurring. It would be particularly useful to the minority language group to prevent undue discrimination, an event that could easily happen in the future.
The Prime Minister suggested that many Conservatives and their supporters were not sensitive to the problems of language, particularly as it pertains to Quebec and the separatists. The opposite to sensitivity is allergy. Many people in other parts of Canada are becoming increasingly allergic to this Quebec issue. Perhaps herein lies much of the danger to Canadian unity, probably more so than any other area. It is time to examine other methods of federalism to cope with our linguistic and economic problems.
This government achieved its most abject failure when, with our high rate of unemployment and rapid increase in the labour force, it failed to resolve our trade differences with our neighbour to the south, our largest trading partner. We have always had good relations with the Americans, but in this past 10 years we have seen a diminishing of good will. We all foresee that in the not too distant future there will be restrictions on the easy passage of commerce and people back and forth across the border.
It is difficult to feel that the resolution presented to the House last Friday will not be construed as unilateral censorship of the American bombing of North Viet Nam. We did not register a similar complaint when An Loc and Quangtri, two large cities in South Viet Nam, were razed last fall by Communist artillery. We did not raise any protest whatsoever. We do not know why President Nixon ordered the resumption of bombing, but a captured document indicates that the Viet Cong intended to start a reign of terror as soon as the cease fire came into effect.
There are 14 regular Viet Nam divisions that are ready to give the Viet Cong a helping hand in their task of plunging South Viet Nam into chaos. It seems likely that the president's demand and Hanoi's refusal that these divisions return home was one of the main reasons for the breakdown of the Paris talks. Despite such resolutions by this parliament, Canadians still expect the Americans to have no ill-will and no question of our right to have all possible privileges, and on the most friendly basis, in our relations with the United States. However, it seems unlikely that this sort of behaviour can continue without some reaction.
In a recent situation, Australian seamen imposed a union ban on United States shipping. This was promptly lifted when longshoremen on the U.S. coast refused to unload nine Australian ships carrying meat and wool, even though only two United States ships were involved. Two parties are always involved, and we have to remember this in our dealings with the United States.
The on-again, off-again auto pact talks have been with us for months. This government has made no progress in resolving our trade differences in almost two years. The world is dividing into giant trading blocs, such as the European, the Japanese and the Communist which, surprisingly, is demanding goods and even food from the west. The post-war ideal of free trade is being threatened by these three separate blocs. The other blocs, particularly the European Common Market, seem determined to discriminate against the North American continent. Both
25714-19i
The Address-Mr. Ritchie
Canada and the United States face a world market which is hedged and bedevilled by trade barriers. Within the next two or three years, we will be faced with the protectionist follies of the 1930's.
Canada has her own peculiar problems. We lack a vast domestic market at home and are dependent on the single American market. We are even now affected by high unemployment. How is Canada to maintain its prosperity if the American market is damaged by protectionism? That sentiment is already being exhibited by a frightened congress. As Canada increasingly nourishes manufacturing industries by particular devices of its own, how can it avoid retaliation from the United States? We certainly have an example of this in the Michelin tire case where a United States agency assessed duty on tires because they were built in a plant which was given a DREE grant.
There is also the matter of our natural resources, particularly energy, and how much we will sell to the United States market. There are those who say we should not sell any, but this seems impractical in view of the fact that Canada itself must import energy and other raw materials.
In the past year, Canadian manufacturers have suffered a deterioration in their competitive position because of the appreciation of the Canadian dollar and the introduction of the DISC program. There has been a more fundamental and longer run adverse trend in Canadian manufacturing as far as competitiveness is concerned. The Canada-United States wage differential has narrowed considerably since 1960. All this indicates that the manufacturing industry in Canada, which we have been told so often must provide needed jobs for this decade, is facing a rather bleak future. The cooling of relations with Washington can only mean that our task will be more difficult in the future and Washington will increasingly disregard its counterpart in Ottawa. In the field of relations with Washington, this government has been most derelict.
I now wish to turn to the part of the throne speech that deals with small business. I am very glad this parliament has discovered the small businessman. In the four years that I have been here, this government has not done anything but pass legislation which did not help small businesses in any way. The throne speech indicated that small business has a great place in Canadian life. If this is so, I am sure the small businessman will be one of the first to say he has not had much recognition in the past. The tax structures and the ways of the modern economic system are fast driving him out of existence, yet it is almost the only way in which much of the rural areas of our country can produce and provide a living for their people. In the past four years, this government has shown little or no awareness of the small business, the small businessman and the small entrepreneur.
When speaking about small business, we must also consider agriculture which is almost wholly carried on in the small business context. It is still the basic industry of Canada. It is significant that even with the rise of food prices, the next cash income of farmers in 1972 will be less than in the previous year, 1971. I think the same will hold true for most other small businesses. The problem of small business in the past few years has been its inability to adjust to rising costs and wages, both of which have

January 15, 1973
The Address-Mr. Ritchie
been rising considerably faster than the ability of small business to cope. By the time it has been able to adjust either by raising prices or increasing productivity, wages and costs have moved on to a new plateau. In the case of the farming industry, the unit prices have not changed appreciably in 20 years. Farmers have had to adjust by increased productivity and, at the same time we have seen an exodus of people from the farm working force to other industry. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) suggested to us what a great thing it is that the corporation tax on small manufacturing businesses is to be lowered from 25 per cent to 20 per cent. But it was 20 per cent under the old tax law, and it will be appreciated that very few small businesses will fall into the manufacturing and processing category.
Recent tax changes dealt a heavy blow to small business. In agriculture, the loss of the basic herd, straightline depreciation on machinery and capital gains tax are especially onerous. The tax changes in the recent act affecting small corporations such as the wiping out of the low tax rate on investment income will prevent the accumulation of money in the corporation for expansion. Small corporations must save money for a period of time before expanding.
The small business entrepreneur starting out finds himself in formidable difficulties. As well as attempting to compete, and build his business, he must hire a tax accountant to keep him out of trouble with National Revenue, otherwise, through some tax misfortune, he may face severe penalties and the possible loss of what he has accumulated. He also must comply with numerous regulations, laws and special requirements in order to meet various standards. All this detracts from his ability to manage his business. But the government will remedy this, they say, because they will provide consultants. Mr. Speaker, I do not think any small businessman will be thanking the government for sending men around to tell him how to run his business better.
It is difficult for small businessmen to procure the necessary capital, and I doubt if the Industrial Development Bank will be particularly helpful. It is generally considered by many small business people that if the government has to finance them, it is hardly worth being in business. There is a great reluctance on the part of most small business entrepreneurs to rely on government loans and government handouts. The problem of financing for the small businessman is that the pools of capital normally available in the past have dried up or else are out of his reach. The introduction of the pension plan and registered retirement plans has meant that, at least in small communities, most capital is siphoned off to the large cities and it is not practical to invest it in the place it came from.
Pension plans are now the largest investment factor in the market at the present time. The government's interest in small business is laudable, but one has to face the fact that the individual entrepreneur is not faring very well in the present day business world. Generally, those who would be successful small business people can command a good salary in the wage structure of the commercial world. In the early years of his life and of his family, this

is a very important consideration. In later years, the prospect of capital gains and estate tax at the end of his career, makes being a small business entrepreneur not particularly attractive. The government will have to do much more than to advise small business or to attempt to bbrrow it into existence before there will be significant improvement in the small business position.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a word about inflation. At this time, with the rapid rise in prices, I would advise that we look at all our options to achieve price stability. New policy options should be introduced to achieve a faster rate of real growth and lower unemployment rates and yet establish a climate of price stability so necessary for the future. There should be a reduction in all federal sales and excise taxes. This would exert downward pressure on the price levels because it would be passed on to the customer; a sales tax cut has an expansionary effect on real consumer demands as it lowers prices. Incidence of sales tax bears most heavily on the lower income group, so sales tax cuts are the best means of distributing purchasing power to those with low incomes; they are far more effective than an income tax cut.
Those with fixed incomes, the unemployed and those who have borne the brunt of the anti-inflationary program, would benefit more from sales tax cuts than from income tax reductions. The impact of the decline in prices would be more significant than a cut in income tax. A sales tax cut would reduce government revenues, but economic expansion would be stimulated and part of the tax revenue loss would be recovered. A sales tax cut increases real income, reduces wage demands and has the most deflationary effect of any tax cut. It would have the added advantage of helping the lowest income group more than an income tax cut would. Of course, many other things ought to be done in conjunction with a policy to contain inflation.
Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne was full of vague generalities. It can be interpreted to mean almost anything. We shall have to wait for specific legislation to be brought down before we can make any reasonable assessment of what the speech really means.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the encomiums which have been heaped on the heads of the presiding officers since this debate began have been fulsome indeed, and at this stage the repetition of those words of praise, even though sincere, might be somewhat ritualistic. Nevertheless, this debate does give us an opportunity to pay our respects to the president officers and to proclaim our devotion to the institution of the Speakership in the Canadian House of Commons.
Today, the speakership is a strong, vital and valuable institution. Without it, the House of Commons could not operate. The standing of the Speakership at the moment is due in part to the qualities of those who now hold the office and of those who have held the office in the past. It also derives in part from the standing which the Speaker enjoys arising from the fact that he is an elected member of the House; he comes to this House through the same process of election as all other hon. members. It has been suggested from time to time that an institution be created
January 15, 1973

called a permanent Speakership, something which would involve the creation of a special House of Commons seat.
The Speaker would thus be relieved of the necessity of seeking election in an ordinary constituency. For my part, if any such innovation involved a device which eliminated the necessity for a Speaker or a potential Speaker running for election like other commoners, then I would be entirely opposed to it. In this view I am supported by opinions of two former Prime Ministers, the late Mr. Pearson, and of the present right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). Mr. Pearson, speaking in a debate in this House in 1965, and referring to the possibility I have mentioned, stated:
This device would certainly transform the Speaker from being an equal with his fellow members over whose deliberations he presides, into-and I say this in no derogatory sense-some type of parliamentary functionary, and I suggest that the change might even reduce the prestige of your office.
Later in the same debate, in fact the following day, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) said:
I do not believe in the principle that a constituency should be set up for the purpose of providing a Speaker. He would then cease to be the first commoner that he is because he would be there by choice and not election.
I believe the very fact that so many hon. members have paid sincere tributes to the presiding officers indicates that at the present time the Canadian Speakership is working very well indeed, and any changes probably would be in the wrong direction.
Mr. Speaker, you do make a very imposing figure in the Chair. Your physical presence is very imposing, and no less imposing is your fair mindedness, your studiousness and your friendliness. I congratulate you as the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) for having become the Deputy Speaker of this House of Commons. Your selection as Deputy Speaker from the ranks of the official opposition underlines the simple reality that if this House of minorities is to produce and deliver for the people of Canada it will require the co-operation of all the parties in the House of Commons, and that reality will exist whether this party or the party opposite happens to sit in the treasury benches.
The mover and seconder of the address in reply performed exceedingly well, despite the fact that they were competing for attention in an atmosphere of concern and tension in respect of the fate of the twenty-ninth parliament. Other new members on all sides of the House made impressive contributions to the debate and I congratulate them most warmly, as I do congratulate them on their election to the House of Commons.
May I refer in particular to the maiden speech of the hon. member for Kingston and The Islands (Miss MacDonald) who pleased us all with her historical perception in a well delivered speech. She comes to the House of Commons well endowed. She is a Cape Bretoner and a MacDonald. As she pointed out, the first member for Kingston was a Macdonald, a Conservative like herself. In the intervening years, the Macdonald presence was further felt in Kingston by the representation of that historic city in the House of Commons by the late Angus L. Mac-
The Address-Mr. MacEachen
donald, a former Premier of Nova Scotia who, when he served Kingston, was the Minister of Naval Services in the Mackenzie King administration.
Of course, he succeeded the late Norman McLeod Rogers who represented Kingston, another distinguished Nova Scotian who met his untimely death in the service of his country. The late Angus L. was a great political figure in his day and a friend of a number of us presently in the House of Commons. He was certainly a friend and political competitor of the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield). He had just about everything. He was a Cape Bretoner, a Macdonald and a Liberal.
The hon. member for Kingston and The Islands bears the name of a Scottish heroine whose memory still lives because of her bravery in several historic episodes, but especially for her ingenuity in planning the escape from the English searchers of Prince Charles Edward Stuart known in history as "Bonnie Prince Charlie". Dr. Johnson, and I am not referring to Dr. James Johnson, who will be well known to the hon. member for Kingston and The Islands, but Dr. Samuel Johnson wrote about the original Flora during his tour of the Hebrides in 1772 saying that "Flora MacDonald is a name that will be mentioned in history, and if courage and self-sacrifice be virtues, mentioned with honour." Of course, his prediction was fulfilled for, if you travel in Scotland today, you will find memorials in Inverness, Skye and Uist, dedicated to the original Flora MacDonald.
May I make a prediction today, Mr. Speaker, a la Samuel Johnson. My prediction is that the hon. member for Kingston and The Islands, the modern, perceptive Flora MacDonald, will bring in our day added lustre to the old name and the old clan, and will deserve a secure place in our political history, though I hasten to add that I doubt whether such an outcome will excite the enthusiasm of the right hon. member for Prince Albert.


Mr. Fairweather:: Is this a proposal?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: May I now turn to a less agreeable subject, namely the current parliamentary situation. I suppose parliamentary maturity, like personal maturity, is to accept what comes of an election and to make the best of circumstances as we find them. Certainly no member of the House of Commons wished that the election results would be just what they are. In fact, the results were not wished upon us by ourselves, they were imposed upon us by the will of the Canadian people. Our job, inconvenient as it may be for some or all of us, is to accept the situation and to work within it as well as we can.
The NDP, the Social Credit party and the government itself have all fully accepted the results of the election and have declared their intention of doing their best to work within this parliament in order that parliament itself can work on behalf of the people of Canada. The government has accepted its responsibility of presenting a legislative program and the NDP and the Social Credit party have accepted the responsibility of examining that program and accepting or rejecting it on its merits. Absent from this acceptance of the present situation is the official opposition.

January 15, 1973
The Address-Mr. MacEachen
I have examined the speeches of the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Peace River and the right hon. member for Prince Albert and nowhere do I find any indication that either of those hon. gentlemen is ready to accept the results of the election, let alone decide to work constructively within this House for the welfare of the people of Canada. They who accused this government of arrogance on every possible occasion have shown the greatest possible arrogance themselves by saying the results of the election are not for them and the twenty-ninth parliament is not their bag at all. The result is, of course, displeasing to them. They have made no commitment to make parliament work. They have no desire to prolong the life of this parliament. In my opinion, they have no desire, even if they did form a government, to place a legislative program before the House of Commons. The plan of the official opposition is absolutely clear from their conduct, and from their speeches since the session began.


John Allen Fraser: Your plan is quite clear.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Their plan was to propose, as they did, a non-confidence motion against the government, in the fervent expectation that that motion would be accepted and the government would fall. But having put the nonconfidence motion before the House, they then hesitated before the full effect of that motion could be dealt with, and proposed a motion that the House adjourn.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: No, no-the debate.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That ham-handed effort-Mr. Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield). The motion was that the debate adjourn. That was certainly a departure from the plan. We took the attitude that the first duty of the government was not to present a legislative program but to secure and test the confidence of the House. That was the attitude taken by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) when he faced a minority House in October, 1957.
At that time the then Leader of the Opposition refused to put a non-confidence motion. The then Prime Minister, now the right hon. member for Prince Albert, was so upset because it transgressed parliamentary propriety and might deny him the opportunity of seeking the confidence of the House, that he complained. Indeed, he complained in a number of ways. As a matter of fact, I find his comments on that day quite useful.


Mr. Hees:: You will find them useful on a lot of other days, too.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Now, he has a changed attitude. At that time, speaking about Mr. St. Laurent, who was the Leader of the Opposition, he said, as recorded at page 48 of Hansard for October 16,1957:
I could not quite follow him in the attitude that he took all the way through his speech. It was an attitude of criticism-sometimes captious criticism-this was wrong, that was wrong-
Can you imagine how the right hon. gentleman has changed, from the moment that he found criticism was

wrong, until the speech that he made in the House the other day?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: However, he went on to say, and this is the point I want to draw to the attention of hon. members opposite:
If everything that is being presented is wrong or subject to criticism, why not do that which under ordinary circumstances would be the proper attitude to adopt? Why not permit a vote to take place regarding that matter which above all others is of the first consideration, whether or not we do enjoy the confidence of the House of Commons?
That sound principle, like many of the policies which the right hon. gentleman advocated, has been abandoned by the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield). He sought to interrupt a debate on a non-confidence motion and asked the government to present legislation- a government in which he had no confidence. What parliamentary folly is that!
So frustrated were hon. members opposite when the House seized the opportunity to defeat the official opposition, that some of them interpreted that procedural vote as a vote against old age pensions.


Gerald William Baldwin: So it was.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: What frustration!


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: One of them said, referring to the government, "They stood in opposition to immediate relief for the old people of Canada". Another hon. member said, "They are voting against the consideration of old age pensions at this time." What a strange interpretation to be made in that frenzy of disappointment. Of course, what drove them up the wall was that the House itself refused to co-operate with them in their objective of bringing this parliament to a quick end, because that was their purpose, to bring down the government, to move over here, and then dissolve and have a quick election.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: There is no sense to their speeches. The Leader of the Opposition made a long speech. He did not say, "We must make this parliament work". He did not say, "I have a program." He did not turn to the Social Credit or to the NDP and say, "Members of this House, I have a better program than the Speech from the Throne."


George Harris Hees: That was obvious in the election itself.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: All he said was, "They stole my program. It's stolen goods. It's grand larceny". This government, Mr. Speaker, is in the wonderful position, the enviable position, of being accused by both the NDP and the Conservative party of having expropriated their programs. The only difference is that the NDP is honest enough to give the House an opportunity to deal with its expropriated program, while the official opposition has no alternative to offer. Up to the moment, it is asking for the confidence of all hon. members but it has not told us what program it wishes to bring forward.
January 15, 1973

The official opposition did not tell us its pension program. It only wanted to stop the House, stop the clock, stop parliament and deal with pensions. But, I repeat, no speaker in the ranks of the official opposition has yet stated what their position is on old age pensions. Where do they stand? Is it the position that the Leader of the Opposition took during the election campaign, or is it a new position? What is their program if it is better than the expropriated program in the Speech from the Throne? The House did not co-operate. Why should it co-operate with the political ambitions of the Conservative party to form a government, dissolve parliament, and hold a midwinter election without putting any program before the House?


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Mr. Nowlan:: That's hocus-pocus.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member for Peace River has said in his speech, "Let us not listen to government proposals. Let us not find out what they have in mind. We know all about them because they have been in the government for a number of years." Mr. Speaker, in case any of the members of the Social Credit or the NDP are tempted to place the official opposition over here may I refer to a number of their accomplishments and achievements in the past.
Take the question of unemployment, now before the House in the form of a non-confidence motion moved by the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) who, in his statesmanlike appeal for support for his party, called the NDP fakers and charlatans. Are those the words of a party that wants the House of Commons to work, that wants to prolong the life of parliament?


Gerald William Baldwin: Was he that moderate?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Today we are being asked by the hon. member for South Shore to deny confidence to the government because of its bad record on unemployment. We all know the facts about the present unemployment figures, and there really is not much consolation in telling the House that the performance of the government in the field of unemployment is much better than the performance of the last Conservative government under the leadership of the right hon. member for Prince Albert.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


Gerald William Baldwin: You have the highest record of unemployment today.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The highest point of unemployment came in January, 1961. The highest absolute number of unemployed occurred in that month when it reached 690,000.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: That was five elections ago.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, five elections ago, and now the same crowd of people are asking to become the government of this country.


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


Allan Joseph MacEachen: There were 690,000 unemployed persons at that time.


Gerald William Baldwin: How about 1896?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I know my hon. friend has rejected the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), but I did not expect him to do it openly in the House of Commons. That number of unemployed, 690,000, was the highest in this country. It has never been reached under the administration of this government. Last month the figures were high enough at 584,000, but in the meantime the Canadian labour force has grown from six and a half million to almost nine million.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: How was inflation then, and what was the cost of living?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Our performance, on any comparison, is distinctly better than anything that could be offered by that group of persons opposite if they formed a government.


Gerald William Baldwin: Why don't you say "nobodies"?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: If the Leader of the Opposition formed the government, he would have about the same group of men around him, the same administrators. The former and potential minister of trade and commerce is right in front of us in potentia, and so is the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) who was associated with the former government. They might say that the Leader of the Opposition is new, that he was not part of that crowd. He was an acquiescent and quiescent supporter of the former right hon. gentleman in those years when unemployment in the Atlantic provinces ran consistently higher than it has done this year or in any year of Liberal administration. He did everything in the election of 1963 to put his "friend of high unemployment" back in office as the prime minister of Canada. Perhaps we have new blood in the person of the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) and new blood in the person of the hon. member for Saint Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner)-these recycled Grits who have now come to sit on the Conservative benches. I would suggest that if this House wants Liberalism it would prefer it in a pure rather than a corrupted form.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: The old group has the stench of decay.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: They weep about pensions. It is hard to believe but when this crowd was in office the last time they left the old age security benefit at $65. They had been six years in office.


George Harris Hees: Tell us about six buck Harris.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That goes back seven elections.


George Harris Hees: Tell us all about the six buck boys.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: They left the old age pension at $65, in April of 1973 the maximum GIS will be $156.75. Compare that performance, allowing the pensions to remain at such

January 15, 1973
The Address-Mr. MacEachen
a low level, with the performance of the Liberal government under the former prime minister and under the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). The House of Commons is asked to vote for that crown and to put them in office in the light of that performance and in the light of their failure to tell us what they propose to do.


George Harris Hees: Tell us when six buck Harris raised it to $46.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am sorry that the right hon. member for Prince Albert is not in his seat.


J. Michael Forrestall: You should be glad that he is not.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: He is familiar with those years about which I have been speaking because it was in those years that he became so familiar with the practice of bundling about which he showed such a complete grasp in his notable discourse last week. In the 1962-63 parliament we were all here and we watched the great bundling that occurred between the right hon. gentleman and the Social Credit group in the House of Commons. That was an honourable course, so the prime minister of the day told us. It was honourable to prolong the life of parliament, and in order to prolong it he sought and received the support of the Social Credit party.


George Harris Hees: He did not seek it and he did not receive it, and you know it. Tell the truth, Allan. It is a poor speech but at least tell the truth.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The Social Credit party prolonged the life of that government in every vote except on motions it moved itself, and it did so consistently until February 4, 1963.


George Harris Hees: Tell us about the time when you supported funny money.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It was on that fateful day-


George Harris Hees: Do you remember that day? That was a fine, honourable vote, was it not?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the minister but the time allotted to him has expired. It can be extended with unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Bell:: Mr. Speaker, according to our previous practice the minister would be allowed another five or ten minutes to finish his remarks, and that would be agreeable at this time, but we would not want this to go on all day long.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The minister has been given extended time.


George Harris Hees: Give us five more minutes on six buck Harris and the funny money vote. You were so proud of them in those days.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I must say I have not been receiving very much co-operation from the opposition in making this address, but I did think it was important to mention that history just did not begin with the opening of the

twenty-ninth parliament, that we have had a minority situation before. We had a minority situation in 1962 and 1963. The government of the right hon. member for Prince Albert survived with the support of the Social Credit group until February 4, 1963 when between six and eight o'clock, the then leader of the Social Credit party changed his mind. What happened? I will tell you what happened.
The right hon. member for Prince Albert let him fall out of bed between six and eight o'clock that night and he changed his vote. Before six o'clock he said, "An election in Canada precipitated at this time by the events of the last three days and carrying an anti-American overtone would be a tragedy for Canada". That was before six o'clock, Mr. Speaker. After eight o'clock he moved a subamendment.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: That was before you got to him.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That brought down the government of the day and, mind you-


George Harris Hees: What is all this proving?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It is proving a number of things.


George Harris Hees: Just give me one. Come on, let's have one thing that this is proving. You know it is not proving anything except that you are on cloud nine.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, it simply proves that what was then honourable in the mind of the right hon. member for Prince Albert today is ignoble because he is not the beneficiary of the support of members of the House that kept him in office in those days. It is instructive in another way-


George Harris Hees: Watch your voice, Allan; you are getting excited. Don't let your voice break like that. Think of your health.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It is instructive in another way, Mr. Speaker, because the other day the right hon. member for Prince Albert talked about "monstrous constitutional doctrines".


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: They have been modified over the week-end.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: He is obviously drawing a lot on his own career. He was defeated on that night of February 5. He had called parliament the preceding September but did not sit all those days because there was a fairly long adjournment and his government fell on February 5. He had been sustained on about eight substantive motions that involved confidence but as I recollect, he did not, when he lost, resign. He did not say, "I am through"; he went to Government House and got a dissolution. When the then Leader of the New Democratic Party spoke that night he ended by saying, "Let the people decide"; the then leader of the Social Credit party said, "Let the people decide" and the right hon. gentleman got his dissolution and went to the people.
January 15, 1973

The thought that any Prime Minister today would contemplate the possibility of dissolution sends the right hon. gentleman almost into hysterics.


Thomas Miller Bell: You would not say that if he were here.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, they have talked about Sir John A. Macdonald. We heard in the dulcet tones of the hon. member for Kingston and The Islands (Miss MacDonald) that he was the father of our country and the father of the Conservative party. We know what happened from 1867 to 1873, or whatever the dates are. Sir John A. Macdonald lost nine votes in this House-he lost them on supply, he lost them on money bills, he lost them on important government legislation, including a tariff measure; he lost them on all these things but he did not resign. When it is suggested that the present government might accept a defeat and not resign it is called a "monstrous doctrine". That is the theology of the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert.
I remember reading at one time-


George Harris Hees: Are you going even farther back?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No. I am not. I remember reading at one time-


An hon. Member:: King Charles lost his head.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the interruptions of the hon. gentleman are becoming offensive.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I would like him to please refrain from further interruptions while I am making this speech.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: If you can't stand the heat, you had better get out of the kitchen.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, it is not the heat I am worried about it is the lack of light coming from the other side.
I remember reading a biography of Sir John A. Macdonald, the father of our country, in which it was stated that at one of his meetings a supporter, overcome with emotion, got up and said to him, "Sir John, you will never die". Mr. Speaker, he may still live in this House of Commons. As we quote some of these precedents created by the father of our country, as we find our way through this difficult minority government, we will not hesitate to lean on those precedents in order to meet situations as we find them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: There is nothing dishonourable or monstrous about that.


George Harris Hees: Allan, have you seen a doctor lately?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I noted the words of the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Lewis). He said, "Our votes are available only upon delivery"; he said, "We
The Address-Mr. MacEachen
take a COD policy". I interpret that to mean "confidence on delivery". In this world in which we live, I am prepared to accept the brutal consequences of that brutal statement.
In the Speech from the Throne we have put before the House a series of proposals that up to the present have enjoyed the confidence of the House. We intend to deliver on these proposals.


J. Michael Forrestall: You had better. We will kick you out of bed if you don't.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We intend to deliver and bring forward our legislative program in a way that will continue to justify the confidence of a majority of members of this House of Commons. But remember this: we in this party represent a historic party. We have integrity, we have identity, and in seeking our way through this minority House we do not intend to deform the integrity or identity of our party position, nor do we expect any other party to deform its integrity or its identity. We will work through this House of Commons week by week, and day by day to introduce a legislative program.
I want to say especially to members of the Social Credit party and the New Democratic Party that we cannot be expected to waive the normal procedures of parliament and the normal procedures of government merely to stay in office. We will bring in a budget when it is possible and when it is normal. We cannot bring it in tomorrow or an hour before a demanded time simply because there is an atmosphere of tension and uncertainty in the House. We cannot do impossible things, but one of our major commitments to the House was that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) in his budget would bring forward major new fiscal and other measures to deal responsively and effectively with our most pressing economic and social problems.


George Harris Hees: Bully for you!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That budget will be brought forward and the House will have an opportunity, in due course, to deal with it and to decide whether it has the confidence of a majority of members. We have committed ourselves to bringing in new programs in the field of small business- alleged to be stolen goods! We have committed ourselves through managerial assistance and through amendments to the industrial development bank to assist with new programs for the business community. We have indicated our intention of bringing in an improved foreign takeovers bill and we have indicated our intention, through the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), to consider major directions in consultation with the provinces in our social security system. The minister has already committed himself to a substantial increase in old age pensions.
The Minister for Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson) has indicated to the House that those programs will be changed and remodelled in certain ways in order to bring about the decentralization of decision-making and to improve co-ordination. The minister responsible for urban affairs and housing has brought before the House a very ambitious new program involving hundreds of millions of dollars. It projects changes to the National
294

January 15, 1973
The Address-Mr. Gleave
Housing Act that will provide more help for Canadians to buy houses.
Hon. members opposite are asking, "What is your legislative priority?" I have asked the opposition House leaders to make suggestions. We will bring forward a program just as quickly as we can complete the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, which will be concluded tomorrow night hopefully, or Wednesday night. Then we will proceed with items on the order paper. We will try to deal responsibly with the conflicting demands on the time of the House. We shall deal with economic issues and other matters, including supply, which must be dealt with by the House. At least, the House must be given an opportunity to deal with that question. Then, there is the all-important issue of capital punishment. We will balance all this and present a program to the House. The government has declared its intention in the Speech from the Throne, and in speeches made by ministers, that it is prepared to produce a program to put before the House and to accept the consequences of a minority situation. We intend to live up to our side of the commitment. In this case, the government will pose and the House will dispose. Those are the rules of the game that I fully and enthusiastically accept and under which I wish to work.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, may I, as previous hon. members have done, express my appreciation of your election as Speaker of the House and say how glad I am to see Your Honour once again undertaking former duties. In my speech this afternoon I want to talk to some extent about farmers and agriculture. First, I want to make a few general comments about the Speech from the Throne which is, I suppose one might say, a declaration of intent on the part of the government. The government has laid out its view of the Canadian economy and of the situation of the Canadian people at this time. The throne speech refers to the needs of the Canadian people and of those things that need to be corrected. It covers much ground and much of that cannot be dealt with at once. I suppose, as is often the case in the affairs of man, we will need patience in the matter. I think that many in Canada may not have as much patience as some of us here have.
Let me note some of those items that are mentioned in the Speech. There is access to foreign markets. Grain exports are expected to grow. There is a commitment to job expansion. Capital works projects are mentioned. It is about time they were recognized. According to the throne speech special attention will be given to the four western provinces. There is a reference to a meeting to be held between the governments of those provinces and the federal government. That will be good for the medium and long term. There is also a proposal, already before the House, to examine food prices and how those prices are affecting the Canadian people. We are told that those prices have increased by 5 per cent in the past year. The one thing I want to do, Mr. Speaker, is keep a few things in perspective.
The other day the oil companies, that is those which refine our fuel, in concert announced a 2 cent per gallon

increase in the price of diesel fuel. That represents an 8 per cent increase in one of the most important inputs affecting the operation of the grain farmer of western Canada and of the other farmers across Canada. I noticed that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) showed a good deal of equanimity when he was questioned in the House the other day on this subject. He did not seem to be bothered because this extra charge was to be visited on the food producers and, indeed, the general public of this country. It was no great concern of his.
I was first elected to this House in 1968. Between 1968 and 1972, Gulf Oil discontinued its refinery operations in Saskatoon. Imperial Oil is now about ready to completely discontinue the operation of its refinery in Regina. Perhaps that move has already been completed. Mr. Speaker, as a Member of Parliament representing Saskatoon, I protested against the discontinuance of the refinery operation there, partly because that action would take away from Saskatoon many relatively well paying jobs, because after all the petroleum industry is one of the better paying industries, and partly because that industry was developed in Saskatoon without any DREE grants, special assistance or anything like that. Like the co-operative refinery in Regina, it grew and developed by raising its own capital. When I and some officials in Saskatoon inquired why the Imperial oil operation was being discontinued, the answer we were given was that the move would result in greater efficiency. In so many words, the answer we were given was "Never mind, you small town boys; you do not know what this is all about. We will close down this operation and create a big refinery somewhere else, and the result will be greater efficiency." What is the result of that efficiency now, Mr. Speaker? The result is another 2 cents per gallon on the price of diesel fuel. That increase, as I said before, the minister responsible viewed with a good deal of equanimity. Let me tell him that the people in Saskatchewan do not view it with equanimity. There are people in Saskatchewan now who are saying that if the oil industry of Canada cannot do better than that, we had better nationalize it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alfred Pullen Gleave: You do not have to be an out and out socialist to find that the performance of the oil companies is entirely unacceptable. You need not be anything but an ordinary farmer who is getting doggone tired of being gouged. That is all. So, Mr. Speaker, I do not think you need look too far to fathom the reason for the shortage of fuel oil in the United States. Those in responsible positions have decided it is more important to bomb North Viet Nam than to heat the United States.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alfred Pullen Gleave: We in this country should not have to pay extra money for fuel oil for that reason. The people of the United States can decide their priorities. They are a sovereign nation as are we. They decide their priorities and we should decide our priorities. Our priorities should be an efficient refining system which passes on some of the benefits of increased productivity and increased efficien-
January 15, 1973

cy to the consumers of this country. The farmers are a large part of the consuming public.
The fertilizer manufacturers have announced that they intend to get their pound of flesh shortly. In an article in the Globe and Mail, there is a report by Mr. R. R. Baxter informing the United Co-operatives of Ontario that there will not be sufficient fertilizer next spring. I am sure the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) knows of the United Co-operatives of Ontario. If there is any other message in that article except that the price of fertilizer will be increased, I would like to know it. The signals are out. The notice is being given.
The price of fertilizer was also increased last spring. I received correspondence from farmers at that time. I asked the then Minister of Agriculture if some action could be taken to deal with this increase in price and whether there was sone kind of combine or a monopoly administering prices. The answer I received was "No, there is nobody in this chicken-house except us chickens. There is nothing wrong here, boys. There is no combine and nobody is getting together to set prices. Everything is open and above board." I expect that the same reply will be given this time if anyone should ask. Anyone who expects the price of food to go down at a time when the oil companies are increasing the price of fuel to the farmer and the fertilizer companies are getting ready to increase their prices is just whistling "Dixie". You can bet your life the farm machinery companies will not be far behind.


An hon. Member:: They are away out in front.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: They are probably away out in front. I am pleased that the federal government will be getting together with the governments of the western provinces to determine what can be done in western Canada. I would be even more pleased if the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) could tell us in the very near future what they intend to do about these immediate problems. I would be pleased also if the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) could tell us what the government intends doing about a decent transportation system. He does not have to wait until the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) meets with the western provinces. All he has to do is talk to Mr. Benson, the man the government put in charge of the Canadian Transport Commission a short while ago. A better idea yet would be to pick up the phone, fire him, and put someone else in that position.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alfred Pullen Gleave: We in the grain business know that our ability to export is limited by the kind of transport made available to move grain. I referred to the article which mentioned the increase in the price of fertilizer. The limiting factor on the fertilizer companies' ability to supply will depend on their ability to receive shipments of potash and make shipments of fertilizer. We in this country are very dependent on transportation. We realize that our transportation facilities are not adequate to meet the needs of this country.
If there is one thing Canadians know how to do, it is to build railroads and rolling stock. We build and sell locomotives. Apparently no one in power is willing to tell
The Address-Mr. Gleave
the CNR and CPR to provide their services to the people who require them. It is about time somebody did this.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I received a letter from the Canadian Telecommunications Union. They complained that approximately 200 of their number were being laid off. They also noted that Saturday service in the city of Prince Albert will be cut. Apparently we can no longer afford to have telegraphic service on Saturdays in a city the size of Prince Albert. The government fouled up the Saturday delivery of mail, and now the railroads are fouling up Saturday service by the telegraphic system. In the same letter, it was pointed out that two jobs would be lost in the Saskatoon office. In due time there will probably be days when the offices in Saskatoon will be closed. What is the matter with Canadians that we permit this kind of nonsense. It is about time we became more realistic about looking at the needs of agriculture. I have referred to the cost side and also the fact that we need a more adequate transportation system.
It is stated in the throne speech that the government is going to set up an equitable pricing system for grain and livestock. I do not know what genius is at work on that. The government also says there will be an efficient and timely movement of grain. I am in favour of that. It is also stated in the throne speech, and I quote:
The Government supports the principle of an equitable relationship of prices of feed grain to livestock feeders in various areas of Canada.
I suppose the government intends to take some action, but I want to make myself perfectly clear. As far as I am concerned, the Canadian Wheat Board is the bargaining agent for the western farmer for wheat, oats and barley. Anyone or any government that proposes to take away that bargaining power or interfere with the right of the Canadian Wheat Board to price those commodities as it sees fit in its day-to-day judgment will receive the undivided opposition of members in this party who represent farm areas. When I see the gobbledygook in that statement, I am rather suspicious. I would prefer to have the objectives set out in plain and simple language such as an ordinary farmer can understand.
We are not carried away by the present grain situation. At the present time, worldwide, we find a situation which one would have to go back a long while in history to match. We are at a period when drought has caused crop failure in Russia, next to China the largest wheat producer in the world, also in India and in Australia, which are the other major producers in addition to Canada and the United States. At the same time that drought has been experienced in Indonesia in the rice area, floods occurred in the Philippines. A world wide shortage of grain arises automatically from such a situation. There Is, besides, pressure on other foodstuffs-oilseeds and proteins generally.
The biggest stress will always be on transportation. The farmer is a realist. He does not expect the present situation to last forever, anymore than he expected the situation where large amounts were in storage in the late
296

January 15, 1973
The Address-Mr. Gleave
sixties to last forever. About the only true thing one learns about the grain industry worldwide is that is is unpredictable.
Those who observe it for any length of time know they have to swing with the changes in productivity and demand. So, what we need is a policy which will meet such a situation. This hinges on transportation and storage just as much as on production. We hope that in the present session of parliament the government will come forward with a storage policy comprehensive enough that the farmer may look forward with confidence to adequate service in this field and in transportation. These are the areas in which we have suffered, mainly.
The government has also promised to take a look at storage policy in western Canada. If they were to rely to some extent on the advice given them by those who build and operate the co-operative systems they might be able to come up with a rational plan for change in the system without wrecking it in the process. I get scared when I hear some experts talking about collecting the grain in 80 elevators, trucking it into the terminals and then hauling it out again by rail.


An hon. Member:: Better not try it.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: We must be concerned about preserving a viable farm industry. I do not think any nation has been better served than Canada when it comes to food production, in terms of both supply and price.


Eugene Whelan: Quality, too.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: The days of cheap land are over. We have occupied it all. The days of cheap labour for the farmer are over, and this House, as well as all those responsible for policy making, had better recognize that fact. The most valuable part of the farm scene at this time, next to the land itself, are the people who know how to operate a farm and how to use the land. And there are not too many of them. There are not enough. The small farm development legislation which the government devised last session is not properly designed to meet the needs of land transfer in this country. It is designed to enlarge farms, and within its limits, those who have managerial ability and who can gather together sufficient capital will be able to take advantage of it. But the real problem for farmers is in the area of labour, the cost of land and the cost of money. There is only one province which is trying to devise a means of transfer which will not keep the farm population permanently in hock, and that is Saskatchewan. I say this even though Saskatchewan is my own province. But the federal government has up to this point refused to co-operate with the province in implementing that scheme.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: They are willing to sign up as far as their own plan is concerned, but not with the Saskatchewan one. Yet this is an area which, if it is not dealt with today, will have to be met next year or the year after.
I wanted to put some of these views before the House this afternoon. There are other questions, too, which will have to be dealt with. We are trying, as a country, to feel

our way through, for example, a new marketing plan for the marketing of poultry. We are striking out on somewhat new lines, finding new ways of doing things. And I suppose we will encounter certain pitfalls. But the only man I know who never succeeded in doing anything wrong was the man who never tried anything. As long as nothing new happens to him he is alright, but if anything new happens he is in serious trouble.
Finally, there is the whole question of transportation. I plead with all those who are responsible to take a fresh look at the proposals to abandon branch lines on the wholesale scale now proposed. I have looked at some of the plans-for example the one involving Rosthern at the north end of my constituency, the line from Langham to Laird and Carlton, and so on. If we let the railways take up the rails then we are looking at a different rail system from the one we have now. The thinking of the MacPher-son Commission is out of date. I suggest it is hopelessly out of date. This commission sat for some time and then said to the people of Canada: "If you want to get the answer to the railways system, rely on competition". In western Canada competition between railways does not really exist. If it did exist in a pure economic sense, one or the other of the two railroads would be broke. This is a basic theory of competition. If competition goes on long enough the weakest competitor will be pushed to the wall. One system would go broke and the other would run the total rail system. This has not happened because full competition does not exist. The ideas of the MacPherson commission are out of date and they should be discarded.
What we should be looking at today is the use of energy. We are being told the amount of energy is limited. Energy, if it is wasted, will certainly run out but it is limited even if it is used properly. I am sure that if someone studied this whole question of transporting grain, he would find that in terms of energy the cheapest way to get grain out of these areas where branch lines exist is by rail. You need one locomotive and a string of boxcars, and this would require the least energy. If we disregard the desire of the CPR for profit, it can be established that this method of transportation is the cheapest per ton mile. If we are foolish enough to allow the railway companies to tear up lines, and we then build roads and buy trucks I suggest we are losing our marbles. If you want to help the people of western Canada I suggest that this whole matter be placed on the agenda for consideration at the meeting with the western provinces. These are the things we are concerned about in the west.
We could go on and refer to things like pollution. I suggest we would have less pollution if we hauled this grain by rail rather than by truck. The suggestion in the throne speech in respect of the government picking up half the cost of crop insurance is a good one. Up to now crop insurance has not been able to cope with disasters in areas such as the Peace River which is suffering a severe crop loss at this moment. Crop insurance has not been able to cope with such disasters because, in large areas of the country, the farmers have not bought it. One might ask why they have not bought it. The answer is that it did not pay enough in relation to the cost and they could not afford the premiums.
January 15, 1973

If there is to be an insurance scheme which will meet the needs of those involved in disasters, and they are bound to occur across the country, this is a start in the right direction. I do not know whether the new proposals will be adequate. I suppose we would have to obtain actuarial figures before we would know. Because of the nature of the climate in Canada, whether you are growing potatoes in Prince Edward Island or wheat in Saskatchewan, insurance has to be such that it can compensate for losses in times of major disasters. I suppose the only area in Canada which is not subject to these difficulties to a large degree is the area of southern or southwestern Ontario. The people in those areas enjoy the best climate and growing season in Canada. If this measure meets the requirements for an adequate crop insurance program, we will have made some progress.


Miss Monique Begin (Saint-Michel):: Mr. Speaker, in my turn, I wish to pay hommage to you as Speaker of this House and add my good wishes to those of my colleagues.

May I ask you to extend my sincere congratulations to the Deputy Speaker, the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) and the officers of the House, and I am not forgetting the hon. member for Stormont-Dundas (Mr. Lamoureux).

As a newcomer to parliamentary life, and if the old-timers do not scorn too much such newcomers as myself, perhaps they will be interested in the naive observations of a woman who has yet to get used to the rather belligerent games which honorable members at times allow themselves to play. I was rather flabbergasted, during last week's debate on the resolution for peace in Viet Nam, by the calm assertion of the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise) that women brought about the war in Vietnam just as they did many other wars. To my mind, if some would reflect on belligerence, which the dictionary defines as the love of war, they have a subject of reflection right at hand.
Indeed, instead of taking the House as the voters have seen fit to return it, and of making the best of it to govern the country, some members of the opposition, it seems to me, have nothing better to do than to seek to prove that this chamber is not perfect. Are we to believe that the Progressive Conservatives have invented new mathematics to reduce a value to a lower one?
As a neophyte, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that I feel closer to the simple Canadian citizen. I share the psychology of the man on the street rather than the habits and traditions of this very sophisticated assembly. I wish we would be practical. I wish we could leave aside sterile disputes and artificial debates in order to work for the betterment of the Canadian society in terms of social justice and economic prosperity.
The Address-Miss Begin

In fact, all that work has to be done: administer $31 billion and manage a country that is young, vast and complex, on behalf of 21.5 million inhabitants. The office of Member of Parliament is not, as I have often heard it described, a more or less honorary one. It is a full-time job, with no overtime pay. I have the honour and the weighty responsibility to represent here the most densely populated riding in Quebec, the riding of Saint-Michel, for the sole purpose of participating in that work.
The men and women I represent here, Mr. Speaker, are ordinary people. I represent 150,000 of them. Some came to lose themselves in the anonymity of a big city from different parts of the province of Quebec. Others came from the heart of Montreal, pushing a little more to the north-east, and tens of thousands of others came and are still coming from Southern Europe and about every part of the world, to build a future for themselves and their families in Canada. They are those to whom I must render some account and they will not be satisfied with words. Concrete action will be necessary to prove to them that the $18 million paid each year by the treasury to enable Parliament to operate really serve the taxpayers. This is the joint responsibility and the work of each and every member.
In the legislative program proposed in the Speech from the Throne, the constituents of Sa int-Michel will be pleased to note a number of correcti ves and improvements or new programs which answer their concern and their idea of a more just society where parents hope their children will be happy. Needless to say, I fully approve the two prime objectives stated in the Speech from the Throne. As a new member, allow me to point out in the second part of my speech certain points which seem important to me and about which I would like to make the following comments. I do not deny the extent of the economic problems; many of my colleagues have talked about them, and as we work as a team, I will talk about other matters.
The views of constituents of all ages about national unity have particularly impressed me during the many meetings and discussions of my first election campaign. The search and the need for a feeling of national unity are undeniable. Complaints of lack of tolerance and, indeed, of friendship between the various communities comprising our country, were voiced many, many times. But I do not despair about our common futu re, because I also witnessed in my constituency amazing examples of true mutual help.
Ignorance and fear of the unknown are at the root of many misunderstandings which sometimes degenerate into fierce struggles and shame us. Many exchange and work group programs for young people are now offered by various departments which allow for the formation of personal ties of friendship between the French and English communities in Canada.
But what better than radio and television can give each individual the idea of what he is, the wish to exist by himself and the emotion of having things in common? You may think that it is futile to refer to this paragraph in particular of the Speech from the Throne announcing a national communications policy. I do not think so because

January 15, 1973
The Address-Miss Begin
I know, as do many other citizens, that the messages that wash over us, a little more each day, from the mass media, as they are called, have unsuspected consequences for the future of the country. Radio and television programs affect us in a sly way which we cannot control. For instance, everyone talks about pollution. Lakes, rivers, forests, towns, the air, everything is polluted, but what about mental pollution? Like the other forms of pollution, it is involuntary; it seems to be an unfortunate result of our economic production system of maximum profit at minimum cost. Two efforts appear to be urgent in the broadcasting industry: first, a coordinated effort to develop Canadian creative talent in all areas-records, books, films, the theater-that supply broadcasting as an industry which is worth $1.2 billion by a conservative estimate, and second, an effort to define responsibility to the public as regards freedom of expression. We in Canada are proud to treat freedom of expression with the greatest of respects but the people cannot accept this to be a one-way privilege. In other words, Canadians have access to an ever-increasing number of programs, but what is being offered to them?
We could, for instance, show them the House in action. But enough of this impertinence! I would now like to say, in passing, a word about showing our debates on television. Canadians might get the impression of taking a more active part in the federal government if they knew more about its machinery, and televising parliamentary proceedings would no doubt help to reach that objective.

Anxieties about the broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings fall into two categories. The first is that broadcasting will indirectly affect the internal functioning of parliament, and the second is that it will alter the relationship between parliament and the people. But the whole weight of experience in other countries shows these fears to be groundless. It is probably significant that no legislature, having once permitted broadcasting of its proceedings, has permanently abandoned the practice.
As Anthony Wedgewood Benn once remarked about the British legislature, "Parliament is either the grand forum of the nation, or it is nothing at all." The business of this grand forum is the public's business, and should be as widely known as possible.

But voices are still missing, so it seems to me, in this great forum of the nation: those of one third of the people of this country whose mother tongue is neither French nor English and who, often, have come from other countries with a cultural heritage of a particular richness and colour.
Dos Passos said, and I quote:
You can tear a man away from his country, but you cannot tear his country out of a man's heart.
I really wish, Mr. Speaker, that the multiculturalism policy, in a bilingual context, as introduced in this House on October 8, 1971 by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), will bring about the development of more community or cultural projects from which all Canadians could benefit.
National unity could not be better achieved than through real efforts to provide equal opportunities for all

Canadians. Let me comment now on three points of the social policy as proposed by this government. I must admit that I shall speak here as a wonoian member of this House. Moreover, I am proud to be the first Quebec woman to take the floor in the House of Commons since the advent of Confederation. This will certainly bring a smile on the lips of the hon. member for Saint-Hyacin-the-he ran away, he is no longer here-who unfortunately voiced-everybody remembers it-on Oc'	4, 1972-
not 1872-in Rimouski, his deep concern about seeing a "woman being appointed minister or Member of Parliament". "She must stay-he said-with her children; her role is within the family". Let us speak then about the family, not through old line and barren cliches, but in the context of everyday's life events.
The guaranteed annual income for all is undoubtedly the dream of many people. As for its achievement-as far as cost and implementation are concerned-it is another problem. It will be introduced, during the 29th Parliament, in favour of, and I quote:
... people who cannot work . ..
Special mention is made for the blind, the aged and the disabled. Now, the most striking feature arising from the hearings and research held by the Royal Commission on the Status of Women in Canada is that the poorest among the poorest, in Canada are women. And the most vulnerable are undoubtedly women who are heads of families- widows, divorced, separated, abandoned women or unmarried mothers. If they decide to work, they often find it difficult to get a suitable salary since they generally have no or little vocational training or not enough education. Anyway, our society is not organized for them nor to assist them in the care of their children. The only solution to the dramatic problems of that group is a guaranteed annual income. Obviously, the same should be done for men alone who have dependent children and who are low wage earners. The commission's report states that there are 78,000 female heads of family whose income is totally insufficient and who have dependent children under sixteen; there are approximately 8,000 male heads of family in the same situation. We all should be ashamed of that social problem so inadequately covered by the welfare programs. It is the complete negation of equal opportunities not only for these women and men, but also for their children, thus perpetuating the poverty cycle.
Under family allowances there is a reference to low income families. May I be allowed to say that I support that proposition. I will however speak for all those who think that in a middle class industrial society such as ours it is very expensive to raise children, whatever the income may be. The traditional social organization allowed the families to "retrieve"-for want of a better word-the costs and hardships that they had imposed upon themselves to raise children because these integrated themselves relatively quickly into the family production system, be it on the farm, in trade or in the small entre-prise. Particularly at the time when couples have yet to make any savings today's society imposes unlimited costs for parents whose children have left them very often before they had become productive. And they begin to earn money at the same time as they are getting married. This means that a ceiling, either direct or indirect, situat-
January 15, 1973

ed around $10,000 does not recognize society's responsibility towards the renewal of its own foundations. It seems to me that a family allowance system should be a part of a universal social security plan which should not be confused with measures intended to fight poverty.
In closing, I'll say a word about old age pension. I'll probably need it much sooner than anticipated, at the accelerated and tense rate with which our work whitens our hair.
Mr. Speaker, many voters are asking for the lowering of retirement age by five years. Some have worked all their life at hard jobs. Others put forward the fact that couples do not receive the two pensions at the same time on account of the traditional age gap between women and men at the time of marriage. But there is also the opposite point of view: that of women who already suffer from discrimination in industry, even at some levels of government. I am thinking here of the City of Montreal, for example, where women are pensioned off a few years before men, thus depriving them of their right to work. There is also the point of view of men who foresee with dread the time when their life pattern will change drastically leaving them and their wives dramatically maladjusted.
I will end my comments by pleading for flexibility in the programs to be proposed. It seems basic to me that the decision to retire at such or such an age should be optional and left to the individuals.
In conclusion, I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the floor and I now leave it to others.


Mr. Ian Arrol (York East):: Mr. Speaker, as a new member I noticed that there is always one area of quiet, dignified and gracious sanity in the House, and I would like first to give my commendation to those in the Speaker's Chair who make it so.
We in the Progressive Conservative party had hoped that by now this parliament would be attending to the problems of Canada with specific legislative proposals. Many of my constituents in York East are retired or semi-retired and live on fixed incomes, particularly in the borough of East York. I am acutely aware of their needs and had hoped that we could get on with help for our first citizens as our first business. The Liberals, NDP and Creditistes did not agree to our proposal last week that the debate on the Speech from the Throne be adjourned so that the House could immediately deal with such needs as an increase in the old age pension.
However, the continuation of the debate on the Speech from the Throne does give me an opportunity to say some things I would not otherwise have the opportunity to say. Those things which distinguish my riding are, the personalities who live there and the sense of community which still prevails despite our location within the giant megalopolis known as metro Toronto. The man who today more than any other in Canada personifies individualism, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbak-er), was a resident of the area I now represent in 1901, 1902 and 1903. The right hon. member's father, William
The Address-Mr. Arrol
Diefenbaker, was the principal of the one room local school in what was then the village of Todmorden. One of those who was a pupil of William Diefenbaker was R. H. McGregor who was to represent York East in the parliament of Canada for close to three decades until 1962. In 1972, the electors of York East decided to return to the faith of their fathers, and so today I find myself in parliament, a parliament where the dominant mood is, as it is in the country as a whole, a desire to cope with bread and butter issues.
I would like to observe, however, that even if all the economic problems of Canada could be solved at this session to the general satisfaction of most parties, there would still remain an unease in the land which has as its basis the fact that we do not know collectively what it means to be a Canadian. We as a nation suffer from what theologian Reinhold Niebuhr diagnosed as the general malaise of youth today-an unfocussed craving for affirmation. Despite our advancements in the economic and cultural fields, there is still this strange unease in the land, an unease which can probably only be settled through some project to which all Canadians can give their adherence and thus build up a sense of Canadianism. We will not create a healthy Canadianism on the foundation of criticizing our neighbours. We cannot effectively tell Russia what she should do, nor the U.S. what she should do, nor yet China or Britain. All we can effectively do as Canadians is to propose something that Canada can do.
I propose as a matter for discussion, as a possibility for the future, that in the name of peace, a field in which Canada has already made such significant contributions, Canada give up the right to use its armed forces for any national purpose whatsoever. Let one nation seek to establish peace by preparing absolutely for peace instead of preparing for war. Today in the name of truth, justice, honour, brotherhood and peace, each nation seeks to establish these ideals, and principally the ideal of peace, by preparing for war. Today, in the name of all that is most sacred, the big nations of the world are prepared collectively to kill off everybody-three billion people-in the matter of a few hours. Any survivors would have a horror worse than immediate death.
The world's only salvation may be a reconstituted and strengthened United Nations with the power to keep the peace between nations. And the only way the United Nations can be renewed, reconstituted and given the power to put its ideals into effect may be by a dramatic initiative by one nation. We could take a step all by ourselves, then invite other nations to join us in the name of humanity the world over.
Let us put the ideals of the United Nations-to which all nations say they subscribe-into practice, step by step, nation by nation, starting with Canada. This would be our affirmation, our cause, our way of asserting ourselves nationally in the service of an ideal that would go beyond our national borders, that would make us masters in our own house, subject to no other nation's foreign policy, but in service to all: I declare for peace, and I would have my nation so declare. I affirm that the use of armed force in the world is a world responsibility, and not that of any one nation. To this end, I ask of my government that the

January 15, 1973
The Address-Mr. Arrol
Department of National Defence be superseded and that in its place be instituted the Department for United Nations Co-operation. I ask that Canada immediately give up its right to use armed forces in aid of or against any other country in any manner whatsoever, unless at the direction of the United Nations.
We could invite the United Nations to pass a resolution to this effect: that whereas Canada has renounced forever the right to command unilaterally the use of her arms, the United Nations set up a peace force and an inspection system to effect the dismantling of all war-making potential in Canada, except that sanctioned by the United Nations, and to ascertain for the future that Canada has kept her pledge. The United Nations inspection force for Canadian disarmament will also be empowered, through the agency of the International Court of Justice, to inspect all treaties which may now be in effect or which might be initiated in the future to which Canada is signatory, to ensure that no treaty with other nations shall in any way obligate the nation to any warlike act under any circumstances. This would give an opportunity for the United Nations to function: Canada would be a laboratory for the development of United Nations peacekeeping functions. Canada could invite other nations to make a similar declaration and offer similar co-operation. Such Canadian action could offer an alternative to fear in the world.
While Communism would remain a menace, it has, in some countries which are still developing, provided the crusading initiative necessary to get into the twentieth century. Put another way, Communism inspires backward nations to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. When a have-not nation becomes a have-nation, and this includes Communist countries, its basic self interest is for economic advancement, for trading goods and not ideas. It is mainly because the world is an armed camp, and each and every nation feels insecure, that the competition is more in ideology than in trade.
Communism, as we all know, survives best in a climate of hunger and unfulfilled national objectives of underdeveloped countries. The best antidote to Communism would be assistance by the United Nations, through the United Nations, for a united campaign against the common enemies of hunger and disease. To help bring about that ideal, we in Canada, through instituting a Department for United Nations Co-operation in place of a war department, could immediately launch an economic program for the underdeveloped nations of the world.
Canada could launch what eastern Canadian educator Alastair M. Taylor referred to a number of years ago as "A Peacetime British Commonwealth Air Training Plan". Mr. Taylor points out that the Air Training Plan graduated 113,553 airmen during its war years of operation at a cost of $1,281,000,000. The Department of National Defence now spends more in one year than was spent during all the years of the operation of the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan. A peacetime British Commonwealth air training plan could be a project lasting perhaps five years under which Canada would invite people from underdeveloped nations for special training in medicine, agriculture and industrial techniques. Apart from China, Southeast Asia and the Latin American countries, most other underdeveloped nations have as

their national language French or English and Canada is bilingual.
This project shared by French and English speaking Canadians could have unifying qualities for Canada, drawing us together as we united the visiting nations on our soil in this educational undertaking. We could invite research scientists from other countries to join us in educational projects; scientists and technicians who would like to work for a constructive projeclt instead of those for destruction. And as we developed instructors and facilities for this co-operative endeavour, we would be providing for our own industrial and trade expansion, although the basic idea would be a practical working out of United Nations ideals.
In many other ways Canada could be a laboratory, a workshop, a showcase for United Nations purposes. We could invite the United Nations to orga nize an inspection team for Arctic protection, to see that no Russian or United States or any other nation's missile-carrying submarines used our northwest passage, there to lurk under the ice and on an appropriate occasion blast through and release a missile. We could dismantle the Distant Early Warning System set up by the Americans in northern Canada-or we could make the system available to the United Nations, with inspectors looking south as well as north. We could even provide a few thousand square miles of our northern territory for experiments in the detection of underground nuclear explosions. We could make available our soil, our air space, our waters, as we made available our determination to do all in our power to bring peace on earth.
If Canada were to take a separate path from the other western nations, we of course would be opposed. A Canadian resolve to give up its right to use its armed forces for any national purpose whatssoe'ver, and to put our military at the disposal of the Uni1 :ed Nations through a Department for United Nations Co-operation, would take as much courage as going to war. It would indeed be the moral equivalent of going to war. But no matter what the price, we would have chartered the cou rse for no less than a Made-in-Canada Declaration of Inde pendence. It is ideals and not economic warfare which call forth a nation to life, to spirit. We would be opposed, but in being opposed our character would be strengthened. We would have a cause in Canada, a crusade which could unite the nation.
The Indians under Gandhi practised non-violence for the independence of their nation; the Negroes under Martin Luther King for recognition of a race. Our task would be non-violence for the recognition and fulfillment of the possibilities for good in all mankind,, a first practical step to peace on earth. Some nation at some time soon must act as a catalyst to break the armed camps in which the nations of the world find themselves today; some nation must cause a revolution in thinking about war and its inevitability. I have suggested a course for Canada which I hope this House and the country will consider. It may be such a course could be a significant step towards our salvation and the world's.
January 15, 1973___________________COMMONS DEBATES______________________________________301


Mr. Marcel Roy (Laval):: Mr. Speaker, my opening words are to congratulate you on your success in the Stormont-Dundas constituency and on your re-election to the office of House Speaker. In the course of the twenty-eighth parliament, you won the admiration of all hon. members.
I also congratulate my colleagues who will assist you in the House.
I wish to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais) and the hon. member for Lachine (Mr. Blaker), who are both excellent ambassadors for our policy of bilingualism, a fact that was taken into account by their constituents.
I should like also to welcome the four new members representing the female element, that is the Minister of State for Science and Technology and member for Ahunt-sic (Mrs. Sauve), the hon. member for Saint-Michel (Miss Begin), the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Morin) and the hon. member for Kingston and The Islands (Miss MacDonald).
To begin with and on the occasion of the opening of this twenty-ninth Parliament, I should like to make a few remarks on the man in public life and on Parliament and its importance.
Politics should be the concern of respectable men and women, aiming at using their mind and their skills to erect a city, a province, a country where peace and prosperity might prevail. Participation in the political life is a duty that social justice dictates, since every citizen must contribute as much as possible to the common good of his country.
The politician, because of his role and his duties, has always occupied a useful place within society, for, through his oath of office, he has chosen to serve this society, to work for the common good. There is need to create a public opinion which, without looking for scandal, will expose frankly and courageously persons and circumstances working against the law and the purposes of institutions.
These, Mr. Speaker, are the basic principles on which rest my short political life. The application of these principles allowed me to gain the confidence of 29,000 voters during the election of last October 30, in the constituency of Laval. I consider this responsibility not as a member of Parliament but rather as a citizen at the service of the constituency of Laval, and at the service of Canada. I agreed to serve my constituency, to defend the interests of my province and to work for the good of my country while contributing to improve the standard of living of Canadians and learning to better know the needs of the Canadian family, the various ethnic groups and the various social levels represented in all classes of our society.
Since my election of June 25, 1968 I have changed some of my views about Parliament which I considered a rather out of date and inefficient institution. Having been a member since then and participated in the exercise of democracy in this House or as a committee member, I have come to better understand the nature and role of this
The Address-Mr. M. Roy
institution. Perhaps it is a normal beginner's reaction and probably the 100 new members will also have the same reaction. In spite of weaknesses that nobody denies Parliament is still the best system of government in this world even though it lends itself to criticism and could be improved upon.
Thanks to the freedom we enjoy in Canada, divergent opinions can be expressed without any other consequences than the risk of being scoffed at by one's opponents, a consequence which is quite bearable.
I am sometimes under the impression that we do not realize all the advantages we are enjoying. There are on earth every possible kind of government but I doubt that many Canadians would agree to exchange their own system of government for that of many other foreign countries where severe restrictions are imposed on people speaking too frankly and where political opponents are put into jail.
Even though sometimes Pamliament seems to move away from the people or people seem to lose interest in this institution let there be a crisis and they look to Parliament to act for the good of the country.
Let us recall the October 1970 crisis when all Canadians looked to Parliament. Let us recall the statement by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on television on the evening of October 17, 1970. Once that historical speech was over, the people felt reassured. It is not my intention to revive those circumstances, but having lived thro ugh those days in this House and having witnessed that situation, I thought that example would help convince those who might be apt to criticize too severely our democratic institution, the Canadian Parliament.
I thought I should present tl lose observations at the outset of this 29th Parliament which includes more than 100 new members.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I should like to state my views on the Speech from the Throne, which I fully support for it clearly indicates the government's unfaltering determination to carry on their program. The Speech from the Throne puts forward the following objectives: a better economic policy in order to reduce u nemployment and reinforce the economy and stimulate the development of small businesses for, as the Minister o>f Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) stated on January 10, about 60 per cent of the work force in Canada is active in firms having the essential particularities of small businesses; to reorganize, in consultation with the provinces, the policy governing family allowances, old age security pensions as well as housing, and to make a study on government responsibilities with regard to urban transportation generally. In the field of agriculture, the government has undertaken to solve the problem of feed grain, transportation and the handling of farm produce.
For all those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I therefore do not hesitate to support the Speech from the Th rone.
However, it seems to me that under the former government, during the 28th Parliament, we passed many legislative measures which, to my mind, were not sufficiently explained to the people during the last election campaign.
Last Tuesday, the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings brought forward a motion blaming the govern-

January 15, 1973
The Address-Mr. M. Roy
ment for its failure to take action about the problems of unemployment and I wonder whether he is not really furthering his own ambitions at the expense of the unemployed.
Let us just ponder on the various pieces of legislation now in force dealing with tax reform, releasing a million taxpayers from personal income tax and reducing that tax in the case of 4.5 million Canadians. I wonder where is the sense of responsibility of opposition members who challenge the government about the unemployment situation with no heed for all the efforts and achievements in the field of job creation, in spite of the yearly increase of some 3 per cent in the labour force. Statistics confirm the results of the Liberal government's policies in this field.
Between 1965 and 1970, which is the latest period for which we have international figures, 1,440,000 Canadians joined the labour force, thus increasing it by more than 20 per cent.
The real growth of the labour force in Canada during that period exceeds by 100,000 units that of all the 15 major industrialized European countries which make up the European economic community and the European free trade zone although the total population of those countries is larger than that of Canada.
The relative growth of the labour force in Canada during those six years was almost 20 times that of all 15 major industrialized European countries, twice that of Japan and 58 per cent higher than that of the United States which ranks second in the world for the growth rate of its labour force.
What was the increase in the number of jobs? There were 1,300,000 new jobs created in Canada between 1965 and 1970. The increase in the number of jobs in Canada was 400,000, 50 per cent more than the real increase in the number of jobs in all the 15 major industrialized European countries and 505,000, or 66 per cent more than the total increase in the number of jobs in the seven major European countries, i.e. Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Sweden and the Netherlands.
The relative rate of increase in the number of jobs in Canada was 50 per cent higher than in the United States, twice higher than in Japan, 7J times higher than in Germany and 27 times higher than in all those 15 European countries.
During the years 1970 and 1971 the relative rate of increase in the number of jobs in Canada was three times higher than the corresponding rate in the United States.
Those figures are evidence of the extent to which the Liberal government concentrated on the problem of unemployment through various programs implemented, by the creation of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion to create employment in areas where industries were not functioning normally, by the Department of Manpower and Immigration, and also by the economic incentives offered by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
When I hear the members of the opposition blame the government for its employment policy, I conclude that they are simply jealous of its performance, that they have forgotten their own when they were in power from 1958 to

1962 when, with a much smaller population, unemployment reached 7.15 per cent in 1961.
Mr. Speaker, I have before me a comparative statement showing the non-seasonally-adjusted labour figures for 1958 in Canada when there were 6,137,000 workers and 431,000 unemployed representing an unemployment rate of 7.02 per cent. My opponents will no doubt recall which government was in power then.
The 1960 figures indicate 6,411,000 workers and 446,000 unemployed or 6.95 per cent of the force, and this still under a Progressive Conservative government. The 1961 figures show 6,521,000 workers and 466,000 unemployed, a rate equal to 7.15 per cent.
Mr. Speaker, comparing present unemployment figures with those illustrating the past performance of our Progressive Conservative opponents, evidently we have 2 million more workers, but only 100,000 more unemployed, which means 2 million more jobs available, and an unemployment rate of 6.32 per cent, still lower than the rate of 7.15 per cent recorded under the Progressive Conservative government.
Nonetheless, of Mr. Speaker, they are those who tell us that we have lost the confidence of the Canadian people. And if they should forget their own past performance under their own Progressive Conservative government, I must remind them that the Canadian people have not.
In 1962 the Liberal party won 100 seats with 37.4 of the votes, and the Progressive Conservative party 116 seats. In the 1963, election, the Liberal party obtained 129 seats with 47 per cent of the votes, whereas the Progressive Conservative party got 95 seats with 33 per cent of the votes. In 1965, the Liberal party elected 131 members with 40 per cent of all the votes, whereas the Progressive Conservative party got 99 seats with 32 per cent of the votes. In 1968, the Liberals held 155 seats representing 45 per cent of the votes, while the Progressive Conservatives had 72 with 31 per cent of the votes. Finally in 1972, we still have 109 seats which have been gained with 38 per cent of the votes, while the Progressive Conservatives have 107 which they have obtained with 35 per cent of the votes.
I feel that the election represents a numerical rejection, in terms of both elected members and percentage of votes. The Canadian people have rejected the Progressive Conservative Party because it had neither forward-looking policies nor innovating programs, whereas we advocated some which appealed to the creative mind of Canadians by establishing manpower programs under the present legislation, such as the Local Initiatives and the Opportunity for Youth Programs. And when I refer to the Local Initiatives Program, I suggest that my hon. colleagues read the excellent article published on page 29 in The Gazette of today and I quote:

Canada's Local Initiatives Program has provided Marcel Ducharme with a second career-he dreams up LIP projects and makes them work.

This article is most interesting because it is stated in it that an amount of $112,000 has been allocated to this
January 15, 1973

program for the year of its establishment and that a further amount of $184,000 has just been allocated to it precisely in order to improve the lot of the aged. In my opinion, all public servants working on this program- forty-odd people-were themselves registered with the unemployment insurance office or were drawing welfare benefits. They are now serving from 250 to 300 aged people. The efficiency of this program seems to have been proven.
I could now talk about a project initiated in the riding of Laval West, where we are providing the aged with a little bit of happiness by visiting them daily, taking them to a doctor or to the hospital. I think that this is part of the Liberal policy which is intended to be human with the aged people.
As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Conservatives have lost the confidence of the Canadian people since 1962, because they had no realistic social policy geared to the aspirations of the underprivileged, because they were conservatives with a small c, because they had a negative approach to problems.
Mr. Speaker, they are so used to criticism that they forget the positive aspect in their suggestions to the government with a wiew to solving the problems facing us.
At the present time, the Canadian people earn, spend and save more money than they ever did before. Salaries and wages of the Canadian people reached an annual level of $56 billion at the end of the first half of 1972, or an increase of $5 billion, that is 10 per cent, in one year, and 55 per cent since 1968.
The savings of Canadians have soared to $6,900 million in the middle of 1972, or an increase of $2 million over the corresponding period last year and almost three times the amount reached at the beginning of 1968.
Those are facts that members of the opposition do not take into account when they blame the government.
In the area of housing, we have reached an all-time record. In 1971, there were more than 233,000 starts, while in 1972, this figure reached almost 250,000, and a further increase is even expected for 1973, which will enable us to exceed our objective of one million new homes for the five years ending in 1974. Thanks to our low-cost housing program, we have built twice as many homes of that type in the last four years than during the previous 25 years.
Furthermore, as announced by the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford), we contribute to the restoration of the existing houses and provisions are made for repairing and rehabilitating dwellings.
The Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is the instrument of the federal social policy in the field of housing and community planning as stated the minister of housing in his speech of January 11.
Because of the amendments to be brought to the National Housing Act, the federal government, in co-operation with the provinces, will assist in the provision of low-cost housing and other accommodation for senior citizens, will provide assistance in the rehabilitation of older neighbourhoods, a warranty system to protect the purchasers of new houses-and God knows it is needed right now- assistance in the relocation of railway tracks and a study
The Address-Mr. M. Roy
of the government's responsibilities with regard to urban transportation generally.
As the representative from the second most important city in the province of Quebec, I can assure the House that these urban renewal policies will certainly be welcomed by the people of Laval.
Municipalities are facing increasing responsibilities and disproportionate obligations in view of the tax burden that they must impose on their residents. Considering that 75 per cent of Canadians live in urban centres and that our country will soon be 90 per cent urbanized, we must not only react to this trend but provide for financial aid at the three government levels to serve thiss population better. This approach will be reflected in a three-level conference that will be held this year on the initiative of the federal government.
In the field of agriculture, we must be as vigilant and imaginative as possible to secure an equal standard of living for rural people as for urban people.
In my first speech in this House ill 1968 and in the meetings of the Standing Committee on Agriculture I have tried to make the government aware of the importance of a crucial factor of agricultural expansion in eastern Canada, particularly in Quebec and the maritime provinces. This is the situation of feed grains, on which we have already made representations. All Liberal members made representations to the minister, and an ad hoc committee was created, the National Grain Board, and a meeting was held with the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. We postponed the announcement of a change in the present situation precisely because we respected the associations and did not want to take unilateral decisions. We took some and we will continue to take them in co-operation with the farm associations.
I would like to add, Mr. Speaker, that we will not be satisfied with half measures regarding the situation of feed grains. I was very happy to hear in the Speech from the Throne that the feed grain problem would be solved in this very session. I am very happy now to support that request which is now the subject of discussions and has been the object of representations since 1968. I hope that when this new policy on feed grains is announced-I am now looking at the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner)-he will support it and that it will have more support from the Progressive Conservatives than when we tried to introduce the bill intended to better organize production, that is the bill creating national marketing agencies. It took two years of sittings, some of which kept us up all night, to get that bill passed because of the opposition of that party.
I therefore hope that when time comes to suggest changes in the price structure of feed grains, we will have the co-operation of the hon. members of the Progressive Conservative party.
My last sentence is one to which I refer every day. Give a man more than he can do, and he will do it. Give him less than he can do and he will not do it.

January 15, 1973
The Address-Mr. Reynolds


John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, as a new member of the House and on behalf of my constituents of Burnaby-Richmond-Delta, I would like to congratulate you for having been re-elected to the Speakership and to congratulate also your Deputy (Mr. McCleave) for having been elected.

It is a privilege to follow the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Roy) in this debate. I shall leave my notes aside for a moment because he said something on which I should like to comment. He said he hoped hon. members in this party would be agreeable to changes and amendments which he and his hon. friends propose to bring forward. Well, I hope supporters of the Liberal party will, in turn, be agreeable to some of the things which supporters of the Conservative party will recommend from committees this time. Maybe we shall find more co-operation shown from the other side of the House. I do not believe in one-sided affairs.
Mr. Speaker, my riding borders on the Fraser River to the north, including South Burnaby the Pacific Ocean to the west and looks south, to the United States. With 123,381 eligible voters, it is the largest riding in terms of people in British Columbia. Burnaby-Richmond-Delta not only represents a good cross section of our country, it also is a good example of the true meaning of multiculturalism as it is made up of those of German, Chinese, Japanese and Dutch descent, as well as many other cultural and language groups. Richmond is also the sister city of Pier-refont in the province of Quebec.
On January 8 in the House of Commons, the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) accused Progressive Conservatives of capitalizing on an anti-French sentiment during the last election. I submit, on behalf of the people of Burnaby-Richmond-Delta that the right hon. gentleman is making excuses with this kind of statement, making excuses and covering up the real reason his party did so poorly in the election. In my riding the incumbent Liberal member not only lost his seat, he came third in the race. He came third, and it was not because of an anti-French vote as the Prime Minister likes to believe. It was simply a vote against the sad state in which this country has been left by the Liberal government. It was a vote against the lack of leadership which caused this situation. Apparently the Liberal candidate in my riding recognized this because he was quoted as saying on election night that he expected to run again, but with the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Turner) as the leader of his party.
On October 27, 1972, during the election campaign, the Leader of the Conservative party (Mr. Stanfield) told a Kingston, Ontario, audience that the basic issue in the campaign was "the issue of confidence of Canadians in themselves". The issue, he said, is not whether a bigger government can do better things for Canadians, but whether or not we have a government that believes Canadians can do bigger and better things for themselves. That statement is particularly relevant today because we do not have a bigger government, which, because of its size, feels it can do better things for Canadians. What we do have is a government which has been severely reduced in size and is now hanging on to power with its finger-

nails. And, as evidenced by the throne speech, we do not have a government that believes Canadians can do bigger and better things for themselves, because the government that is presently in power, continues to refuse Canadians that opportunity.
Canadians have become aware over the past four and one half years that what this government says and what this government does are usually two very different things. Instead of the just society we were promised in 1968, we have in 1973, high unemployment, a high cost of living, and policies affecting poverty, taxation, manpower training, regional development and agriculture reforms which have discriminated against the unemployed, the working poor and the low-income groups who might have benefitted if government policies and programs had been designed to help, rather than hinder. This Liberal government, in four and one half short years, has destroyed the work ethic in this great country.
We have policies on pollution and environmental control that are ad hoc, incomplete and, seemingly, purposely confused. We have a Local Initiatives Program which has consumed almost $200 million in grants alone over the last 14 months with marginal, if any, success in providing employment. We have a new winter works program which is costing the taxpayer, the people of Canada, over $350 million but which was announced too late to be effective in alleviating peak winter unemployment, winter unemployment that affected 615,000 Canadians in December, the largest number for that month in the history of this country. We have a new Unemployment Insurance Plan which has cost the taxpayer approximately $2 billion since its inception on January 2, 1972.
We have a policy on foreign ownership which is so elusive that it is virtually non-existent. We have a policy on immigration that has caused only chaos. We have a policy on the post office which has reduced the mail service to something of negligible importance. The post office situation is a case in point. Six years ago the Delta to Toronto service cost a mere five cents and the post office delivered overnight. Now, we are lucky if we can have our mail delivered in anywhere from three to five days for the price of an eight cent stamp. Yet the government spent millions of dollars last year to tell Canadians how good the service is.
I received a note today from a Mr. Cranna of Ladner, B.C., who had a letter mailed to him on December 21 and received it on January 10. This letter was mailed in Vancouver addressed to Ladner, a distance of 13 miles and it took 20 days. I have many more letters in my files which illustrate the same lack of postal service in the city of Delta, which includes North Delta. With a population of
25,000,	Delta is growing at the rate of 500 a month, yet there is not even a post office in North Delta its most populous area.
And now we have the Speech from the Throne; a Speech from the Throne which gives priority to everything, which promises everything, and yet ensures nothing in the form of concrete proposals. The throne speech promises a compassionate and equitable guaranteed annual income. It promises incentives to work and a
January 15, 1973

greater emphasis on the need to get people who are on social aid back to work. It promises a fair and just relationship between the incomes of people who are working at, or near, the minimum wage and it indicates that recognition must be given to the provinces' wishes to have the structures of social security vary in accordance with the social needs, income standards and the cost of living in different communities. It also gives notice that the government accepts the principle that reconsideration of Canada's social security system must be conducted jointly by the federal government and the provinces.
The throne speech does not, however, tell us how all of this is going to be accomplished. In other words, the throne speech, like the just society concept, sounds very promising but, like the just society concept, the throne speech lacks substance and integrity. The government says it will reduce unemployment by providing increased funding for the Local Initiatives Program; increased funding for on-the-job training; a substantial seasonal capital works project and special funding to increase direct employment in labour-intensive projects. The government says that certain aspects of the Unemployment Insurance Plan will be clarified; that a new family income security program will be proposed and that legislation will be introduced to improve the economic situation of old age pensioners.
The economic situation of old age pensioners has been improved by this government before. That assistance came in the form of a mere 42 cent raise in pensions and a 2 per cent maximum increase in the guaranteed income supplement, at a time when the cost of living was rising at 4 or 5 per cent, annually. Only when the election was imminent did the government give consideration to increases in old age pensions according to annual increases in the cost of living. But the gap created by its lax attitude in the past has not been filled and those on fixed incomes still suffer. It seems they will continue to suffer at the hands of this government if it remains in power and if the NDP has anything to say about it, for their joint defeat of our motion in the House to bring some immediate relief to old age pensioners this winter was nothing but crass insensitivity.
The irony of the throne speech is that the government, in spite of the lesson it supposedly learned on October 30, has chosen to offer the same old programs as solutions to Canada's problems and those of her people. These are the same old programs that have proven to be ineffective, offered by the same old government that has proven itself incapable of dealing with the problems, and all of this aided and abetted by the New Democratic Party.
It is interesting to note that some of the press feel that the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is not as arrogant as before, that he has a new appreciation of parliament. Well, Mr. Speaker, at a time when we have some serious issues to bring before this House like old age pensions, unemployment and income tax cuts, the right hon. gentleman puts the capital punishment debate No. 1 on his list. I suppose as a further smokescreen to the real problems of Canada the language bill will be the second item for debate. Mr. Speaker, I say the government is stalling because it has not got positive new programs for this country.
The Address-Mr. Reynolds
Meanwhile, in British Columbia for example, people are asking for solutions to problems; solutions to problems like urban traffic congestion in Delta, Richmond and other lower mainland cities, for which residents are requesting federal assistance in developing a reasonable urban transit system. What is this government's response to this kind of request? The hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Basford) and the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Davis) are supporting construction of a second bridge across the first narrows in Vancouver. Of course, it does not matter to them that this bridge may not be wanted or needed or, for example, that the bridges in my riding handle more traffic than the Lions Gate bridge. Yet they push ahead with this project, despite the wishes of the people involved, in true Liberal government style. I say, Mr. Speaker, that we should use the money involved to build a rapid transit system for the lower mainland; that we should concentrate on construction for the future, on something really worthwhile and on something that will last.
People in my riding are seeking solutions to problems like pollution. For example, the residents are requesting federal government assistance in providing a tertiary sewage system to eliminate pollution from industrial and/or domestic sewage. But how long will it be, Mr. Speaker, before the federal government finally realizes its responsibility to clean up Canada's lakes and rivers? We, the people, Mr. Speaker, are tired of excuses and tired of non-action. The Fraser River is the recipient of hundreds of millions of gallons of raw sewage every day. Experts say they do not think pollution is affecting the salmon. The experts, Mr. Speaker, should know. This is too important to pass off so lightly.
And then there is penal reform and the great contribution the former Solicitor General (Mr. Goyer) made to that area of concern. I am not opposed to penal reform, but I am opposed to the negligence which accompanied Canada's recent effort in that regard; negligence which resulted in cases like the following: A man on a weekend pass murders a seven year old girl on the lower mainland of British Columbia; the government decides to transfer another man from an east coast maximum security cell to a west coast minimum security cell to testify at the trial of the murderer. He, too, escapes, kidnaps and rapes a woman.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that the only thing we need mention about penal reform is that it was a major contributor to the defeat of this government in British Columbia. And the right hon. Prime Minister's comments this morning that the capital punishment matter is at least as important as pensions does not leave me with much hope in this Liberal government. It is essential that the government take new, innovative approaches to Canada's problems, that people be involved in their solutions, and that people benefit from the legislation that is introduced and passed in the House of Commons.
This does not mean an outburst such as the one in which the Prime Minister was engaged in the House of Commons on January 8, 1973 when he said that some Progressive Conservative Members of Parliament had tried to divide the country. This does mean the formulation and application of policies that will reduce inflation

January 15, 1973
The Address-Mr. Lang
and bring employment so that all Canadians will feel a part of this country. It means a definition of full employment in percentage terms and a commitment to reach that objective within a prescribed period of time. It means a promise of immediate and substantial cuts in personal income taxes as the basic means of stimulating the economy to full employment. It means a full employment budget which reveals to the House of Commons whether revenue and expenditure programs of the government are, in fact, designed to stimulate the economy to full employment. It means a willingness to use wage and price controls to abate further inflation as we stimulate the economy rather than holding down basic economic growth. It means a policy on bilingualism that starts in the elementary school system so that our future public servants will be prepared for a fully bilingual public service.
Canada does have much to offer. But the benefits of being Canadian should be a right of every citizen of this country. We cannot continue to forget our people-the people who elected us all. They had a message and we had better listen. Neither the Progressive Conservative party nor the Liberal party has a mandate from the election. However, parliament has a mandate to choose a government best able to get the economy back to full employment and to abate further inflation.
The throne speech debate is important because, 264 Members of Parliament have to reach the best decision on this question as soon as possible. Much time has been wasted. There are many other challenges to be faced. Therefore, a government must be chosen and given a mandate to put the economy in order swiftly and to get on with other frontiers for this decade. Poverty must be eliminated; regional disparity must be tangibly reduced; a new industrial strategy must be constructed; there must be urban reform, rural rehabilitation and environmental improvement. And, in all of this, people must count. People must be involved, and considerations, judgments and decisions must be based on their desires, expectations and needs. To do this, we must have a government that believes Canadians can do bigger and better things for themselves. Bob Stanfield would be that kind of Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Douglas Reynolds: And when he is, and only when he is, will Canada and its people be truly strong.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, I think you very much for the privilege of giving me the opportunity to make this speech on behalf of the residents of Burnaby-Richmond-Delta who elected me to this House.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, my first words on rising in this debate must be of sincere congratulations to Your Honour on again assuming the important office of Speaker of this chamber. These past four years I have watched with admiration as you dealt with the interesting and difficult situations which came before you in the House, and at the manner in which you

dealt with tempers and problems. I am confident that you will find it possible to maintain the order we require in this interesting and complicated House of Commons in which you preside now.
I was delighted to listen to the hon. member for Nipiss-ing (Mr. Blais) and the hon. member for Lachine (Mr. Blaker) as they began this debate on the Speech from the Throne, and I congratulate them on the manner in which they dealt with the interesting character of their own areas.
I am a representative of a broad expanse of the western Canadian region, with a significant distance of country between myself and Liberal colleagues both to the east and to the west. I have heard a good deal of comment on the causes of the results in the recent election campaign, but of course I come from an area which has been struggling for some time to gain additional Liberal representatives in the House of Commons, and we will continue that struggle most manfully.
I was interested to note the remarks of the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds) who preceded me, and who seemed to argue that it was in fact the basic economic issues that affect the country which could be said to be the whole or the main cause of the results in the recent election. In other words he tried to say this, yet when he turned to his own province, which presumably he knows best, he suggested it was the parole and penal system which contributed most greatly in British Columbia to the defeat of the government. I was surprised that, later in that context, he thought we ought not to give too much attention to that particular problem, and I would be glad to hear later his explanation for that logic.
Looking at the move from Liberal to Tory voting columns in the five western province, I deny that this represents significant evidence that there are Archie Bunkers in abundance in the western half of the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: It is true that there may be such characters here and there, in one region or other, and I particularly think such a person is probably to be found on the executive of the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner). For instance, I notice that in the course of the recent campaign the present Conservative member for that riding chose to run an advertisement in which he introduced some elements that I, for one, regret to have found quite common in western Canada. In this advertisement in the Albertan on October 23 there is a picture of the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and of the candidate, now the hon. member for Crowfoot. The first of the four reasons given for supporting the hon. member is that, "He has fought over-expenditure of Canada's tax dollars in Quebec". Mr. Speaker, it is not unusual for opposition members to talk about over-expenditure by a government of the public's tax dollars. That I understand, but I think it is clear that here a particular appeal is involved when a particular province is singled out in this way, more especially when the evidence shows that the programs which could be related to that charge are equally or more beneficial to the Maritime region. One has to ask why that province is singled out rather than the maritimes.
January 15, 1973


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: I do not for a moment suggest that the hon. member for Crowfoot is a bigot in having an advertisement of this sort placed in a newspaper in the course of his campaign. But I suggest to you, Sir, and most sincerely to hon. members opposite, that it is at least very clear that he was appealing to people who may be so minded. This is the kind of thing that must be fought within their ranks, by their own leader, and also by the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe, to which subject the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) addressed himself the other day.
The Prime Minister did not suggest that it was the reason, or even a main reason, for the results in the five western provinces. I take that view as well. I have indicated that it was more the wealthier parts of the country that voted in this way against us, and I say it was not evidence of a swing towards right wingism or Archie Bunkerism.
It is true that we made ourselves vulnerable through the loss of support that was liberal in its inclination simply by operating certain programs in a certain way, which made it more difficult for those inclined to be liberal to continue their support of us. But looking at the position of this government with reference to the unemployment insurance plan,-a good plan but one which had administrative and structural difficulties-and looking at the problems of parole and prison reform, I say that we do not have to move either right or left, or look for wing support for the positions we should take. We must look to those liberals who were unhappy in their support of us because of these issues, and certainly we can look to those Liberals who voted against us because they were unhappy about the way some of these programs were being administered, or unhappy about the way in which their impact was being felt.
The important thing is that there were grounds for loss of support among this important element. And yet we do not have to throw out in basic cases the basic Liberal philosophy that was involved. We do not have to run away from the basic Liberal belief in immigration into this country of people who can make a great contribution to it. But, of course, we must and will free ourselves from the difficulties which are associated with an immigration program where control has been lost over those people we do not want to admit and do not want to admit on good, sound Canadian principles. These are the things we will put right. This is our determination. It is not a matter of running away from basis principles. But I emphasize again that it is these programs which cost votes from that particular region of the country, not any fundamental economic issues, important as those are. We will face that challenge because it is our desire to provide a growing, prosperous economy in which Canadians have an equal opportunity and a fair chance to a decent livelihood.
I must say that in this question of what issues disturbed the electorate or led to their decision, I feel I owe a special debt of thanks to my own constituents because I believe they helped to make clear that at least in the area of grain policies-that very important area to the prairie region- we were doing significant things right. That is the only explanation I can give for their great support, and par-
The Address-Mr. Lang
ticularly for the great support which I received from the rural area of my riding.
I do not think hon. members can deny that in the course of the last few years, through some very difficult years for the grain business, my name and position became associated with the grain industry, thanks in large measure to the gleeful participation in debate of hon. members opposite from the prairie region. I think, therefore, they must see that the particular result in my constituency is a separate and special commentary on our grain policies.
Hon. members opposite have noted that at present things are going very well indeed in the grain industry. They are apt to say that this is due at the moment to difficulties in the world situation, but of course the attitude of farm organizations and farm leaders toward our policies predate that most recent change in prices because of the demand picture in the world. We entered into the selling business in a vigorous way at a time when the world market in grain was declining. We set our first record year of exports in a year wihen actual trading of grain in the world was declining. We did so by vigorous selling policies, by credit policies and by the fairly simple but direct determination to get into the feed grain business of the world which had been neglected for so many years. Farmers responded by growing barley, and the Wheat Board by marketing it, until we are now an important distributor of barley in the world.
Hon. members opposite have commented from time to time about the Lift program, which was a difficult program, a tough program, the one program, If I may say so, of a disciplined or ordered nature which was designed to allow us to have greater freedom in the farm industry, freedom which has come in everything else we have done thereafter. It was a necessary program to get the elevator system into proper shape to handle barley for world markets. When we first began to look at expanding markets, experts doubted whether we could move as many as 700 million bushels of grain with our current handling and transportation systems. But we moved 700 million bushels that year and we moved over 800 million the following year, and it seems that we will be moving significantly more in this current year.
We have dealt with specific problems. We have given farmers information on their prospects for various crops by March 1 of each year, which has never been done before and which gives them knowledge and freedom to do the best possible job in their decision about what crops to grow. They face an interesting challenge, because prices have risen so rapidly in the world that wheat is now a most attractive crop to grow and one which they traditionally grew almost to the exclusion of other crops. Barley and rapeseed have now become extremely important to our over-all prairie agricultural position, and it will be our earnest endeavour to suggest to farmers that they remain in barley and rapeseed production to a significant level indeed because the wheat market of the world is more volatile while the barley market, which we had neglected, and the rapeseed market, which we are building, are the more permanent and sure markets in the world.

January 15, 1973
The Address-Mr. Lang
We have, of course, introduced a treasury contribution through the form of two-price wheat payments to farmers. The federal government has been willing to assist in the movement of grain by providing 2,000 hopper cars, about half of which are now on stream and available for use. We have witnessed important studies on the handling and transportation system, and here lies one of the real challenges ahead of us in the grain industry. In the very near future we must reach a conclusion on what changes should be made in the handling and transportation system, and I hope that the Canada Grains Council which is taking on this task will proceed with speed so that we can make changes, in co-operation with producers, farmers organizations and provincial governments, which are in the best interests of the grain industry.
We look forward to testing the will of farmers directly on the best ways of marketing rapeseed, rye and flax and we will be prepared to do what is their wish in this regard. We will also be continuing work on an international market insurance scheme, a stabilization program which is so needed because of the way in which the grain marketing opportunities in the world can fluctuate up and down.
The Speech from the Throne contains some exciting words for western Canadians in the proposal that a conference be held specifically to deal with the economic and other objectives of western Canada. The west has had an interesting history of opposition to much of what governments have done. Its Members of Parliament, especially from the prairie region, have more frequently been on the opposition side of the House than in government. I must say that this was hardly changed when the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) was prime minister of this country because while he and many of his colleagues from the Prairies sat on the treasury benches, he sounded for all the world like a leader of the opposition in most of what he said and did about this country and who was controlling it.
What we now have is an opportunity to look at the aspirations of the west, of a region which has perhaps different needs from those where the greatest portion of the population is located. This conference provides us with the opportunity. It has taken a number of years to mature. I would like to pay tribute to the work of such persons as Dave Steuart, the Liberal leader in Saskatchewan, for his continuing work to bring together those who can and should be working on western objectives in total. We must come to some conclusion about our objectives, and here I think about objectives that favour growth for that region, even if the time has come when in some regions growth is no longer considered to be a significant or important matter.
In the Prairies and western Canada it is important to attempt to sustain and maintain our population and our activity. We have a very large infrastructure, a very large basic cost of operating our governments and our enterprises, and an increasing population can be a great advantage to us in this regard. Ways and means of developing the economy, the basic industries and the secondary industries that can logically flow from them, must be examined with this kind of objective in mind.
What we learn in the development of policies for western Canada will, I am sure hon. members appreciate, have full significance for other regions of the country because we do not have such different needs from the people who live in the eastern portion of our country, the eastern portion of the province of Quebec, the northern portion of Quebec and Ontario and the north of this country as a whole. What we learn as we develop programs to reach our objectives will carry over and have implications for the whole of this country.
The Speech from the Throne referred to several steps which may be necessary to accomplish our objectives: the decentralization of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the concentration of its endeavours with other federal departments and provincial activities in the joint production of the techniques for accomplishing our objectives. We have gone far too long without this kind of concerted approach, with one federal policy moving in one direction and another provincial policy moving in a different direction. We have, therefore, not derived the best results from our efforts even when our objectives have been the same.
We will examine the tremendous and difficult question of transportation and freight rates. Members from all parts of the country will recognize the significance of this question, and of possible solutions, to their regions. Here we are looking at the need to examine transportation and freight rates questions in conjunction with a national policy as an instrument which has its effect upon the total development of this country. The west came into being in the heyday and following upon the acceptance in Canada of the national policy which depended upon the tariff structure and upon a railroad being built with government assistance from grants of land and other things. It was built on a theory of establishing a market for the central portion of the country. It is this fundamental policy which must be reviewed and which the Speech from the Throne now gives us an opportunity to do.
Mr. Speaker, the move toward a better society must take place not only in the economic sense but in the broad social sphere of the relation between person and person and persons and state. In the past, this government and its predecessor have been most active in areas which touch directly upon my jurisdiction in the Department of Justice in trying to move toward a society where equal opportunity and equal respect for rights was a reality as well as a theory. We have just recently begun the signing of agreements on legal aid and compensation for victims of crime, in another effort. This will ensure that throughout this country a right, in reality, exists for individuals who may be faced with criminal prosecution or who are the victims of criminal acts.
I consider these agreements to be important, not so much for sharing the cost of the burden in those provinces which already have moved into these fields but in the possibility they offer for the extension of legal aid in criminal matters to provinces which have not previously provided that service in a very extensive way. It is of fundamental importance that every individual be treated fairly in our courts; it is of fundamental importance to the respect for law and order in our society that this be so.

January 15, 1973

It was this belief that individuals should be treated fairly and equitably which led to the so-called bail reform in this country only a short time ago. That allowed for the release from imprisonment before trial of prisoners who did not have the money with which to post bail or to secure sureties in the old-fashioned way.
This was an important equalization of the position of people in different economic situations. It has come under some criticism, as such a program almost certainly will in its earliest days before administrators become used to it. It is a new program and we are prepared to make such changes as experience may show are required. So far, the reaction of the attorneys general of the provinces and the officials who know the system well has been very positive. The program has allowed the release of people who ought to be released and it does not seem to have created too much difficulty.
It is true, of course, that those who administer the program must learn to know it. Crown prosecutors must learn of the opportunity they have to urge the detention in jail of a person where it seems sensible and safe and the only sane course of action. This power is in the hands of our judges, particularly at the urging of Crown prosecutors, and perhaps it was somewhat neglected in the initial stages of this reform. I suggest to hon. members that in this, as in so many other areas, it is important to avoid criticizing the whole program because of the difficulty which may attach to it in the initial stages. It is better to correct these problems, if we can, than to deal in a destructive way with the program itself.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that in this parliament we will have time to return to the question of the bill on privacy, or wire-tapping or electronic eavesdropping. I believe this is an important additional step that we must take in this country. In the Department of Justice we will be continuing our work on other aspects of the protection of privacy, in such matters as the development of a commission on rights and interests, in order that we can better protect the rights of individuals who are not strong enough to protect themselves or who need assistance against the strength and complexities of a bureaucracy.
A law reform commission has been established in this country, and is active. I look forward to its reports and to consideration by the House of its proposals. I hope that we can deal on a regular, perhaps annual basis with its recommendations on changes in the criminal law, in procedure, in the rules of evidence, and so on, so that the problems which have been recognized but which no one has had time to deal with in the past are not left as open sores.
These are the things which I think we can deal with in this parliament, Mr. Speaker, given a spirit of good will. I look forward to the continued support of members on all sides of the House in dealing with these extremely important matters of law and justice in our society. The objective of a just society, whether in economic or legal terms, will always be before us. It is an ideal toward which we should continue to strive. This government will put before this House legislation which allows us to move our society in that direction.
The Address-Mr. Balfour


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Jim Balfour (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, as the newly elected Member of Parliament for Regina East, I am pleased and honoured to be able to participate in this debate. I wish at the outset to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on your re-election and the Deputy Speaker on his election. I am confident that the qualities of courtesy, tact and wisdom possessed in such large measure by you both will guide the House successfully through the difficult and challenging days ahead.
Regina East, Mr. Speaker, comprises approximately the eastern half of the city of Regina plus about 5,000 square miles of rural area, being a rectangle about 50 miles in width and 130 miles from south to north. Included within its boundaries is a portion of the beautiful and historical Qu'Appelle valley along which are situated four Indian reservations. An additional four reservations lie north of the valley in the Punnichy district. Seventy per cent of my constituents reside in the urban centre of Regina; the remaining 30 per cent reside in the towns, villages and farms of the rural area of the riding.
The population of both the rural and urban areas is truly multicultural in nature, incorporating Anglo-Saxon, European and Asian ethnic origins in addition to a significant proportion of Indian and Metis people. Needless to say, the variety of background of these various groups contributes in a positive way to the quality of Regina's social and cultural life. Regina has more than doubled in size since the end of World War II and now contains a population of 149,000. The last four years have seen a slackening in Regina's rate of growth, as Saskatchewan has suffered a population loss. Some of the implications of these facts I shall refer to later in my remarks.
The principal economic activity of the Regina East riding is, of course, related directly and indirectly to agriculture. Dairy, grain and livestock farming and the goods and services required to support these activities are the principal sources of income for those residing in the various centres of population scattered throughout the rural constituency; hence, the basic problems of agriculture in western Canada translate themselves into economic terms for most of those whom I represent in this House.
The government, Mr. Speaker, in its Speech from the Throne proposes a variety of measures as solutions to western Canada's problems. I must say I am pleased to hear that this government has finally recognized the existence of western Canada and has finally realized that western Canada is, in fact, experiencing problems. But on the basis of this government's record over the past four and a half years, I seriously question whether we are going to witness any monumental alterations in attitude, no matter what the throne speech says.
Western Canada, and Saskatchewan in particular, is suffering from increased and disastrous depopulation, a steady decline in farm income as a result of vulnerable markets and the cost price squeeze, and from a federal government that over the past four and a half years has wasted its energies on measures inherently hostile to the social, economic and individual goals of Canada's rural future.

January 15, 1973
The Address-Mr. Balfour
In 1883, Mr. Speaker, my grandfather came to Saskatchewan from Ontario as a 16-year old youth seeking opportunity, which he found in full measure. In the economic environment of western Canada today, it seems to me almost inevitable that his great-grandsons, my sons, will leave their native province simply because no such opportunity or challenge now exists. Our largest single employer is the provincial government, and we are confronted with what could become an insoluble dilemma, that of an ever increasing bureaucracy living in large measure on the tax revenue generated by an ever decreasing private sector.
But, Mr. Speaker, I submit that what lies at the root of western Canadian problems is the hinterland philosophy with which, in varying degrees, central Canada and the federal government has regarded the west since confederation. A need to purchase consumer and capital goods in a protected market, while selling its products in a free world market, is one basic manifestation of its economic dilemma. This alone has constituted a hidden tax on western Canadians for as long as wheat and minerals have been produced there, a hidden tax which has never been compensated by government revenue sharing because it has created for the private sector of industrial Canada a built-in advantage over the private sector of western Canada. By reducing the profitability of the agricultural and mineral industries of the west, it has retarded capital formation, discouraged investment by the banks and reduced the buoyancy of the west economically.
The west is not the victim of lack of resources or productivity or a lazy work force; it is a victim of federal government policies that have loaded the dice against it. Transportation cost policies, tax laws which inhibit western development, a Customs tariff system which exacerbates the farmers' cost of production dilemma, the centralized banking system, immigration laws which at present create no impetus for settling in the west, and a host of other instruments of federal authority are responsible for the situation.
The hard fact is, Mr. Speaker, that western Canada has existed under a system of economic colonialism to central Canada since confederation, and the time for change is long overdue.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Balfour: I noted with interest the throne speech proposal to convene a conference of the governmenfs of western Canada to study western economic opportunities. Such a conference could very well prove in the long term to be a constructive and productive step. But there are things that could be done and should be done immediately. Federal fiscal, monetary and spending policies should be designed and implemented to deal with a Canada which is composed of distinct and differing regions. Special tax exemptions should be considered for areas with high living costs, such as the north, the areas of western Canada and the Maritimes; and areas which do not contribute to inflationary pressures caused by rapid economic growth should be spared the pains of the battle against it. In short, we must design and implement policies which recognize the existence of differences of the various regions of Canada and which guarantee for these regions

a substantial degree of sovereignty and pc ditical and economic equality.
I notice, Mr. Speaker, that the government, in the throne speech, devotes much of its time to social policy, to policy which is presumably designed to assist Canadians who are less fortunate than the majority, namely, the elderly, those who are unemployed, those on welfare, those who are living with conditions that are less than satisfactory.
I also notice that the throne speech fails to devote even a single sentence to the plight of Canada's native peoples. Perhaps this government would prefer not to remind itself or the rest of Canada about its total lack of concern for this sector of Canadian society which has an unemployment rate of about 90 per cent, a sector of Canadian society of which 70 per cent, in 1969, lived below the poverty line, a sector of Canadian society in which the high school drop-out rate reaches 95 per cent before grade 12, a sector of Canadian society which has, apparently, been forgotten by this government.
Mr. Speaker, there are approximately 3,000 registered Canadian Indians living in my riding. They occupy a total of eight reservations. In addition to this, there is in the city of Regina a substantial number of Indian and Metis people who have left the reservations and small rural communities seeking, presumably, greater opportunity. They, however, do not find greater opportunity. They find, usually because of lack of education, that opportunities for advancement are limited and they end up living in ghetto-like surroundings which are totally abysmal.
Under the terms of the Indian Act, registered Canadian Indians are the direct responsibility of the federal government. This government has abdicated that responsibility, because native peoples still suffer from inadequate housing and educational facilities, and poor health care. Native peoples living in Canada are still treated as second-class citizens and the government of Canada, instead of helping Indians to help themselves, is content to proceed with its narrow, legalistic policy of assimilation of native peoples into white society. Now we discover that the government is planning to phase-out funding for native organizations, in particular the core funding concept.
It appears as if the federal government expects that Indian associations will be able to correct all previous wrongs, grievances and injustices against Indian people and advance their standard of living to the point where they are no longer necessary within a period of less than 40 months. But, of course, this is the same government that has provided one school since 1968. It is the same government that has provided absolutely nothing in the way of new health care and educational concepts since 1968. It is the same government which chose to disregard the views of the Indian people in its 1969 Indian policy, and continues to ignore them in its 1973 Speech from the Throne. Canada's native peoples, Mr. Speaker, are not asking for the impossible. They only seek more control over their own affairs.
However, the biggest problems facing Canadians, whether they be from the west or the east, are unemployment and inflation-unemployment which affected 615,-
January 15, 1973

000 Canadians in December of this year, the largest number for that month in Canada's history, and inflation which is running at a rate of five per cent on a year to year basis.
The government in its Speech from the Throne said that it is giving top priority to finding a solution to Canada's economic problems. I contend, Mr. Speaker, that we would not have these problems now if the government had not chosen to pursue a bankrupt economic policy in the first place. Nevertheless, we are faced with finding a solution. The government's solutions, as usual, are too little, too late. I am speaking here of the new winter works program recently announced by the government, which will cost the Canadian taxpayer approximately $350 million.
The winter works program is supposed to alleviate peak periods of winter unemployment. Unfortunately, as in previous years, the government announced the program too late to accomplish its stated objectives. The result will be a winter of high unemployment and unnecessary misery for many Canadians. The throne speech says that the government is giving top priority to promoting-
-stable economic growth at a rate that will sustain rising standards of living for all our citizens and provide for more satisfactory realization of the potential of the economy.
Yet statistics released by the finance department on November 29 revealed that the government's present fiscal policy is becoming more restrictive rather than more expansionary, and that the June budget in fact contributed to rising inflation and rising unemployment.
We have been told that before too long the government intends to bring another of its endless series of budgets before this House. I can well imagine that this budget will try to tie up some or all of the loose ends left dangling by the throne speech. However, Mr. Speaker, what confidence can this House have in a government that says on the one hand its most urgent priority is jobs, when on the other hand the statistics compiled by Statistics Canada tell us a completely different story? These figures tell us that not only has job creation lagged behind growth of the labour force, but the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate has increased since the last budget. With what confidence can we treat the new budget, if and when it comes, when the first priority of the old budget has still to materialize?
Reasonable projections now show that real growth of the gross national product during the whole of 1972 will be approximately 5.3 per cent. To bring unemployment down to the 4.5 per cent recently recommended by the Economic Council of Canada will require real growth of our gross national product, between 6 and 7 per cent. Once again, the government has fallen short of its own objectives and one can only wonder how all this mismanagement will suddenly be changed in the new budget. This government has not produced over the past four years, and on the basis of its record I cannot really believe that its intentions are serious this time, either.
Much has been made of the lesson this government apparently learned during the election campaign and as a result of that contest, but I do not credit them with humility and I do not see any change in basic attitudes. We have a government which is still basically arrogant, which is
The Address-Mr. Rowland
still basically smug, which is still basically not a government of the people and which will, because of that, not be the government of the future.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I wish first to express my congratulations to the four hon. members whom this House has selected to preside over its deliberations. Three of these hon. gentlemen previously occupied the posts to which they have been re-elected, and did so with dignity and distinction.
I think it will be understood if I make specific reference to my special pleasure at the re-election of the hon. member for Stormont-Dundas (Mr. Lamoureux) to the high position he occupied in the previous parliament. It is not enough that Mr. Speaker knows the rules and applies them with impartiality. To be truly effective, he must be able to sense the mood of the House and understand when a rigid application of the rules would not be in the best interests of the chamber. Mr. Speaker has consistently demonstrated just that sort of sensitivity in his judgment.
I must also add my expression of appreciation for the manner in which Mr. Speaker discharges his important duties outside this chamber. It always pleases me to learn that Mr. Speaker has hosted visiting foreign dignitaries, because I know that the hospitality he and his wife habitually extend to their guests can only result in adding lustre to the reputation of this country and its parliament. It is among my fondest hopes that this parliament will create a permanent speakership and that the present Mr. Speaker will be the first incumbent.
The hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) assumes the Chair for the first time this session. I am delighted at his selection. Few members have demonstrated for this institution a feeling to equal his. His interventions in procedural debates in the past have been invariably knowledgeable, designed to maintain decorum and expedite business. I am sure that he will bring distinction to his office. While I am giving out bouquets, I would like to associate myself with the remarks of hon. members who congratulated the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne.
A lot of nonsense is commonly heard in this place, but if some of the remarks of distinguished members of the Progressive Conservative Party during the past week are any indication, this will be a vintage year. Let me refer to two recurring themes. First, members of the party sitting to my right have argued, implicity and explicity, that in deciding to permit the Liberal government to present a legislative program before deciding upon its fate we in the New Democratic Party have somehow betrayed our mandate. I consider it no part of my mandate to express a preference for either the Conservatives or the Liberals.
Given the fact that my party cannot at the present time form a government, and given the fact that I was elected after running on the New Democratic Party platform I consider that my instructions from the electors in my constituency were to use all the means at my disposal to bring into effect the policies which I advocated during the campaign. To me, that means that the New Democratic Party should employ the somewhat strategic position it

January 15, 1973
The Address-Mr. Rowland
occupies in this House to persuade whatever party has formed the government of the merits of its program.
So long as the party in power shows a reasonable disposition to act upon our suggestions, I feel under no obligation to defeat it. However, should such a disposition not manifest itself I would have not a moment's hesitation in throwing it out. That kind of decision can hardly be made with any intelligence before one has had a chance to look at proposed legislation. What we are doing is providing the government with a chance to present legislation. If we like it, if we feel it is in the best interests of the Canadian people, we will vote for it. If we do not think it appropriate, we will vote against it.
It makes absolutely no difference to me whether we engage in this exercise with Liberals or Conservatives. As it happens, the election results gave the Liberals two seats more than the Conservatives, and the Prime Minister's decision means that we must deal with Liberals. Should the Liberals be defeated, I believe that under current conditions it is only proper that the Conservatives be given an opportunity to attempt to implement a legislative program. But it is no part of my mandate to say to either the Liberals or the Conservatives, "You have no right to attempt to introduce a program of legislation." If I had any reason to believe that the Conservative party would, in government, produce policies more in keeping with those I advocated during the election campaign than will the present government, I would have no doubt that it was my duty to assist the Conservatives in gaining office. However, since in relation to the principles of social justice, economic democracy and human dignity a change from Liberals to Conservatives means merely a change of faces to the right of Mr. Speaker, I feel under no compulsion to express preference for one party over the other.
An even more monumental piece of nonsense than that the NDP is somehow morally obligated to produce a Conservative government is the attempt of Conservative members to suggest that in voting against their motion of last Tuesday to adjourn the debate on the address in reply, the New Democratic Party was somehow voting against the well-being of old age pensioners. Well, that is an interesting game to play. It may even impress some people outside this chamber. But it is nothing more than a game, the kind of silly game which has helped to erode the reputation of parliament.
The motion had nothing whatever to do with pensions. All it asked was "that this debate be now adjourned." If it had passed, the House would have had nothing before it and we would merely have taken the rest of the day off. The Tories say the purpose was to bring on the government's pension legislation. There is no pension legislation on the order paper. Nothing at all would have happened, and such a course would have done nothing for the cause of pensioners. The move was a farce and an insult to Canada's pensioners.
The claim to be concerned about pensions being made by the Tories has a hollow ring. Their leader, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), has said no to a pension of $150 across the board. The Tories have refused to say by how much they would increase the basic pension. All they want is to gain power by any device. To use the old age pensioners as part of a power play was a disgrace

exceeded only by those reporters who treated the gambit seriously at all. I would like to think that we in this chamber are capable of rising above that kind of nonsense. I know that the members of the Conservative party believe they can better govern this country than the Liberals. Given that conviction, they have every right to continue to seek office, but let them not ask me to share their conviction, and let them seek office honestly and straightforwardly. Playing games does not serve the interests of this House nor of the country.
There is not a party in this House that has reason to be satisfied with the results of the election. But like it or not, awkward or not, the composition of this House is the verdict of the Canadian electorate and I submit, to return again to the questions of mandates, that the electorate expect each of us to make a determined effort to see that this parliament deals with their problems, needs and aspirations. I recently polled my constituents by means of a questionnaire asking people to indicate whether or not they wanted another election. Over 90 per cent indicated that they did not. I asked them which party they would like to see form a government in the event that an election were held: some 30 per cent said Liberal, some 30 per cent said Conservative, some 30 per cent had no preference, and the remainder had other suggestions to make.


An hon. Member:: Explain.


Douglas Charles Rowland: Some rather optimistic people suggested there should be a New Democratic government, and others argued for various forms of coalition. The point is the people in my constituency want us to try to make this parliament work.
There are some who regret the fact that once again we have a minority House. I do not share that regret, and I shall indicate why in a moment; but that consideration is not material to the point I am attempting to make. The fact is that we have a minority government. The fact is that if we were to have an election tomorrow, there is no guarantee we would not have another. Indeed, the experience of the last 15 years, in which seven elections have produced only two majority governments, would lead one to expect another minority government.
Parties have become regionalized; there is no truly national party at the moment. I believe the situation to be the result of the beginning of a profound political realignment in Canada which will ultimately produce a national party to the left of centre and a national party to the right of centre. One can see that process taking place at the provincial level in British Columbia and Manitoba where coalitions to oppose what are called "The socialists" are being proposed. Such a process is already complete in Saskatchewan. But the process is lengthy and difficult. In the interim, minority parliaments are more likely to be the rule than the exception. I think that as men and women elected to govern in the interest of Canadians we are obliged to seek ways and means to make minority parliaments work, ways and means which will meet the current situation without artificially perpetuating it. That means some alteration in both institutions and attitudes. It is for this reason I was so pleased by the decision of the House
January 15, 1973

to elect a representative from the official opposition to the post of Deputy Speaker.
Surely the next logical step, and one which I would strongly urge the government to adopt, or at the very least refer to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization for immediate consideration and report, is that of having chairmen of committees selected from a panel of representatives of all parties in this House. With its current numbers, the government is going to encounter extreme difficulty finding a sufficient number of members with the background and experience necessary to chair each of our standing committees, joint standing committees and special committees. There are compelling reasons for moving to an all-party panel of chairmen even in a majority House. Surely those reasons are even more compelling when the party in power has only 109 members, the majority of whom occupy cabinet posts or parliamentary secretaryships.
May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Douglas Charles Rowland: Mr. Speaker, when the House recessed at six o'clock I was in the midst of arguing that what is likely to happen in this country over the next number of years, because of the process of political realignment that is taking place, is that we will be confronted more often than not with the situation we now find ourselves in, that is, having a minority government. Because of that there is some fundamental reshaping of attitudes and of institutions which must take place, not for the purpose of artificially perpetuating the situation of minority governments but to accommodate this institution to the fact that we are likely to be encountering minority governments. This would allow the government of the country to carry on in spite of that fact.
Just prior to the House adjourning for supper I had argued that one of the immediate steps we could take in this direction would be to look to the device of having committee chairmen selected from opposition parties as well as the government party, something I understand the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) suggested last Thursday. I hope we will hear some similar expressions of opinion from representatives of the Conservative party as this debate progresses.
Another suggestion I wish to make is that now is the time for this House or one of its committees to take a good, hard look at one of the recommendations of the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on the Constitution, on which I had the honour to serve. In effect, the recommendation calls for a fixed-turn parliament with certain escape clauses. Recommendation 43 of that committee, to be found on page 37 of its report, reads as follows:
Every House of Commons should continue for four years, from the day of the return of the writs for choosing the House and no longer, provided that, and notwithstanding any royal prerogative,
The Address-Mr. Rowland
the Governor General should have the power to dissolve parliament during that period:
(1)	when the government is defeated
(a)	on a motion expressing no confidence in the government; or
(b)	on a vote on a specific bill or portion of a bill which the government has previously declared should be construed as a motion of want of confidence; or
(2)	when the House of Commons passes a resolution requesting dissolution of parliament.
That recommendation duplicates a bill to amend the BNA Act which I had on the order paper during the last parliament and which I have resubmitted for consideration by this parliament. The recommended changes to the BNA Act have special relevance to a minority parliament because they would in at least two ways equip the House to introduce some stability into the situation, a situation which I have demonstrated is likely to be recurrent over the next number of years. Firstly, by requiring the government to indicate in advance of debate on any piece of legislation whether or not a vote against it would be construed as a motion of want of confidence, much unnecessary and disruptive squabbling about the significance of any particular vote, a problem referred to in the speech of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), could be avoided. Moreover, such declarations would assist the chamber, through consultations among House leaders, to intelligently plan the order in which legislation should be placed before it because we would know in advance on which pieces of legislation the vote would constitute a test of the government.
The second way in which this suggested amendment to the BNA Act would contribute to stability in a minority situation is less direct but equally profound. In effect, the bill which I placed on the order paper, and also the recommendation of the joint Senate-Commons committee, limits the royal power of dissolution by establishing that it is the House, and not the Governor General or the Prime Minister by way of the Governor General, that will determine whether parliament should dissolve short of its statutory time limit, which is suggested in both these recommendations as four years.
Thus, it would seem to me that the House would have the power to so word a motion of want of confidence, once that royal prerogative had been limited, as to determine whether it would result in dissolution of parliament and an election, or in the forming of a new government. Should the BNA Act be modified as suggested, it would be entirely proper for the House to move a motion couched in terms such as, "Your Excellency's advisers no longer possess the confidence of this House and we humbly request that (Mr. X) be called upon to form a government".
This procedure would not be proper now because the House would be attempting to usurp the royal prerogative; but if the amendment to the British North America Act, recommended by the joint committee on the constitution, were passed, that prerogative would be limited and such a motion would be in order. This would meet yet another of the points raised by the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert during his contribution to this debate.
I believe the fixed term for parliament, with escape clauses, provided for in the recommendation of the Com-

January 15, 1973
The Address-Mr. Rowland
mons-Senate committee and as inscribed in my bill is necessary for a number of reasons beyond those associated with a minority parliament. At present, under section 50 of the British North America Act the Commons can sit for a maximum of five years after an election unless its term is extended by a vote of two-thirds of the members; but it can be dissolved by the Governor General, who acts on the advice of the Prime Minister, at any time within the five-year term.
In practice, parliaments are usually dissolved after three and a half to four years in order to offset charges of government arrogance, to avoid the appearance of government clutching too tightly to the reins of power and to permit the government room to manoeuver and plan legislation so as to present itself to the electorate in the most favourable manner. Thus, at any time after the third year a parliament gets election fever, productivity drops off because members must begin electioneering, the game of guessing "will it be called or won't it" saps energies and diverts attention from legislation. Obviously, a set term would not completely eliminate such practices but it would at least ameliorate the situation.
The second reason apart from a minority situation for advocating a set, four-year term is that it would diminish slightly the power the Prime Minister wields over individual Members of Parliament, especially those in his own party, by taking away from him the ability to decide, on his own, when an election shall be called. The threat of an election can often whip into line rebelling members of a government caucus. Even the exceptions to the set term which my proposal would admit would ensure that the power to decide upon an election date rested with the whole House and not only on the Prime Minister.
The third reason for advocating a set term is that it would give individual Members of Parliament, especially government backbenchers, a greater say in policy formation. If there were a set term, the defeat of a piece of government legislation would not necessarily result in the defeat of the government, as custom would seem to dictate at the present, although that statement must be qualified in particular instances. Thus, a government backbencher would no longer necessarily be confronted with the choice of either voting for a piece of legislation with which he disagrees or having the government, which he probably supports on 90 per cent of its legislation, fall. In short, there would be more free votes. In this kind of situation the government would have to pay much greater attention to the views of its caucus and ensure that those views were reflected in its legislation if it were to be assured of passage.
Opposition influence would also increase because, if their arguments for change in legislation were to convince a number of government backbenchers, the legislation would again be in jeopardy. Thus, the government would have to pay some attention to opposition arguments, and the opposition, with a real chance to influence the course of events, would have to take greater pains to make their arguments responsible and convincing. Debate in the House would become more meaningful and less of a ritual.

The fourth reason for advocating a set-term parliament is very closely related to the third; the fact that there would be more free votes, and debat es in the House would become more meaningful. Such a situation would mean that a debate was once again a drama. The outcome would no longer always be known in advance. Debate would once again be genuinely worthy of the attention of the news media. News media coverage would serve to focus public attention upon developments in the House. Just why this change is so important to the democratic process is somewhat difficult to ex plain, but let me take a stab at it.
Parliament serves the purpose of foe using public attention upon matters of concern and of defining and delineating the considerations and the options involved. In so doing, parliament assists the public in coming to intelligent conclusions about the actions of government and helps individual members of the public to determine their own positions on questions of import. The better the media coverage, the more effective is this wholly desirable process. But beyond that, improved media coverage of improved parliamentary debate would mean a more rapid and a more effective focusing of public attention upon an issue, with the consequence that public opinion would more readily affect government actions.
Votes in the House are no longer the important control on the actions of the executive; rather, appeals by the opposition to the electorate are the important control. Even with a set-term parliament, this would remain the case. The only real sanction, the only real control on government action now is the prospect of defeat in the next election. With a majority government and the well established pattern of voting solidly by party-a pattern which a set-term parliament would soften but not end- votes are virtually meaningless and are useless as a means of effecting parliamentary control. Thus, what is important in the functioning of parliament is the quality of the discussion conducted. What is important in the functioning of parliament is that discussion be focused. What is important in the functioning of parliament is that its discussions be heard by the public, and news media attention would ensure that they were.
The constitution committee's proposal for a set-term parliament would permit the term to be shortened under certain conditions. Exceptions are required for two major reasons. The first is that public opinion, especially in this age of instant electronic communication, is highly subject to change. Thus, it is entirely conceivable that a parliament might not at all accurately reflect public opinion after it had been elected for a period of time but before its four-year term had expired. Therefore, any realistic proposal must permit the effective acknowledgement of such changes through an earlier election. It is for this reason that I suggest an election could be held before the expiry of four years if the government were defeated on a motion of want of confidence, or if the House voted to dissolve and have an election called.
The second major reason for permitting an early termination of parliament under certain conditions is the desire to avoid doing undue violence to one of the parliamentary system of government's greatest strengths-its ability to allow the public to easily assign responsibility for govern-
January 15, 1973

ment action. Because it is the government which formulates policy and pilots it through the House, credit for success and blame for failure goes to the government. Moreover, governments seek office on the basis of a program of action, and once in office are expected to put that program into effect.
If a situation were created in which a government could find itself defeated again and again on major pieces of legislation and yet be forced to continue in office, as is sometimes the case with the United States president who is elected for a set term, our system of responsible government would be adversely affected if not entirely destroyed. Thus, I feel it necessary to suggest that a government be permitted to say of any piece of legislation, before debate on it begins, "This piece of legislation, or this portion of the bill before us is a matter of principle to us. If it suffers defeat, we will consider the defeat to be a vote of want of confidence and an election will be called even if the four-year term is not up." This latter qualification is obviously a major one, one which if abused, could severly reduce the advantages of a set-term parliament.
It is obviously possible, with this sort of exception available, for a government to make such a statement about every piece of legislation it brought forward and thus end the possibility of free votes. However, the likelihood of such action being taken is remote since institutions and laws have their own dynamics. Once the law made it possible for more free votes to take place, the expectation of the public would be that they take place and a government would ignore such expectations at its peril. I think that initially governments would use such a qualification very frequently but, as the system was demonstrated to work and as the public became accustomed to it, the use of such a rider on legislation would become less and less frequent.
I submit that these kinds of reform are necessary because they give greater weight to the individual Member of Parliament. At the moment parliament, except in a minority government situation, is lead around by the nose by members of cabinet, and especially the Prime Minister. So long as individual Members of Parliament are effectively excluded from having a reasonable amount of influence over policy formation and over the business which comes before the House, their constituents, individually and collectively, are similarly denied an influence unless they are members of well organized, well financed special interest groups capable of gaining the attention and affecting the judgment of the cabinet. That is not democracy; rather, it is a form of collective plutocracy.
In the interests of democracy, in the interests of making this chamber relevant to the people of Canada, we need to build into the system the necessity for a government to consult meaningfully with this House and its members when it occupies a majority position as well as during those times when there is government by minority. I suggest that in a small way a fixed-term parliament would assist in achieving that end.


Mr. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour for me to represent the constituency of York-Sunbury that has been represented by such great Canadians as J. Chester MacRae, the Hon. Milton F.
The Address-Mr. Howie
Gregg, the Hon. R. B. Hanson, W. G. Clark and the Hon. Francis Bridges.
I would respectfully commend you, Mr. Speaker, on the fair, impartial and friendly way you conduct yourself in the performance of your exacting duties. You certainly merit your excellent reputation which extends across Canada. I wish also to commend the clerks at the table who serve this House with distinction. The Clerk of the Commons has been the instigator and mainstay of the organization of Clerks of all legislatures in Canada. The Clerks hold annual seminars, exchange information and improve the quality of service to all legislators in Canada. Our Clerk, the Clerk Assistants and parliamentary counsel have merited the praise and respect of all hon. members for their service to this House and to all the legislative bodies in Canada.
My constituency is one of the most beautiful in Canada. Intersected by the magnificent Saint John River, its rolling hills and green valleys are punctuated by evergreen forests, farms, towns, villages and the capital city of New Brunswick. Base Gagetown, the large army training area, the dominion research station, factories, government offices, recreation areas, the arts and points of historic and natural interest are all there. There is also poverty, hardship, anguish and frustration. I shall in a moment, Sir, ask your understanding and assistance in identifying and attempting to solve the difficult problems facing many people in my constituency.
The provincial university, the University of New Brunswick, Teacher's College and St. Thomas University, are located in my constituency on the same campus. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) and the former minister of transport all know this campus. They visited it during the election campaign. They are always welcome in York-Sunbury and I hope they return soon.
York-Sunbury also has within its boundaries the capital of the province of New Brunswick. Fredericton is the only capital city in Canada not served by rail passenger service. To visit Fredericton by rail you disembark at Fredericton junction and then travel over icy roads in a bus through the bitter cold New Brunswick winter for a considerable distance. It is not equal to the comfortable, safe rail service that helped develop and build part of this area. If you come by air, make your reservations early if you plan to visit during the busy season. Would you believe that last week I was on the waiting list to fly from Montreal to Fredericton on March 24? You have probably guessed by now why I welcome the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand), particularly in the winter when I hope he comes by train.
I am vitally interested in the government's future plans for regional economic development. The disparity that exists between the Atlantic provinces and the rest of Canada has remained constant despite strong efforts made by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. One can only conclude that without DREE the situation may have been much worse but that some important studied changes are necessary. Unfortunately, neither the throne speech nor the speech of the Minister of Regional

January 15, 1973
The Address-Mr. Howie
Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson) in this debate, although I enjoyed it very much, have thrown any meaningful light on this subject except for an oblique reference to the effect that DREE would be decentralized.
My conception of DREE is of a federally strong department backed by ail the resources of Canada, such as the original Atlantic Development Board was to have been. It was my belief, shared by maritimers generally, that DREE was created expressly to help underdeveloped regions in their quest for national standards of living. If DREE had been used for that purpose, we would no doubt have far better conditions in the Atlantic provinces today. Unhappily, DREE has been used primarily to prop up the national economy in times of stress and strain and, heaven knows, there have been plenty of times like those in the last four years.
Practically every part of Canada has experienced the need for and been brought under the aegis of DREE. The concentration of funds needed in the Atlantic provinces for infrastructures and the provision of secondary industries has not been available in these areas in amounts necessary to combat the chronic depression, the seasonal unemployment and the low per capita incomes of the Maritimes. In short, it seems that the grievous errors made in national planning have cast DREE in a stopgap role instead of that of a facilitator for the economic recovery of Atlantic Canada.
In my view, DREE must develop policies which can have an enormous impact on regional development. It has to be a bold and vigorous DREE, to be sure, and one which is in close communion with the places it serves. But it has to be a DREE properly administered, with the outstanding goals of eliminating the disparities which it is attacking and focusing the combined efforts of all agencies on the problems before it.
After the fortunes of war had turned against the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) in 1963, successive Liberal governments failed to realize the magnitude of the task. To bring a whole region of Canada, depressed for generations, to economic, monetary and social parity with the rest of the country is a mountainous undertaking requiring massive infusions of funds and investments. Piecemeal doles, such as those handed out by the Liberal government after 1963 which played havoc with the Atlantic Development Board, and even those presided over by DREE, have been able to do nothing more than keep the region sliding backward.
The right hon. member for Prince Albert was thinking in terms of a billion dollars of federal investment in the Atlantic provinces when he created the Atlantic Development Board. This was to prime corporate investment of $3 billion more. He seized the nettle in 1962, introduced the principle of regionalism into federal politics and recognized the fact, glossed over during two decades of Liberal rule, that only federal assistance on a titanic scale could strengthen the weak Atlantic link in the chain of confederation. The Atlantic Development Board had no chance to function. The Diefenbaker government fell. The Atlantic Development Board was emasculated by the Liberals and given a fixed fund toally inadequate to the task. Where billions were needed, millions were distributed in bits and pieces.

The Department of Regional Economic Expansion performed the best it could within the scope of its policies and finances, but the great and crying needs of the Atlantic provinces, the basic problems, are still unanswered. DREE has been concentrating on industrial aspects with a reasonable degree of success, but the results are discouraging in Atlantic Canada when the magnitude of the task is considered. Also, the scale of its outlay for infrastructures has been puny in relation to the number and size of the projects in the Atlantic area waiting to be developed.
The Atlantic Development Board led by Michael War-dell, before the Liberals got at it, was poised to launch mighty undertakings which could have changed the face and fortune of this part of Canada. It had the blessing of the Conservative government of that day. The green light had been flashed. It was "Go" for the harnessing of the tides of Fundy, the building of the New Brunswick to Prince Edward Island causeway, the exploration of the corridor road across Maine, linking the Maritimes with Sherbrooke, Quebec, and even the much talked about Chignecto canal seemed a possibility.
Those were the infrastructures which the Atlantic provinces needed then, and which I believe are needed today as never before. But with the Liberals came the locusts and nothing was done. To be sure, the causeway was begun-during an election campaign-and stopped afterwards. When the government decided that it had to cut back on national spending, it thought first of the Maritimes just as its Liberal predecessors did. Out went the causeway concept, out went the possibility of developing the Bay of Fundy for electric power, and out went all interest in Chignecto and the corridor road.
The right hon. member for Prince Albert, Hugh John Flemming, Michael Wardell and K. C. Irving were on the right track when they said, "Invest first in the great infrastructures, and industrial expansion will follow as day follows night." The policies of the Liberal politicians, bureaucrats, economists and academics, while having some merit, were inadequate in attempting to pay industries to settle in the Maritimes and buy jobs.
The great need in Atlantic Canada is still for a massive program of self-liquidating public works and capital budgets financed out of loans. Investment on a massive scale can create production, employment and profits. It can cut those annual aids which the state of the Atlantic economy compels the other provinces to provide. If the infrastructure is set right-the power developments, the canals, the roads, the ports and the harbours

industry can do without the subsidies.
Transportation and regional development are inextricably linked. Thus, there should be constant consultation and communication between the Department of Transport and the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. In the past, so far as is known, there has been little of either. Now we have a strange situation in the House. The former minister of transport and the former minister of regional economic expansion have swapped seats in the cabinet. I hope they will put their heads together, as the times demand, to bring into effect the Atlantic transportation policy which must come if regional equality is ever to be attained.
January 15, 1973

I should now like to refer to a subject that has an important bearing on the future lives of a large segment of the people in my constituency, the servicemen and their families at base Gagetown. I refer to the defence establishment and its probable future commitments. Until a few years ago, a sizeable field formation was stationed at this important training establishment made up of highly trained and well disciplined soldiers. Their role was to reinforce, as necessary, the NATO commitment in Europe and to act as an immediately available resource of trained manpower if such were needed in a civil emergency.
They proved their worth in the latter responsibility most admirably and comported themselves well during the FLQ crisis. On several occasions they responded to requests from the New Brunswick government for assistance in fighting forest fires, flood control and such other emergencies. I hold these men in the highest regard, as do the people of New Brunswick. But I seriously doubt that the same capability is there today because of the change of organization and the serious depletion that has occurred in army unit strength.
It is not generally realized that when a drastic cutback is ordered by government, the personnel released are in most cases those in the junior ranks. In an emergency such as I mentioned earlier, our main requirement is for fully trained and well disciplined private soldiers-and they cannot be produced in a few weeks; in fact, I believe it requires at least 18 months to make a trained soldier out of a recruit.
The point I wish to make is that we cannot expect our armed forces properly to carry out their role unless they are made up of balanced and collectively trained units, capable immediately of undertaking present commitments and future commitments into which the government of this country enters, whether they be of a peacekeeping nature or related to emergencies that arise in this country. We must support our armed forces in achieving this posture.
Like other provinces, in varying degree, New Brunswick and the counties of York and Sunbury have the problem of inadequate support for the owners of small farms. We must make it possible for these holdings to pass from one generation to another without crippling tax penalties. We must make it less expensive for these people to purchase new equipment, to improve the efficiency of their operations and thus enable them and their successors to make a reasonable living off the land. Unless such measures are undertaken very soon, we and our children will be looking at vast areas of wasteland and abandoned farms on which the soil is fertile and capable of producing good food.
In the unique position in which we find ourselves in this House, Mr. Speaker, one cannot blame the smaller opposition parties for taking advantage of the present situation. However, they should bear in mind the words of the Prime Minister in regard to our relations with the United States, that one can never really be at ease when sleeping with an elephant, unless one wants to be a mouse.


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


J. Robert Howie: I have attempted to constructively place before this House proposals to improv e the way of life of all those who live in the Atlantic provinces. Whether these or better suggestions are acted upon is not important. What is important is that we act decisively, and now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Stanley Haidasz (Minister of State):: Mr. Speaker,
in opening my remarks I should like to congratulate you on your re-election to this House, and to join those hon. members who during the course of the debate have paid well deserved tribute to your wisdom, fairness and many other skills. I am both proud and happy that you have been enthusiastically, and indeed unanimously selected again to guide the proceedings of this chamber during the twenty-ninth parliament. I congratulate the Deputy Speaker on his election, and I also congratulate, for their excellent performances, the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne.
I recall vividly my emotions, my excitement and feelings of humility, mixed with great satisfaction, when in 1957 I arrived in this House for the first time. Today, my feelings are no less intense. I stand here again with mixed feelings of humility and pride as the first Minister of State whose sole responsibility it is to implement and develop further the multicultural policy of the government.


Mr. Paproski:: You had better do a good job, Stanley.


Stanley Haidasz: To these feelings I have to add, in all sincerity, my sense of gratitude to my parents, who immigrated to Canada from Poland many years ago, for their hard work, privations and guidance without which I would not have completed my education nor succeeded im my chosen career, to my teachers and friends in Toronto where I was born and educated, to my professors at the University of Ottawa, to the constituents of my multicultural riding of Parkdale for the clear mandate with which they sent me back to this House, and to the community of which I am a proud member, for their encouragement to enter into and to continue a role in the political life of this country.
I was deeply touched, Sir, by the reaction with which my appointment was greeted by the various ethnocultural communities across the country and their periodicals which, although in languages other than English or French are, nevertheless, Canadian in spirit. I was not surprised, of course, by the expression of warm, proud satisfaction by the Polish-Canadian press. I was, however, greatly moved by the sincere, spontaneous statements and congratulations flowing from other ethnocultural groups.
I am grateful for their kindness and assure them of my continued support and receptiveness to their advice on how I and my dedicated officials can improve the efforts which have already begun in giving multiculturalism genuine substance in Canada.
All of us here are sensitive to the needs of ethnic groups and the richness they add to Canadian society, because the multicultural policy received support from all parties when it was announced by our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), on October 8, 1971.


Steve Eugene Paproski: All we want is more money.

January 15, 1973
The Address-Mr. Haidasz


Stanley Haidasz: I rejoice at the enthusiastic response to this policy from all ethnocultural groups. It is a fitting testimony to the viability of the multicultural policy of the government and an example of the integrating spirit and natural adoptive forces of our country, where mistrust can be shed in a cordial atmosphere of mutual trust, replaced by togetherness and understanding directed toward a brighter future, and by preservation of what is best in the past. Without it, multiculturalism would remain only a beautiful theory.
The appointment of a minister of state responsible for multiculturalism illustrates the positive influence of the philosophical and moral basis of the policy of multiculturalism. How right was the Prime Minister, when announcing this policy on October 8, 1971, he said in his memorable statement on that historic occasion:
A policy of multiculturalism within a bilingual framework commends itself to the government as the most suitable means of assuring the cultural freedom of Canadians. Such a policy should help to break down discriminatory attitudes and cultural jealousies.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Where is the advisory board?


Stanley Haidasz: National unity, if it is to mean anything in the deeply personal sense, must be founded on confidence in one's own individual identity; out of this can grow respect for that of others and a willingness to share ideas, attitudes and assumptions. A vigorous policy of multiculturalism will help create this initial confidence. It can form the base of a society which is based on fair play for all.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, fair play for all is the principle guiding the implementation of this policy as outlined in the Prime Minister's document. I have not the least doubt that when the history of this time in our country's affairs is written, the Prime Minister's statement, making manifest his government's determination to provide all ethnocultural groups with a sense of belonging without first having to sacrifice their cultural heritage, will be regarded as one of the truly enlightened and just policies adopted by any administration.


Steve Eugene Paproski: You don't believe that.


Stanley Haidasz: During the past 14 months of implementation, the citizenship branch of the Department of the Secretary of State and the federal cultural agencies have done an impressive job to launch new programs and to develop those which had already existed. It was only in January of last year, hardly a year ago, that $3 million were made available for the fiscal period ending March, 1973, to finance the initial stages of all these programs. The best known of these is the one for various cultural projects proposed and carried out by the cultural and ethnic groups themselves. Until now, out of $1 million earmarked for them, the citizenship branch has assisted a total of 229 projects with grants amounting to $826,772. Another granting session will commence next week.
These grants cover a wide range of activities, from traditional dance and song ensembles and other manifestations of folklore, to cable-TV presentations, anthologies of ethnic prose and poems written in Canada and published in English and French, theatrical performances, bibliographies of Canadian ethnic material, exhibitions and imaginative multicultural ventures in which many

groups participate, including English and French speaking.
Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, if I were to cite the assistance which has been provided to various groups some better understanding of the government's role in promoting multiculturalism may be obtained. For example, the Estonian Canadians were assisted in staging an impressive world festival of their culture in Toronto last summer. Similar festivals, although on a smaller scale, were organized, with federal support, by Latvians in Vancouver and Lithuanians in Montreal.
A prominent Czech writer received a grant to enable him to publish, in French, his Czech novel depicting integration of an immigrant intellectual into the French-Canadian milieu in Montreal. A Hungarian researcher was helped in publishing, in English, a bibliography of Hungarian, English and French publications pertaining to Hungary and Hungarian Canadians. A number of amateur theatrical groups, Jewish, Latvian, Polish, Ukrainian, and others, in Montreal, Toronto and Edmonton were assisted in their productions. The East Indian community in Vancouver received help to present a Sikh cultural variety program which later toured other centres in British Columbia. Another grant enabled the Korean group to present their culture, modern and classical music, dance and theatre to the Toronto public.
A multi-ethnic group in remote Rouyn-Noranda received assistance to help their members to maintain their languages and cultures. A Cape Breton youth group, consisting of members of 11 racial strains, used a grant awarded by the citizenship branch to learn more about their own cultural heritage and to share this knowledge with other members of the community. In the same area, a Lebanese Canadian women's group received a grant to save the art of Lebanese cuisine and other homemaking traditions from disappearing. In another project, assisted by multicultural funds, two Montreal youth groups, Polish and French-Canadian, have been getting together to share each other's culture, concentrating on songs and dances. Although the project has not yet been completed, it has already yielded some happy results. The Polish group raised additional funds themselves to visit their country of origin last summer, and while performing there in an international festival won a coveted prize for their rendition of French-Canadian dances.
There have been numerous other projects, special conferences, colloquia and festivals, German, black, Maltese, Greek, Ukrainian, and many others. A particularly successful festival was the one held in St. Thomas, Ontario, where the grant received was minimal in proportion to the enthusiasm and spontaneous participation of the whole community which is proud of its multicultural heritage.
The Canadian past was also remembered and honoured. A grant to the Jewish Historical Society of western Canada was instrumental in organizing an impressive multi-media exhibition on "The History of the Jews in Western Canada" which opened in Winnipeg late last year. I saw this exhibit and found it most interesting and well presented. The one-hundredth anniversary of the settlement of the Danes in New Brunswick benefited from

this granting program when the community of New Denmark celebrated their centennial. The German-speaking Amish Mennonites were the focus of attention when the Mennonite Historical Society of Ontario organized a series of uplifting celebrations to commemorate 150 years of the settlement of the Old Order of Amish in southern Ontario. Part of their commemoration, an oratorio which was presented in the Avon Theatre at Stratford, was assisted by a multicultural grant.
I believe the examples I have cited prove the viability of this government's policy to assist in the preservation and development of our cultural riches and to promote better understanding among Canadians. But in addition to the granting program there are other undertakings which are equally important. An extensive research program is being undertaken to produce information on language maintenance and cultural development.
Meaningful multiculturalism c tinot ignore this complex problem. If we want to successfully develop programs outlined in the House document tabled by the Prime Minister, we have to understand all the linguistic and cultural phenomena. Some ethnic groups, those who manifest a "collective will to exist" as the B and B Commission had termed it, attach utmost importance to the retention of their languages, as witnessed by the considerable number of their evenings and Saturdays language schools. To other groups, language is of less importance. A special study is now in progress in Toronto, Montreal, Winnipeg, Edmonton and Vancouver involving some of the largest ethnocultural groups. I hope that this study, which should be completed by late summer, will yield enough data to enable the government to assess where its further support could most effectively be directed.
I wish to stress, Mr. Speaker, this government's interest in the important role of Canadian ethnic publications. A great deal has already been done to assist them in carrying out their role, and even more will be done in the future. A part of the research program of our multicultural policy which I have just mentioned deals with the many problems of the ethnic press. The postal tariffs and insufficient income from advertising are not the only malaise which affects the many ethnic and other periodicals. There are many other factors, both internal and external, which also affect their content, readership, circulation, advertising, distribution and delivery and other operating costs.
While there are some papers which are self-sufficient, there are many others unable to solve their financial and other difficulties. Some of these were considered by the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism and by the special Senate Committee on Mass Media, and others. Our study should give a comprehensive picture as to which ethnic publishers and editors will contribute individually or through their Canada Ethnic Press Federation and its affiliate clubs in Toronto, Montreal, Winnipeg and Vancouver, thus enabling the government to undertake proper measures. I would like to stress, however, that it is unlikely that the government would consider measures which would not also apply to ailing community weeklies across the country whose plight is very similar.
The Address-Mr. Haidasz
Under another program we have commissioned the writing of 20 ethnic histories by academics familiar with their respective groups. The purpose of this series on the peoples of Canada is to acquaint Canadians better with each other, to demonstrate that all groups have contributed to the growth and development of Canada's economic, social, cultural and political life. So far, contracts have been signed for 15 histories. The first volume will appear this year and the rest will be completed over the next three years. The problem of Canadian ethnic studies is also under consideration and prominent Canadian scholars are being consulted on the feasibility of establishing special centres of ethnic studies.
Mention should be made of multicultural centres where members of all groups can meet and share their cultural experiences and heritages. The only centres which have received substantial assistance to date a.re the International Institute of Metropolitan Toronto, L'Accord in Montreal, and the International Centre of Winnipeg. All three are considerably involved in immigrant-orientation work. There are, however, many smaller communities interested in the creation of multicultural centres, although on a smaller scale. Groups in such places are encouraged and assisted in their feasibility studies and preparation of suitable plans.
Four federal cultural agencies, apart from the citizenship branch of the Department of Secretary of State, are involved in the implementation of the multicultural policy and have their own programs. The National Film Board is making a series of films on ethnic groups. What is particularly important about these films is that they depart from the usual concept of folklore and depict the life of Canadians of ethnic groups, as it is lived today, among all other Canadians. The National Film Board has also completed extensive research preparatory to the launching of a program to show versions of existing films in other languages and distribute them to ethnic groups across Canada.
The National Museum of Man has created and put on tour two special exhibitions on ethnic groups in Canada and is developing its collection of multicultural artifacts. The public archives and the national library are also building up their collection of historical and current material relating to ethnic groups in our country. The CRTC is also involved. It has under way at the present time a major study on the use of other languages and is carrying out research of its own on ethnic broadcasting. The CBC has had a special committee studying the way in which that corporation can contribute to the realization of multicultural objectives and I hope it will be reporting to its president very shortly.
I regret that time does not permit me to describe all the multicultural programs of the federal government's cultural agencies in more detail, but there will be other opportunities to do so. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to stress the spirit of co-operation and consultation underlying the formulation and implementation of the multicultural policy. All the programs I have mentioned were not conceived in an ivory tower; they were preceded by countless discussions and consultations between federal and provincial agencies, communities and groups they are to serve. My predecessors in the Department of Secre-

January 15, 1973
The Address-Mr. A. Lambert tary of State played an important role in these community and group consultations, and I feel indebted to the Minister of Communications (Mr. Pelletier), the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Stanbury) and to the Hon. Martin O'Connell, former member for Scarborough East, for their excellent contributions.
I intend, Mr. Speaker, to continue this process of democratic consultation with all groups concerned in order to further develop and implement the multicultural policy of the government. One of the most important instruments of meaningful consultation will no doubt be the national advisory council of multiculturalism mentioned in the Speech from the Throne. The Prime Minister has already written to the leaders of national ethnocultural organizations about this council and many interesting and positive replies already have been received. We all would like to see an effective council, representative of the many ethnocultural groups and all regions of Canada. To ensure this, careful, time-consuming consultations are necessary. Nevertheless, I hope that I shall soon be in a position to present a report to the Prime Minister on this important matter.
I am aware of the interest of all members of the House in multiculturalism, not only as a matter of policy but also as a distinctly Canadian phenomenon of cultural equality, which makes us all proud. I am sure that the government will be fully supported in its measures to give effect to its programs implementing multiculturalism and to develop its policies further in light of the needs and desires of our ethnocultural groups.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say that the government's agenda for action outlined in the Speech from the Throne contains many remedies to solve our socioeconomic problems and to improve the quality of life for all our citizens. I hope that parliament will act responsibly and support the government's legislation which will be proposed soon.


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to congratulate you quite sincerely for having been unanimously re-elected as Speaker of this House.
I was very pleased in recent years to take part in the proceedings under your speakership because you have always treated all members with much fairness and generosity. It happened sometimes, especially in my case, that we have unwillingly violated our standing orders-


An hon. Member:: Often.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Someone said often but I know that he is joking. In all honesty he knows quite well that I have always tried, as do my colleagues, to respect the authority of the Speaker.
The hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Dupras) is nodding yes because he knows that I am telling the truth.
I should also like to congratulate the Deputy Speaker for his election. He has truly deserved the confidence of the House and I am convinced that we shall be able to count on his understanding and generosity so that the proceedings of the House may be truly efficient.

Also, I would like, at the beginning of my remarks, to thank very sincerily the voters of the riding of Bellechasse who have re-elected me at the last election and this despite pressure from promises and without hopes for a big election fund because third parties are without these advantages.
I should also like to say a word of praise for my chief, although he is not here now, because of his brave speech in the House last Monday when he took part on the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. He kindly outlined what, during the coming weeks and months, will be the position of our party with regard to administration and to the debates in the House. I am particularly anxious to tell him and the whole nation how much I respect him for having used the same language both in the east and in the west of the country when addressing the Canadian people. It is a well-deserved homage and I must sincerely say honight with pride that he is a great Canadian, a sincere Canadian and that of course the whole of Canada must recognize him as such.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) for having, during the last election campaign, visited the riding of Bellechasse which I represent. The right hon. Prime Minister has honoured me by his presence and I am convinced that he has done so as Prime Minister and not as a party leader; I must pay him tribute for that.
I must also thank the numerous ministers who paid me a visit during the electoral campaign. In all the areas where these ministers visited the Bellechasse population, my plurality has been increased; so, I invite them to come back again when the opportunity arises.
Many federal and provincial Liberal members also paid me a visit. Mr. Speaker, it is useless to say that on each and every occasion these hon. members did not ask the population to vote for me. They simply said to the people that if they wanted to be well represented, they should vote on the "right side".
Mr. Speaker, people from Bellechasse did indeed vote for the right side because they voted for a member representing the population first rather than a party's interests, for somebody who took the situation seriously and who, under any circumstances, can stand up and do his utmost to make the voice of the population heard within these precincts.
Mr. Speaker, of course if all Canadians had voted for the right side as many said, it would have meant voting for the Liberal party and there would not have been any opposition. One could imagine the ensuing disaster.
Mr. Speaker, I see the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Corriveau) applauding warmly. Yet I must say that he came to my riding and told the farmers: You know nothing about farming, but I do. I am a guy who climbs telephone and telegraph poles. I know about farming. In fact, he said this in Sainte-Germaine-de-Bellechasse: It is pointless for you to have stables and expensive buildings, you know nothing about them.
Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign we seriously proposed to the people right across Canada, and notably
January 15, 1973

to those of the riding I represent, one single program based on the interests of each and everyone, the respect for human beings, family rights and the individual citizen. We wanted to introduce an honest program in order to bring about improvements.
Mr. Speaker, I was saying a few moments ago that my friends came to my riding and told people to vote "for the right side", meaning for the party in power, but at that time, nobody knew who would form the government. Was it to be a minority government or a majority government, would it be formed by my friends the Progressive Conservatives, by my friends the Liberals, by my friends the New Democrats or by the Social Credit party? The situation was so uncertain that no one could predict what was going to happen.
It was a question of voting for the "right side", according to one's conscience, to send to this Parliament members who would form this democratic assembly.
On October 30, 264 members were elected. Such was the responsibility of the people: to elect 264 parliamentarians to form the assembly of the nation. And now, we, the parliamentarians, must assume a very big responsibility in legislating for the common good. For once, parliament will have to be the supreme authority in this country, instead of submitting to the pressures of the executive. This executive, Liberal, Progressive Conservative, NDP or Creditiste, will have to carry out parliament's will. That is how I understand the role of a truly responsible parliament.
I am very happy to have been elected as a member of this House, which will eventually have to account to the people for its actions.
Mr. Speaker, I have listened very carefully to the speeches delivered by the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Hon. Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), and all the other members who had the courage to express their views in this House, and I was most interested to find that we all have the same purpose: To give our country the best administration possible.
Mr. Speaker, as far as I am concerned, I am not here to indulge in politicking, to overthrow the government at every occasion, but to work with all the members of this House and pass any legislation required to reform what must be reformed in order to give justice to our senior citizens, our mothers, our handicaped and our children.
Mr. Speaker, we have often had the opportunity in this Parliament to propose measures having the same objective as the one referred to in the current Speech from the Throne. Personally, I am happy to see that finally wisdom seems to have caught the heart of the Prime Minister.
I remember, Mr. Speaker, that when I sat to your left, I used to say the same things as now and people used to laugh at me. There was even a minister who visited my constituency and made references to those people who thought along the same lines as Major Douglas, who had recommended financial reforms designed to ensure justice and liberty for all. The minister who is here tonight said: "All those who believe in the Social Credit party are psychiatric cases."
The Address-Mr. A. Lambert
Let us think, Mr. Speaker, about ho w many psychiatric cases exist in Canada since October 30: more than 750,000 voters, and their number increases every day. I say that those who let men, women and children live in suffering and misery, in a country of abundance are more in need of psychiatric care than those who take steps to ensure a fair distribution of resources deveL oped by Canadians for all Canadians. I am here tonight to defend those people and speak on their behalf so that, all together, as members of Parliament, leaving aside our political views, we can work to enact as soon as possible legislation in line with Canadian possibilities.
I also witnessed, Mr. Speaker, during this debate, quarrels, unjustified charges, which were hurled from both sides of this House, between French and English-speaking members. We are Canadians first, we live in a vast country full of resources of all kinds, and our people, full of energy, are quite prepared to transform all these resources so that all of us can benefit from them!
Mr. Speaker, I have here a report published by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce of the province of Quebec, which is very recent, and I believe that those who published the figures I will quote are just as honest as we are, so that we can trust them. This report states that the gross national product of the province of Quebec, in 1972, amounted to $25 billion, while personal income, in the same province, for the same period totalled $20 billion. This means, Mr. Speaker, that Canadians who live in Quebec did the best they could in order to produce in their province everyting that was possible for the benefit of the population.
I will quote from a report for the information of my English-speaking friends who blamed severely the former Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Mar-chand) for having done too much for the province of Quebec. We can say things among ourselves without hurting one another and examine the situation. I quote:
To be on the right side you have to be on the Liberal side, and the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion has given everything to the province of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, in 1972, the rate of unemployment in the province of Quebec was the highest in Canada; according to the report I have here it stood at 8.3 per cent. If that means being partial to a province at the expense of the others, distributive justice and administrative honesty do not make any sense to me anymore. A nd I will have to tell my Liberal friends that if in order to vote the "right way" one must vote Liberal, they managed well, but they mainly succeeded in giving the province of Quebec the highest rate of unemployment in Cai radian history.
Is that voting the "right way"? I do not think so. I think that voting the "right way" is voting for a party that takes steps to put a stop to discrimination in this country and to understand that we must all together reach the objective set for us by the Canadian people on October 30.
Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne suggests certain reforms that I approve of. It proposes solutions as well as the possibility for Parliament to administer more properly the commonweal and provide for a greater distribution of wealth with greater justice to all citizens.

January 15, 1973
The Address-Mr. A. Lambert However, we will have to look into the bills and analyze them. We will have to examine them from all angles in order to find out whether the government is really putting forward legislative measures in accordance with Canadian possibilities, so that we may reasonably increase the yearly income of the Canadian people, the purchasing power of those who need it, without taking money out of the pockets of those who already have not too much of it, in order to arrive at a certain levelling off in accordance with what has already been desired in other countries.
Mr. Speaker, as regards reforms, the bills that were announced, we should all together greet them with much satisfaction, so as to be able to assess them according to their real merit and to make decisions not in a collective way on the party level, but according to our personal responsibilities. This leads me, Mr. Speaker, to say that I am anxious to see the day when in parliament every member will be called upon to vote freely on any bill after examining it personally without having the party to which he belongs dictate his vote. It is time to change our habits. It is time we stopped voting according to party lines.
I think that in a truly democratic assembly each bill should be assessed on its own value and each member should vote according to his conscience without there being a chance of bringing down the government on it. It is a question of rejecting or passing a piece of legislation and not of approving or condemning a government.
In the Speech from the Throne the government admits I am right when it says it will introduce a bill on capital punishment. He will let each member decide on the bill by a free vote.
Mr. Speaker, if a free vote on capital punishment seems fair, it would also be fair to hold a free vote on the increase in old age pensions, eligibility for pension at 60, family allowances and any other subject. Then we would really be taken seriously by the Canadian people and could provide the best administration Canada ever enjoyed.
I have here an analysis of the 15 general elections held in Canada since May 1925, among which six led to minority governments-


An hon. Member:: Seven.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Right, seven. And according to the information I also obtained, the best accomplishments of parliament are those of minority governments. Why? Because under a minority government everyone is aware of his responsibilities, of the fact that he should always be where he belongs and seriously study every bill before voting on them.
Such being the case, we could as of tonight carry on in this house truly worthwhile discussions. And I am not saying that for the sake of it. I have twelve dependent children, and as far as they are concerned, I know the consequences of my actions, for I love them as any other father loves his children. Altogether, and discarding partisanship, we want to be in a position to legislate in such a way as to bring high finance to heel.
What does that mean? To my mind it means that high finance has always been in control of Canadian economy

and politics. For once, let the financiers defer to Parliament, just as the unemployed should abide by the Unemployment Insurance Act, the family mother by the Family Allowances Act and the senior citizen by the Old Age Security Act.
I hope that for once the newspapers will report that a member has had the courage to state in this House that high finance and those who control credit should obey the same laws and rules as any other Canadian citizen. This is the only way for us to succeed in giving Canada a truly fair administration that will respect the citizen's rights while respecting the freedom of each and everyone and that will enable us to live as brothers regardless of our language on this great North American territory, to use the huge wealth which Providence put at our disposal and finally enable our sons to live decently instead of remaining unemployed because of a devilish system which prevents them from giving the best of themselves while they are still able to do so. May we finally se e the day when all those young unemployed people, whom we made every sacrifice to have educated, sometimes against their will, but in their best interest, will be accepted in the labour market and will no longer be asked: "Young man, how old are you?" "I am 22." "Do you have experience?" "No, I have just left school." "Well then, go back to school, because here we need experienced people."
Mr. Speaker, if they had waited for you to have the required experience in order to ask you to occupy the high office which is now yours, I believe you would not be there yet, and the same would be true of many of us.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say, in concluding my remarks-and without any reflection on anyone, of course-that I would like this session to be truly efficient and full of confidence. I would like the people to be able to see, and this, on several occasions, that if the members do not seem too serious at times, they know, when the situation becomes serious, how to fulfill their responsibilities, how to forget about partisanship and how to work together in the best interests of Canadian people.
Mr. Denis fithier (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):	Mr. Speaker, due to the time, could we agree to call it 9.30 p.m.?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order! Can I obtain the unanimous consent of the House to call it 9.30?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. It being 9.30 o'clock p.m. it is my duty, pursuant to section 4 of Standing Order 38, to interrupt these proceedings and forthwith put the question on any amendment now before the House. The question is on the amendment. All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: In my opinion the nays have it.


January 15, 1973

And more than five members having risen:
Division
++NAYS


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. This House stands adjourned until eleven o'clock tomorrow morning.
At 10 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, January 16, 1973