1974-10-11

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I move under the provisions of Standing Order 43 a motion concerning a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, seconded by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leg-gatt). In view of the fact that the provincial premiers have opposed the government's proposed removal of the subsidy on milk, in view of the opposition by the Food Prices Review Board to the removal of the subsidy, in view of the criticism levelled against the cabinet by the former Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs with regard to the removal of the subsidy, and in view of the consequences to the consumer as a result of a five cent to six cent increase per quart of milk should the subsidy be removed, I move under the provisions of Standing Order 43:
That this House instruct the government to maintain its present subsidy on milk.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House has heard the motion. Being proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43 it cannot be debated without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There not being unanimous consent, the motion cannot be presented.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I, too, rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Whereas the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has interrupted the originally scheduled football game in the Canadian Football League to bring Canadians a United States baseball game tomorrow-


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Otto John Jelinek: -an action inconsistent with the official government policy of fostering Canadian football-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto John Jelinek: -I move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski):
That the Secretary of State be instructed to take all necessary steps to remedy this situation and make these important CFL games leading to the Grey Cup available to the Canadian public.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House has heard the motion. Being proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43, it cannot be debated without unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There not being unanimous consent, the motion cannot be put.


POSSIBLE REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY AND EXPORT OF OIL-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that Interprovincial Pipeline Limited has expressed reluctance to proceeding with the proposed Montreal oil pipeline because of a projected shortfall in crude oil supplies from western Canada, in view of the fact that recent reports have suggested that the fund for compensation to importers of petroleum and petroleum products may go into deficit early in the new year, and in view of the fact that the oil industry and the National Energy Board have recently expressed concern about the availability of sufficient supplies of oil to meet Canada's future requirement, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the issue of availability of crude oil, and the advisability of continuing both imports and exports of crude oil and products at their present levels, be referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works for immediate consideration.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House has heard the motion. Being proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43 it cannot be debated without unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

October 11, 1974
Energy


Mr. Speaker:: There not being unanimous consent, the [Translation] motion cannot be put	LIEUTENANT GOVERNORS SUPERANNUATION

* *
*


FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION
Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I should like to table in the House of Commons a report on the special warrants issued under section 23 of the Financial Administration Act after Parliament was dissolved on May 9, 1974.
* *
*


MEASURE TO PROVIDE SUPERANNUATION BENEFITS TO LIEUTENANT GOVERNORS
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: for leave to introduce Bill C-23, to provide for the payment of superannuation benefits to Lieutenant Governors.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
*
* *

Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-24, to amend the Salaries Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
* *
*

Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to Standing Order 43. In view of the leakage problem which has occurred at the Pickering CANDU nuclear reactor, and in view of the projected sale of this reactor to Argentina and South Korea, neither of which has signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez):
That this House instruct the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to stop the sale of all Canadian nuclear reactors until a committee of this House has had the opportunity of having a full inquiry into the risk of further proliferation of nuclear weapons through the sale of this reactor abroad and a proper determination is made of the environmental hazard through the use of this reactor at home.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion. It being proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43 it cannot be debated without unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There not being unanimous consent it cannot be debated at this time.


ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINANTS ACT
Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of the Environment) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-25, to protect human health and the environment from substances that contaminate the environment.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Dr. Raynauld, the Chairman of the Economic Council of Canada, has stated: In the last three months monetary policy has been reduced by 12 per cent at annual rates-
Dr. Raynauld was referring to Ml figures. Does the minister agree with Dr. Raynauld that this policy is "extremely restrictive"?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to read the whole transcript, but

this is, of course, a matter of judgment. If the implication of the hon. member's question is that it has been too restrictive, he ought to reconcile his view with that of his colleague, the hon. member for Don Valley.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: In answering my supplementary question I should like the minister to bear in mind that when the 12 per cent reduction, referred to by Dr. Raynauld, is linked to today's inflation of over 10 per cent you have a 22 per cent brake on the economy compared to the Economic Council of Canada's recommended monetary increase stance of 10 per cent to 15 per cent per year. Would the minister indicate whether in fact it is government policy to have a more restrictive money supply increase in Canada.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the monetary supply set by the Governor of the Bank of Canada and approved by the government is to allow expansion in the money supply sufficient to meet the expansion in the economy but no more. As a result the money supply has been expanding at somewhat less than the total expansion in nominal terms of the economy.


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


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my question is again addressed to the same minister. I am wondering whether the minister could explain to the House why in the four months previous to May the money system was allowed to increase by $900 million while in the four months subsequent to May there has been a contraction of $500 million. In short, is the House right in assuming that the election played an important part in the minister's direction of the money system in this country?


John Napier Turner: No, sir.


Mr. Speaker:: A final supplementary by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Finance. As the minister has often said in this House that the only effective way to reduce inflation is increased production would he take the first opportunity on motions to outline what specific methods he intends to introduce in the very near future to materially increase production in view of the zero real growth in the second quarter and the fact that the index of industrial production has been falling sharply.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman is already aware both in the agricultural and industrial field what the government policies have been. He was speaking particularly of industrial production. As a result of the manufacturing and processing tax reduction and the capital cost allow-
Oral Questions
ances, the investment intentions of business have been revised upward again even for the year 1974 from 19 per cent to 25 per cent. Despite the slackening economies in most of the industrial countries of the world we still anticipate growth, and have had for the first six months of 1974, real growth of 4.8 per cent over the same period last year.


Mr. Speaker:: A final supplementary by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, as zero growth is zero growth no matter what way you slice it, would the minister consider stopping the excusing, promising and puffering and instead start to do some of the things he assured the country in his last three budgets that he would do.


FOOD PRICES
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Since in the throne speech the government said it intended to take certain steps to ease the burden of inflation on those most seriously affected, given the news today that the price of milk in the province of Ontario is about to go up six cents a quart and given the recent urging by the Chairman of the Food Prices Review Board, the former minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, plus a number of provincial premiers that the federal government maintain or re-introduce the five cent subsidy per quart of milk, would the Prime Minister inform the House whether or not the cabinet is reconsidering its decision on this important matter?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: No, Mr. Speaker.


AGRICULTURE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Agriculture. Could the minister inform the House if his department is taking any steps now or intends to take such steps in the early future which would have the effect of bringing down the price of milk, the high price of which adversely affects particularly low income families?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member is aware that where we have jurisdiction in respect of industrial milk production we have increased the subsidy on milk powder 4 cents a pound over what it was before. I am sure the hon. member is also aware that even with the agreement we had for the 5 cents a quart consumer subsidy in one instance a province raised the price of milk at least six times within the time of contract.
October 11, 1974

Oral Questions


MILK-CONSULTATIONS WITH PROVINCES TO ENSURE SUPPLY AT REASONABLE PRICES
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Agriculture. In the absence of complete jurisdiction in this area, will the minister, in the interest of ensuring that the milk supply will go to low income Canadians and children, immediately meet with his provincial counterparts to come up with emergency measures to continue the subsidy and ensure that the price of milk does not in fact rise to a level which would make it prohibitive to most Canadians?


Eugene Whelan: There is nothing to stop the provinces, if they so desire, from subsidizing fluid milk to the consumers of the nation if they want to work out a plan. But I would point out that when we put on the 5 cents a quart milk subsidy, the food index was rising nearly twice as fast as anything else. At present it is rising only half as fast as the cost of living index. The food index has decreased instead of increased. That should be made pretty clear. Also, the Minister of National Health and Welfare is the one who has the responsibility of working with those people in the provinces. Some provinces have said that they want to see this matter handled by the social services. We must make sure that we know what every province wants.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is the minister prepared to enter into immediate discussions with his provincial counterparts to ensure that milk will be available to low income Canadians, especially the children of people on fixed incomes?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, my colleague will certainly agree that what really matters is to ensure to small earners sufficient income to meet all their requirements, and not only buy milk.
In this connection, the government as a whole and the Prime Minister in particular have suggested that the provinces adjust their social assistance payments so that needy people may have enough money to meet their needs. This is the very policy which the government has always advocated. We have put large sums of money at the provinces' disposal for their public assistance programs. We have distributed some ourselves through our own welfare programs.


MANPOWER
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Does the minister intend to amend the manpower mobility regulations to make them more easily applicable so that people moving to a distant locality to take up a job can receive the benefits available before April 1974?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the whole manpower policy area is constantly under review. The AOIA is under review, and if and when we make any fundamental changes in the policy or programs, we will announce it in this House.
* *
*


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It has to do with the cruelties being perpetrated on Valentyn Moroz and hundreds of thousands of others in the Soviet Union, actions that are a denial of the principles in the United Nations charter. Will the government of Canada bring this question before the United Nations by way of a resolution in order that not only Canadians and Americans but people in all parts of the world will realize that the conduct of the Soviet Union toward the Ukrainian people and the Baltic peoples is totally inconsistent with the principles of the United Nations?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the comments made by the right hon. gentleman have served, in a sense, the purpose which he had intended in connection with Mr. Moroz. As my hon. friend realizes, or may realize, just recently Mr. Moroz's case was brought before the Soviet foreign minister with a view to determining under what conditions Mr. Moroz lived because of reports that he had been on a hunger strike and his health was precarious. In that particular case, the foreign minister assured us that Mr. Moroz was in normal health and at that time was not on a hunger strike but in a normal condition. With respect to the other aspects of the right hon. gentleman's question which have very broad implications, I should like to have an opportunity to consider them.


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I realized of course that the foreign minister of the U.S.S.R. said that Moroz was receiving decent treatment and was in good health whereas Andrei Sakharov, the famed Russian scientist, says that such is not the case and that Moroz is in complete isolation. If what the foreign minister said concerning Moroz is true, then there is no reason why this government should not ask the Soviets to permit a visit to Moroz by a Canadian physician or by a representative of the Canadian Ukranian Committee to ascertain his physical condition and the circumstances now surrounding his tyrannical incarceration. Would the minister, with the same suavity that he has always used in this House with such effect, bring this matter to the attention of the foreign minister of the U.S.S.R ? If they have nothing to hide, why hide it?
October 11, 1974


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give my hon. friend any assurance that I will take the course of action which he, a bit irresponsibly, proposes.


PUBLISHING
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State who has received an open letter with regard to Saturday Night signed by a large number of very distinguished Canadians asking him to assure the continued life of the magazine. I should like to ask the minister what response he is making to them.


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I will be meeting with Mr. Cowan either this week or next.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Recognizing that the government is somewhat divided with regard to policy toward Canadian periodicals and their support, I should like to ask the Secretary of State if he can assure the House that he will take the necessary steps to keep Saturday Night alive at least until the government has made a decision with regard to its policy toward support of Canadian periodicals?


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, on the first point, there is no division that I am aware of among members of the government. On the substance of the question regarding Saturday Night, I would remind the hon. member that last year in response to a request from the principals of Saturday Night and in conjunction with the government of Ontario, this government provided a grant of $100,000. That grant was in response to a project they had to increase their list of subscribers. My argument was that we could not, as a government, get into the refinancing of it but I recognize this is an important magazine that had what appeared to us and to the Ontario government a viable plan for increasing its list of subscribers and to that end we made a contribution. That was less than a year ago and they are back again with an even more attractive package in terms of grants for essentially the same purpose. I ask the hon. member, how long does the federal government stay in this sort of operation?


INDUSTRY
Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, my question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is regarding the Anaconda Corporation of New York which has closed its operation in the mining industry in British Columbia. In view of the fact that Anaconda Electronics is concerned that the parent corpo-
Oral Questions
ration is going to withdraw that company from Canada, can the minister advise the House what action his department has taken to make sure that the electronics firm remains in Canada and keeps those 120 people employed?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, my department has been in touch with the officers of the parent corporation in the United States to determine what the situation is in respect of this plant near Vancouver. We have been told that the firm is considering the rationalization of some of its activities because of poor performance, but it has not yet taken any decision. The company has further stated that before it takes such decision to phase out, it will consult with us. I am hopeful that we will find ways to maintain this particular operation in Vancouver.


John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the minister. As the company is making all its profits in Canada, and as the government assisted this corporation with funds provided earlier to develop the product with which it is making profits, will the minister make sure that if the company pulls out of Canada it will refund these funds to the Canadian people and pay the deferred taxes it owes the Canadian people?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, this question is under consideration at present but I can give the hon. member no such assurances.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. It relates to the announcement made yesterday by the American authorities that they intend to impose restrictions on beef and other products being exported to the United States. Has the minister obtained more specific information on the American moves and does he intend to modify our own position on the export of cattle, beef and other products to the United States?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we have received a copy of the material published in the United States and it does not show much more than we already knew. It is not specific about products. Our officials and interdepartmental committees are meeting at present to decide what procedure we should adopt, whether we should make representations at the hearing, how this should be done, and that type of thing. We have had preliminary work done on this but at present we do not intend to change our position.
Oral Questions TRADE

October 11, 1974


PROPOSED RESTRICTIONS BY UNITED STATES ON IMPORTS- POSSIBLE VIOLATION OF GATT
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Has he considered the American moves, to determine whether there might be a violation of GATT provisions? Also, has he been able to ascertain whether the American moves are restricted to those products mentioned or will they be extended to include not only the food industry but other industries in this country as well?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the first part of the hon. member's question which referred to GATT. Perhaps he might clarify his question.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my question was about the American announcement of yesterday regarding the restriction on the importation of Canadian beef. Has the minister checked this announcement, to see whether it violates the GATT agreement, and also to see if these restrictions may proliferate to areas other than those already announced by the Americans.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, as to the first point, GATT was set up to provide an international forum for the discussion and settlement of disputes. We are not yet sure that the United States will take action. As the Secretary of State for External Affairs said yesterday, hearings have yet to take place in the United States on the beef question. On the second part of the question dealing with other products, I frankly do not think it is relevant in the circumstances.


GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS TO IMPROVE HANDLING SYSTEM-DATE OF IMPLEMENTATION
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board and arises out of references in the Speech from the Throne to grain handling. Can he tell the House specifically what steps the government intends to take to improve grain handling this coming winter?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, any specific steps to be taken will be announced in due course.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When the minister makes his announcement, will he assure the House, the country and, particularly, farmers of western Canada that the Crowsnest freight rates will not be tampered with? At the same time, will he clarify statements made by some ministers of the Crown about attempts to nationalize the grain handling industry, which is a presposterous proposal?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we shall face many difficult questions during the coming winter. They are of a long term nature and have to do with the branch line system and improvements in grain handling. These will involve many different decisions. As these things are done there will be an opportunity to discuss them, as there will be for statements made on motions which will detail the various aspects of what we intend to do.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. Will measures be introduced in conformity with the commitment made in the Speech from the Throne which says specifically that steps will be taken to facilitate grain handling this winter? I ask this because snow will soon be falling.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, some measures contemplated will involve legislation, but that does not apply to all steps that will be taken this winter; some will require specific action rather than legislation.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Labour. Now that Bill C-12 is history, it is necessary to move with despatch on the establishment of an industrial inquiry commission on the movement and handling of grain. Can the minister say what he has done to date about this very good idea?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Contrary to the impression the hon. member conveyed in his speech to this House, the Labour Code authorizes me to appoint an industrial commissioner and set the terms of reference. This has been done. Within the next day or two I will name the commissioner, so that we can get this matter under way.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Yesterday the hon. member for Egmont put a question to the Minister of National Defence. I have been advised that the minister, as he said he would, wishes to answer.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I agreed to reply to a question which was directed to me by the hon. member for Egmont concerning a letter written by the Chief of Defence Staff, General Dextraze, to the Canadian forces. I have now had an opportunity to talk with the Chief of Defence Staff and wish to assure the House-
October 11, 1974


Mr. Nowlan:: The minister's statement should be made on motions.


James Armstrong Richardson: I wish to assure the House-


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker; really, I think the minister is not answering the question so much as making a statement on motions. That being the case, I think the hon. member for Egmont should have the right to respond. I wonder if the House would agree to reverting to motions?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps we could better observe technicalities if the hon. member for Egmont were recognized for the question he asked yesterday. I will be glad to recognize him.


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I will be delighted to yield the floor to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the unusual circumstances surrounding this matter, I think there should be sufficient opportunity for a reply to his answer.


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, in reply, I have had an opportunity to talk fully with the Chief of Defence Staff. I assure the House that he did not intend, and I am using the words of the hon. member for Egmont, to violate the rights or privileges of members of parliament.


John George Diefenbaker: No, but that is exactly what he did.


James Armstrong Richardson: In the letter which has been referred to, General Dextraze pointed out that within the Canadian armed forces there is a well established grievance procedure. The purpose of his letter was to emphasize that this grievance procedure is fair and he was urging the armed forces to make use of it. Further, I believe that General Dextraze is right in having-


An hon. Member:: Oh!


James Armstrong Richardson: Wait-he is right in having confidence in the grievance procedure of the Canadian armed forces.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Has he ever used it? Ho, ho, ho!


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I also wish to confirm in unqualified terms that any member of the armed forces is able to write to a member of parliament on any subject with exactly the same freedom as any other citizen of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: As long as it does not come to the notice of the military.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I think the minister has stated clearly in his answer that there has been, unfortunately, conveyed to the armed forces a certain form of improper suggestion.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!
Oral Questions


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: The minister has said the Chief of the Defence Staff did not intend to convey this impression, but regardless of that, the effect is that a certain aspect of the privileges of the members of this House have been violated. I am sorry the minister did not see fit to table the document because I think it would be useful for hon. members to see the totality of what was communicated. I would ask the minister, because of the seriousness of this matter and the extent of the circulation of the document to circulate, to the same extent, the assurance given in the latter part of his answer so as to make clear to the 80,000 people in our armed forces that they have the same rights as are enjoyed by all other citizens.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Armstrong Richardson: I have stated my policy and the policy of the department in unequivocal terms.


John George Diefenbaker: But not the General's policy.


James Armstrong Richardson: If there continues to be any misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the letter, I am certain that General Dextraze himself will wish to clarify that misunderstanding.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Since there is, ultimately, civilian control over the Armed Forces, I think it is important that this be circulated-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: The question has been rather fully gone into. Would the hon. member be good enough to get to his question?


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I simply want to obtain a clear answer from the minister to the effect that he will communicate with the armed forces directly in the same way as thousands of these documents have been circulated during the month of September.


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I do not know of any better way of communicating with the armed forces and with the Canadian public than by speaking in this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I am not clear whether the minister is assuring us that 80,000 copies of Hansard will be sent to members of the Armed Forces-


An hon. Member:: That would be cruelty.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: -or whether, since the members of the Armed Forces are communicated with directly through their publications, the minister would be prepared to have the Chief of the Defence Staff appear before the appropriate standing committee-


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: -so that this could be clarified once and for all.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

October 11, 1974
Oral Questions


James Armstrong Richardson: I hardly expect you will want me to continue this discussion, Mr. Speaker. I have already said the Chief of the Defence Staff will personally wish to clarify any misunderstanding in his letter, and he communicates regularly with the Armed Forces.


James Aloysius McGrath: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is an accepted practice of the House that when a minister refers to a public document, he has to table it. The document to which the minister referred is clearly a public document in that it is a letter from the Chief of the Defence Staff. I believe that under Standing Order 41(2) the minister is obliged to lay it on the table of the House so that all members can judge for themselves.


James Armstrong Richardson: I am very proud of the personal messages which the Chief of the Defence Staff sends out and it would be helpful if all members of the House could read what he says. I would be pleased to table this one, and earlier messages as well, and hope this will create a better understanding of the dedicated service provided to Canada by the Canadian armed forces.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I rather felt I had extended to the hon. member a good deal of latitude in order that this subject might be explored.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I am grateful for Your Honour's generosity, but I do think it would help clarify the situation for the men of the armed forces-and this is our principal concern-if the minister would give us an assurance-


Some hon. Members:: Speech!


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: -that we would follow up by sending out a communication which would clarify this particular message.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: I cannot see how a request to the minister for further assurances, over and above the request already made, could be classified as anything except further questioning on the subject. I have come to the conclusion that the subject has been fully aired. The minister has been pressed for an assurance and has given some kind of assurance in response.


James Aloysius McGrath: To return to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. The minister offered to table the document after I rose on a point of order to suggest he had an obligation to do so. I think it is now incumbent on the Chair to ask whether there is unanimous consent to revert to motions so that the minister can, in fact, table this document.


Mr. Speaker:: I know of no interpretation of the rules which would require, or even suggest, that this be done forthwith. The hon. member raised the question whether or not the minister is compelled to table the document. I am not sure of the validity of the point. In any case, the

minister relieved the Chair of the obligation of deciding it by indicating he is willing to table the document. That, it seems to me, is where the matter rests.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Last Tuesday I put a question to the minister about a meeting of the World Bank and associated organizations to be held in Paris on October 17 at which a proposal for an advance of $50 million to the regime in South Viet Nam is to be discussed. The minister told the House he hoped to answer the question the following day. I now ask him whether he will do so, and, in particular, will he state whether Canada is to subscribe $5 million to this proposed loan?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I regret I did not answer the hon. member earlier, even though I did glean the information shortly after I had been asked the question. It is true that the International Bank for Reconstruction and the Asian Development Bank have jointly invited officials from a number of countries, including Canada, to a meeting in Paris on October 17 to discuss aid to Indo China. While Canada has agreed to attend this meeting, we are not aware of the specific proposal to which my hon. friend refers. We have no information that such a proposal will be forthcoming.


Francis Andrew Brewin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister, or perhaps the Minister of Finance who I think is interested in these matters, report to this House the result of this meeting so we may know what attitude Canada has taken to this proposal?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, when proposals are made we will determine our attitude in light of the nature of the proposals, and will be happy to advise the House what has transpired.


NATIONAL ANTHEM
Mr. Leonard C. Jones (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Secretary of State. Does the minister have available an English translation of the French version, and a French translation of the English version, of the proposed anthem as set out in the schedule to Bill C-ll, an act respecting the national anthem? If so, and in any event, will the minister forward copies of same to each member of this House, and if there are any differences in the meaning and wording of the proposed national anthem or national anthems, would the minister please
October 11, 1974

point out each difference and explain the reason or reasons for each such difference?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State had to meet some of his provincial counterparts who were waiting for him; I will bring the hon. member's question to his attention so he may answer it next week.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. I understand that this week the minister met with a group with respect to the possible immigration of some 10,000 Chilean refugees. In view of the present changes that are taking place within the immigration department making immigration restrictions more stringent, I should like to ask the minister whether he could clarify statements attributed to him that these 10,000 Chilean refugees will in fact be coming to Canada, and would he inform the House what effect this will have on the immigration of any other groups to Canada?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I met with a delegation, in company with my colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs, I believe on Wednesday morning. We were then presented with a rather detailed brief which I had not had the opportunity of reading before meeting with them. Under those circumstances we were inhibited from giving any detailed responses, and I made only the commitment that in the absense of that opportunity of knowing what their recommendations were we would analyse the brief in the light of current circumstances and information and reply to them. In that sense, I said I would consider their brief.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister give assurances that before any major change in policy respecting Chilean refugees is made, policies outlined in this House by the minister in a statement on motions last Spring, the minister will first relay in the form of a motion to the House any change that might be contemplated or will take place?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I would, of course, wish to keep the House informed. The fact of the matter is that we still maintain and will continue to maintain immigration facilities in Santiago. Our people there will still listen compassionately to applications from Chilean refugees or oppressed minorities or normal individual applications from immigrants. This will be a continuing program, although quite frankly the volume of applications has certainly diminished very markedly in the last several months. In addition to that, we have noted that while approximately 1,400 to 1,500 visas under the special program were authorized, fully enabling Chilean refugees or
Oral Questions
oppressed minorities to come to Canada, roughly half of them have chosen not to exercise their rights under those visas.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the head of the Treasury Board, and while asking it I want to congratulate him sincerely on assuming this important portfolio. Does the minister intend to implement the policies advocated by many of us on this side of the House, and in the last election campaign by all candidates for the Liberals from the Atlantic region, and work toward phasing out regional wage disparities for those people employed in the public service?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, policies in this field are negotiated with the unions and often the latter's demands vary according to their problems. We have had the firemen and the airport strikes. The airport employees did not want to abide by a national policy and in Vancouver they were asking for special conditions because of the particular situation there. So we are negotiating with each union. As to regional rates, it does not necessarily follow that under certain circumstances it is not a good policy.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Postmaster General.
According to the Post Office Act, the minister can raise mail delivery contract payments, provided these contracts have been in effect for two years. As this increase helps compensate higher operation costs and since these costs have been abnormally high in recent years, does the minister consider introducing a bill during this session so that Parliament can give him the authority to raise contract payments after a period of one year instead of two?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has stated that contracts can be readjusted after a period of two years. This is firmly stated in the legislation. Apart from that, what he suggests would require new legislation, which is not contemplated. However, there may be other ways in which we can take into consideration the effect of inflation on this particular group of contractors.

October 11, 1974
Oral Questions INDUSTRY


UNITED AIRCRAFT-SUGGESTED GUARANTEE OF REPATRIATION OF WORK TRANSFERRED TO UNITED STATES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce concerning the United Aircraft Corporation in the Montreal area. Would the minister inform the House as to the discussions that have been reported to have taken place between his officials and that corporation concerning obtaining a guarantee from that company that it will place in Canada the amount of work to which it is committed by virtue of getting some $70 million worth of assistance from the federal government? I refer to replacing in Canada work that has been transferred to the United States in recent months.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I and my officials have met with senior officials of UACL and the United States parent corporation to determine and to clarify the longterm plans of the firm respecting both the repatriation of work that has been transferred from the Longueuil plant to East Hartford and the expansion plans of the Canadian company in Canada. I hope to have more to say on this point by next week.


PROPOSED PIPELINE TO ATLANTIC PROVINCES-POSSIBLE DATE OF IMPLEMENTATION
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In light of the promise in print made by all Liberal candidates in Atlantic Canada prior to the July 8 election that the government would develop an across Canada oil pipeline extending beyond Montreal to the Atlantic provinces, when can we anticipate a statement from the minister indicating a start on this project, or at least a study of this important matter?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, we have had an analysis made of the possibilities of extending some deep water port facilities in eastern Canada to serve a pipeline into Montreal. At the moment there has been no further progress in this matter, but it does remain one of active interest. I think that what is clear is that in the long run it still remains desirable to bring imported oil ashore through a Canadian superport, with the pipeline running through our own territory.


SUGGESTED NEED FOR EQUAL TREATMENT BY GOVERNMENT IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF OIL SANDS AND ARCTIC OIL
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary question to the minister. My immediate interpretation of what he has just said and what he said yesterday seems to be the same. I take it that the minister's aim and policy is to make Canada totally self-sufficient in respect of crude petroleum, and I am not

talking about natural gas, and that the government now seems to favour building a pipeline to bring down proven Arctic reserves rather than given the same kind of encouragement and incentive in respect of the oil sands development. Is that a correct statement?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, we are in fact not giving an incentive in the terms the hon. gentleman uses. However, we have indicated to the governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan that substantial federal funds would be available to assist in oil sands development, not so much in the current stages of the process, but to develop a secondary level of technology. I would have to say that if there were a successful scientific breakthrough with regard to harnessing the oil sands at less cost both environmentally and in dollar and cent terms this would be very much in the interest of Canada, and the federal offer in respect of an active program in this area remains outstanding.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, may I just follow that up. In view of the fact that about $1 billion, mainly from Alberta's own resources, is going toward the bonusing of consumers in the eastern part of Canada, does the minister not now consider it is so important to become self-sufficient in respect of Canadian petroleum that both projects should receive the same encouragement, incentive and motivation from this policy? In other words, in view of the high cost of producing oil from the oil sands will some concession be made taxwise in respect of that project, giving it an equal opportunity to that provided Arctic oil development, the equity of one being owned by the federal government and the equity of the other by provincial governments?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the constraint with regard to the oil sands is not in location but in respect of the difficulty of harnessing the project. At the same time I do not underrate the difficulty of bringing frontier oil to market. In terms of fiscal incentives, that would have to be a decision of the government as enunciated by my colleague, the Minister of Finance. The basic policy of the government is, while not setting the national oil price at a high international level, to set it at a level high enough to encourage further development. We are confident that at the current level there is ample encouragement for the industry to be encouraged both in the oil sands and in the frontier oil for that purpose.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, on May 23 of this year the Prime Minister made a special trip to Winnipeg where, at a press conference, he announced that Air Canada would be establishing an overhaul and maintenance base there, and that a $15 million dollar hangar would be built. This work was to start
October 11, 1974

immediately. Could he explain the reason for the delay, and indicate when Air Canada will be starting work on this project?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this project will be carried forward. I will discuss this with the Minister of Transport to find out the date of the first sod turning, and I will inform the House.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he has a firm commitment from Air Canada that it will start that project in the near future?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this policy was arrived at after discussion with all parties concerned, including Air Canada.


POST OFFICE
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, following the decertification of the Council of Postal Unions, will the Postmaster General assure the House that new contract negotiations will not be unduly delayed inasmuch as an acceptable contract is essential to the restoration of a sagging morale among postal employees and the beginning of the long road back to the former efficiency of the department?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I would not be honest if I were to assure the hon. gentleman that I know when bargaining will take place. In the first place, under the law I am not the employer. The employer is the President of the Treasury Board. The Public Service Act stands in the name of the President of the Privy Council. I am just the administrator of the Post Office under the Public Service Act. I can only hope that the matter will resolve itself soon. In the interval, I am sure the present collective agreement will continue until eventually a new one is arrived at.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, now that the Postmaster General has publicly accepted the principle that men are more important than machines, and I congratulate him in this regard as this is a principle that has long been advocated by opposition spokesmen, will he now add action to those words by speaking to his seat mate, the President of the Treasury Board, asking him to bring into parity immediately the wages of coders and sorters, as this is one the great issues in respect of mechanization?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to say that the President of the Treasury Board is known within the caucus, and I know from personal experience, as a humanitarian who shares my view about people. Having said that, the question of parity as between sorters using the new equipment and hand sorting is a matter presently being discussed at regular weekly meetings under the aegis of a representative of the Publie Service Staff Relations Board, and I think we have succeeded in
The Address-Mr. MacFarlane
narrowing the monetary gap which was quite prevalent some weeks ago. I am hopeful that when the new round of collective bargaining begins that disparity will disappear.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker I rise on a question of privilege. In a news release of yesterday it was suggested that I refused to speak to reporters following the question period, but that is not true. I did speak to them afterwards.
b


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, October 10, consideration of the motion of Mr. Louis Duclos for an address to His Excellency the Administrator of the Government of Canada in reply to his speech at the opening of the session.
Mr. Gus MacFarlane (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, last evening I had referred to the influence which several hon. members had upon my coming to the House of Commons. Since arriving here I have found that quite a few hon. members whom I did not know before have been helping new members and influencing them to some degree. I look forward to committee meetings when I shall have the opportunity of taking part in discussions with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I am sure I speak for all new members when I say that we appreciate the help that hon. member has given us in respect of House procedures. His assistance will be of great help to me in the future.
I should also like to thank the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski), who I am sure will add to the spirit of fellowship in this House. Let me also refer to the hon. member for Mercier (Mr. Boulanger), chairman of the veterans affairs committee. When thinking of him I am reminded that in the east, if you want a newborn child to be a very famous singer you kiss it full on the lips at birth. If you want the child to grow up to be a very famous dancer, you kiss it on the toes. I do not know where the hon. gentleman was kissed when he was born, but he makes a wonderful chairman.
I have alluded to the interest that the constituency of Hamilton Mountain has had in ybuth and the development of sports. The people of my constituency are also interested in the desire by women to be the masters of their own destiny. In this regard, I should like to say something about the status of women bills which will come before the House. Perhaps, rather than trying to express my feelings in my own words, I should use those of a poet who spoke of the beauty of women. He was suggesting that in this regard it might be worth while if we listened to what women have to say. Let me read this poem as follows:
-Speak to us of Beauty.
And he answered:
Where shall you seek beauty, and how shall you find her unless she
herself be your way and your guide?
And how shall you speak of her except she be the weaver of your

October 11, 1974
The Address-Mr. S. Knowles
speech?
The aggrieved and the injured say,
'Beauty is kind and gentle.
Like a young mother half-shy of her own glory she walks among us.' And the passionate say, 'Nay, beauty is a thing of might and dread.
Like the tempest she shakes the earth beneath us and the sky above us'.
The tired and the weary say, 'Beauty if of soft whisperings. She speaks in our spirit.
Her voice yields to our silences like a faint light that quivers in fear of the shadow'.
But the restless say, 'We have heard her shouting among the mountains,
And with her cries came the sound of hoofs, and the beating of wings and the roaring of lions'.
At night the watchmen of the city say, 'Beauty shall rise with the dawn from the east.'
And at noontide the toilers and the wayfarers say,
'We have seen her leaning over the earth from the windows of the sunset.'
In winter say the snow-bound, 'She shall come with the spring leaping upon the hills.'
And in the summer heat the reapers say, 'We have seen her dancing with the autumn leaves, and we saw a drift of snow in her hair.'
All these things you have said of beauty,
Yet in truth you spoke not of her but of needs unsatisfied,
And beauty is not a need but an ecstasy.
It is not a mouth thirsting nor an empty hand stretched forth,
But rather a heart enflamed and a soul enchanted.
It is not the image you would see nor the song you would hear,
But rather an image you see though you close your eyes and a song you hear though you shut your ears.
It is not the sap within the furrowed bark, nor a wing attached to a claw,
But rather a garden for ever in bloom and a flock of angels for ever in flight.
. . . beauty is life when life unveils her holy face.
But you are life and you are the veil.
Beauty is eternity gazing at itself in a mirror.
But you are eternity and you are the mirror.
So if indeed we would go in quest of assisting women in search of their own destiny, we must view them through themselves and be certain that they themselves present what they require of life and what they desire of this life. I know my constituents would want me to say that. I should like to say that in Hamilton Mountain and on Hamilton Mountain where Hamilton is the suburb of Hamilton Mountain, we have something unique to bring you. We have people who love their youth; we have people who love their life; we have people who love Canada. Indeed, we could easily fit into that bracket which says that lives of great men all remind us that we, too, can make our lives sublime in passing and leave footprints in the sands of time. Hamilton Mountain will be heard from. Hamilton Mountain people will indeed say something for the west, for the maritimes, for Newfoundland, for Quebec and, indeed, for Canada.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North. Centre):: Mr. Speaker, we have all listened with great interest to the speech of the new member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. MacFarlane), part of which he made last evening and the

remainder of which he made just now. Perhaps I might depart from the usual niceties with which members commence speeches in this debate and say, instead, that as a member who has been around here for a while, I am happy to welcome the new member for Hamilton Mountain and all the new members who have joined us in this thirtieth parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I trust that among us, despite the differences of opinion that we have, we will do a good job for the people of Canada. I liked, in particular, the statement the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain made last evening to the effect that there is more understanding between young people and old people than is the case between those in the middle age group and those either younger or older. The hon. member drew an interesting couple of limits: he classified all those below 32 as young, and all those over 49 as old. Well, I am over 49!


John Napier Turner: Say it isn't so.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My friend, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), belongs to that in between group that does not understand younger or older people. I shall return to him in a moment. The statement of the hon. member who has just resumed his seat is borne out by a recent Gallup poll on my favourite subject, that of pensions.
In this poll, those approached were asked what they thought should be done for old age pensioners, and in particular whether their pensions should be increased. Those who voted for the highest possible increase were in the younger group, below age 29. As a matter of fact, 40 per cent of those between 18 and 29 who were asked what the monthly pension should be for persons now retired said that it should be $400 or more. That makes me a piker, Mr. Speaker, as one who has tried to get the basic old age security pension raised to $200 a month.
Nevertheless, I am happy to endorse the sentiment expressed last night by my friend across the way, and may I add to the figure I have just given the interesting result in that poll, which is that only 5 per cent of those questioned in all ages were satisfied to leave the basic old age pension and the guaranteed income supplement where they are, and that 95 per cent of the people questioned on this subject felt there should be an increase in old age pensions. In contrast with that, some of our distinguished colleagues who are in the middle age group, like the Minister of Finance, tell us we should not be complacent about the economic conditions we face at the present time. Yet, when it comes to old age pensions we get day after day from members on the government side a sense of satisfaction and complacency over the fact that pensions are now being escalated by an amount based on the rise in the cost of living.
It was a good move when pensions were indexed so that they increase as the cost of living goes up. The plain fact of the matter, however, is that even on a quarterly basis escalation is always seven or eight months behind. It is also a fact that it is based on the whole broad range of goods and services looked at by Statistics Canada and does not deal specifically with the things old age pensioners
October 11, 1974

must buy. The result is that the $2 or $3 increase which has been coming in every three months leaves the pensioner behind still more every three months than was the case a quarter earlier.
I say, therefore, that this is no time for complacency on the part of middle-aged persons like the Minister of Finance. This is no time for the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) to tell us about the quarterly escalations which are taking place. Rather, it is a time for increasing the basic old age pension. Although I feel like a piker in light of what the younger people want for the old age pensioner, at least I am realistic. I say that in this session the basic old age pension should be increased to not less than $200 a month, and that any supplement should be on top of that amount.
May I say at the same time that in this session of parliament we should lower the pensionable age to 60 for all those who are out of, or never were in the labour market. Some Liberal member is surely going to say to me, "Are you not aware of the bill that is coming in to pay pensions to spouses between the age of 60 and 65 when the other spouse is already in receipt of the pension?" Every time this proposal has been made, I have made the comment that I will make now, that doing it this way is terribly discriminatory.
I suspect that just about every member of this House is receiving letters from spinsters and widows, as well as from bachelors and widowers, who are between 60 and 65, asking, "What about us?" The minute you are prepared to take care of the spouse who is in that bracket, you raise these other problems. I suggest that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was right when in the course of the election campaign he said that this would have to be a temporary measure because it would raise the very problems that I have identified, and there is also the unfairness of the proposed means test. I urge, therefore, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, instead of bringing in the bill that has been proposed in the Speech from the Throne to bring in a bill to lower the pensionable age to 60 for all those persons who are out of the labour market.
At the same time, I would suggest that this is what should be done with respect to the Canada Pension Plan. I welcome-and I am sure most, if not all, members do-the introduction of Bill C-22 which will make a number of improvements to the Canada Pension Plan. One important improvement is to remove the employment test for those who are drawing benefits under that plan and are between the ages of 65 and 69. The bill does some other things as well, such as establishing a measure of equality between men and women-equality at death, at any rate-and it raises the year's maximum pensionable earnings so that a few years from now pensions payable under the Canada Pension Plan will be substantially higher than they are at present.
These moves are all in the right direction, although I do think there is still room for a very thorough study of the relationship between the Old Age Security Act and the Canada Pension Plan. I think the CPP was a good move to get us out of those low pension rates that we had in the 1950s and early 1960s, but I think the day should come
The Address-Mr. S. Knowles
when we have universal old age security across the board in an amount even greater than is now possible by means of a combination of these two plans. But on the assumption that we have a few years to go before we can replace old age security and the CPP by massive old age security arrangements, one step that should be taken right now is to lower the pensionable age under the CPP to 60, as I have suggested already, for all those persons not in the labour market. By doing this with respect to the old age security and the CPP, we would take care of spouses, widows, spinsters, widowers and bachelors in the age 60 to 65 bracket; we would encourage persons of those ages, who by getting both old age security and CPP could consider retirement, to leave the labour market and thus open up more jobs for younger people.
These are the major things that in my view should be done in this session with respect to the Old Age Security Act and the Canada Pension Plan, namely, raising the basic pension to $200 a month and lowering the eligible age to 60 under both old age security and CPP.
I have referred already to the inadequacy of the escalation formula which applies to old age security. For example, in October old age security and the guaranteed income supplement will be increased by a few dollars, but it is based on the extent to which the cost of living in May went up over the cost of living in February. We are eight months behind. In October, pensioners will get the extra money which they needed in May. In May they starved because they did not have it. So now they are still further behind. I think that two things should be done with respect to escalation. In this age of computers you can work out anything you want. Escalation should be related to needs in the current quarter, not to those of five or six months ago. The other thing that is still necessary-and some very important groups have recommended this-is that there should be a special cost of living index for senior citizens, based on what they actually have to buy, not on the whole range of goods and services and luxuries that are in the consumer price index.
So I urge that one of the pieces of unfinished business that we must deal with is putting escalation on the kind of basis that will meet the needs of our retired people. I would go further, but I suppose I might have to wait a session or two for this, and argue that escalation should be based on something even better than the cost of living. It should be based on the gross national product, the wage index, or any of those indices, provided it relates to the standard of living. What our older people are entitled to is not just enough money to continue to live at the same level as when they retired, but the right to share in the rising standard of living in this country which they made possible through their working years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: In any review of pensions, which I hope will be given during this session and the remaining sessions of this parliament, I urge that a further look be taken at the situation of the blind and the disabled. We still have on our federal statute books the Blind Persons Act and the Disabled Persons Act under which allowances are payable to persons who come under these pieces of legislation. They are payable by the prov-
350

October 11, 1974
The Address-Mr. S. Knowles
inces and Ottawa pays a percentage of the total cost, but the maximum amount specified in those two pieces of legislation is still $75 a month.
Back in the old days that level used to go up every time old age security went up, but with the bringing in of the Canada Assistance Plan, with all its virtues, something has been lost. Perhaps there is another way to provide income security for the blind and the disabled than under our present pieces of legislation, but I insist that this legislation be reviewed, particularly in respect of these two groups of people, the blind and the disabled. I do not know why in the 1970s we still impose upon them a means test. We hear much in this House about compassion and sympathy. A couple of ministers today vied with each other as to who is most sympathetic. What sort of compassion or sympathy are we expressing when we are saying to people who are blind or disabled, "You get a pension only if you meet the qualification of being totally disabled, totally unable to look after yourself, or totally blind", and on top of that apply a means test?
I will move on to another area about which members who have been around here for a while have heard me speak quite often, that is, the position of retired public servants. I also want to mention in particular retired Royal Canadian Mounted Police personnel and retired personnel of the Canadian armed forces. These three groups have different pension plans but they are fairly similar. A few years ago we passed another piece of legislation which provided for the escalation of the pensions of all these groups. Again, it was good to get escalation but, again, it is always behind.
These pensioners, of course, do not get their escalation quarterly; they get it only annually. So when they get it they are not just six or eight months behind but 16 to 18 months behind. In one year they get the extra money they needed to keep up to the extra cost of living for the previous year. I feel that the whole escalation formula needs to be reviewed and revised.
I also feel that the basic way in which public service and other pensions are computed needs to be looked at again. Far too many public servants, some of quite senior level, are seeing people retire today on pensions greater than the salaries they had when they themselves were in the job. Public servants who thought they had given their working lives to the people of Canada through the federal government, and therefore would enjoy a decent and dignified retirement, are facing real difficulty.
I welcomed with a feeling of deep appreciation, almost emotion, the announcement made by the former president of the treasury board when he brought in the proposal for the escalation of the pensions of these groups of people as well as others. It was a tremendous accomplishment to get away from the idea of fixed incomes for pensioners. But, Mr. Speaker, present conditions require a review of this whole subject and I urge that there be such a review by the government in this session.
While I am talking about the pensions of retired public servants, retired RCMP and Canadian armed forces personnel, I should like to make a particular pitch regarding the pensions of the widows of these persons. This point

applies to widows' pensions generally, including railway pensions, private pensions, and so on. I still do not know how there ever got started the idea that it was all right if a man and wife worked together and, if there was a pension earned by the one who was out working, if the husband died the pension was cut to 50 per cent for the widow, whereas if the wife died the pension stayed at 100 per cent for the widower. We have had that idea around for so long that it is taken to be a benefaction for the widow to get a 50 per cent pension.
I suggest that for the public service, the RCMP, the Canadian armed forces and private pensions generally, the idea should be accepted that if a pension has been earned and contributed to in cold hard dollars and earned by the work of the person involved, it should continue at its full rate to whichever spouse survives. This principle is expressed in resolutions presented by many organizations asking that pensions now at 50 per cent for widows be raised to 60 per cent or 75 per cent. Of course, in this kind of situation we accept compromise as a move in the right direction. I contend, however, that the day should come when a widow's pension should be the same as the pension of the widower if the wife dies first.
That leads me to the question of railway workers' pensions, Mr. Speaker. I was pleased that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro)-interestingly enough, during the election campaign-appointed Dr. Noel Hall as commissioner to study the whole question of railway pensions, both Canadian National Railways and Canadian Pacific Railway. I was also glad to get his answer the other day that a report was expected in three or four months. I hope it will be the good report that I am sure it will have to be.
I do not understand how anyone could study the pension plans of the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific without realizing the tremendous need for improvement. These pensions need to be put on the basis of at least 2 per cent for each year of service, no matter when the employee retired. Widows' pensions need to be made 75 per cent or 100 per cent. These pension plans must contain better provisions for early retirement, and there needs to be a review of the relationship between railway pensions and the Canada Pension Plan. If all of this is going to cost money, I suggest that the people who have worked on our railroads for the people of Canada are owned an obligation by the federal government to see that real improvements are made in their pensions. I will come back to this matter later in this session, Mr. Speaker, and my colleagues will be joining in discussing it. I urge that just as soon as we get the report from Dr. Hall, real action be taken in this area.
I have moved in my remarks, Mr. Speaker, from my reference to the RCMP and the Canadian armed forces, but there is one other point I wanted to make so I shall return to it. One of the elements of discrimination that pensioners in these two groups feel is very unfair concerns the time at which escalation commences. The escalation of public service pensions takes place at age 60, and therefore the law still says that retired RCMP and retired armed forces personnel who may be retired, under the rules of the service, at age 48, 50 or 55 have to wait until age 60 before escalation commences, except under special circumstances that affect only a few cases. The government

knows how strongly these people feel about this matter. The former president of the treasury board had to deal with them constantly. I hope that the new President of Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) has the compassion and sympathy that the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) attributed to him this morning. I see my friend, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Drury), the former president of Treasury Board, smiling at me. I suppose he is telling me that he has lots of compassion now, too. I wish he had exercised it when he was in a position to do so.
I have already said, Mr. Speaker, that I welcome the introduction of Bill C-22 which will make amendments to the Canada Pension Plan. I want now to say that I welcome, too, the introduction of Bill C-4 which proposes to make amendments to the War Veterans Allowance Act. I hope that, despite the improvement we made during the previous parliament and the one before that affecting our veterans, we will make further improvements in this parliament.
The amendments to the War Veterans Allowance Act are good as far as they go, that is, establishing equity between male and female veterans, or the formula for escalation being attached to the ceiling rather than the allowance, but the number of dollars put in the pockets right away of those on war veterans allowance is not very much. I was interested to read the press release issued by the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) a few days ago, particularly the announcement of what the amount would be in October, 1974, compared with what it was in October, 1973. It sounds pretty good when it is put that way, but in the meantime there have been adjustments in 1974, so that the difference between what these veterans are now getting and what they will get under the new bill is not very much. There is a lot of room for improvement in what we are doing for our veterans. We will get at this matter in the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, where we always work together and do a good job.
There is one point I should like to press, Mr. Speaker. It seems to me the time comes in the life of a veteran, whether it be age 55 or 60, but certainly not much later than that, when there should no longer be a necessity for all the examinations required by the Canadian Pension Commission, or all the means testing done by the War Veterans Allowance Board. There should be a straight guaranteed annual income, and it should be better than old age security. In my view, it should start at age 55 or 60, but surely at some point we can say to our veterans that they have served this country and it is no longer necessary for them to go through all the medical examinations that are now required. We should certainly be able to say to them that it is no longer necessary to face the indignity of means testing or the indignity of being under the provisions of an income ceiling. We have tremendous room for improvement here and I urge that improvements for our veterans be made in this session of parliament.
I now want to say a word about government annuities. I confess that in earlier years it was a bit difficult to press the point about annuities because we realized they were contracts, and if one were to change the basis of a contract respecting a government annuity, one would open up a series of problems. However, any reluctance we had on
The Address-Mr. S. Knowles
that point has gone completely because the Minister of Finance has changed the basis with respect to Canada savings bonds. What is a Canada savings bond but a contract under which you agree to lend your money and in return receive a certain amount of interest? Yet the Minister of Finance has come along-and we all approve-and said to the holders of Canada savings bonds, "If you hold these bonds to maturity, you will get not only the amount of interest for which you contracted but an additional amount as well."
If that can be done with respect to Canada savings bonds, I suggest it can be done with respect to government annuities. So I contend that just as most other forms of retirement income are being escalated, income paid from government annuities ought to be escalated. I have heard a number of members make that point. Someone asked a question about this the other day, and the Minister of Finance said he would send the member a letter. It is the same letter he has sent to many of us, and it does not satisfy us at all. If the contract can be superseded in the case of Canada savings bonds, I suggest the same action should be taken with government annuities. I see the clock racing faster than it usually does, Mr. Speaker. It always goes faster when one is on his own feet.
I want to refer briefly to a subject I raised yesterday with the Minister of Finance, that of private pension plans. I have put a lengthy question on the order paper which asks for all possible information about private pension plans. I think that these must become the subject of a major study by parliament and the government. There are too many cases of persons finding that the money they have put into private pensions is not there to pay pensions when the time comes to retire. Too many of these plans are in jeopardy. There should be greater protection. Even the good plans, the ones that deliver the amount of pension contracted for originally, in most cases do not provide for escalation. I think federal legislation should be passed to provide that a pension plan is not a proper pension plan unless it provides for escalation, after retirement, of the amount a person is to receive.
In my question yesterday to the Minister of Finance, although I referred generally to private pension plans, I referred particularly to the chartered banks. I suppose the largest number of letters that I have received which say, "Please do not use my name, but . . ." are on this subject, on the inadequacy of bank pensions. I have received letters from retired bank managers who tell me what the banks fail to do with respect to their pension plans, and I urge the Minister of Finance to demand action on this matter.
I see you getting out of your chair, Mr. Speaker, so I shall sit down in a moment. I plead for something to be done in the whole area of pensions. Indeed, I plead that in this parliament we examine the whole field, the important aspects of which I referred to this morning, and really try to put our older people into the position they so fully deserve.
I thank the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain again for telling us the truth, that young people understand old people. I welcome the endorsation of that fact contained in
28305-23V2

October 11, 1974
The Address-Mr. Jelinek
the Gallup poll to which I referred at the opening of my remarks. I believe we will be meeting the wishes of the Canadian people if we take the steps I have suggested to improve the lot of our senior Canadians.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, may I begin by congratulating you, as the Speaker of this distinguished chamber, upon your appointment. It speaks highly of you, sir, when we consider that after only six short years of being first elected to this House, you have reached this high position, obviously as a result of your sense of duty, integrity and knowledge of legal and parliamentary affairs and also, as you have shown in your first few days as Speaker of this House, because of your total dedication to fair play.
Personally, I am again honoured that the constituents of my riding, High Park-Humber Valley, saw fit to charge me with the responsibility of continuing to represent them in this House. I pledge to them now that I shall continue to work on their behalf, to the best of my ability. As we enter this new session of parliament, I cannot help recalling my thoughts on a similar day two years ago when the previous session of parliament began. Then, Mr. Speaker, as a new member I was impressed with the government's Speech from the Throne. I thought that the words of wisdom which were thrust upon us were great promises, and we were full of expectation. Those promises were soon to become only meaningless words. I cannot help regarding the government's pledges to this parliament in the same light.
It makes one wonder why the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), heading a government which has been in power for 11 years, should suddenly decide that now is the time to start moving forward. That is what he so regally stated in his opening address to parliament. One cannot help wondering what direction his government has been taking in the last 11 years, if only now he intends to begin moving ahead.


An hon. Member:: The government only moves in circles.


Otto John Jelinek: It only moves in circles; I agree wholeheartedly. Let us consider, despite what the Prime Minister considers to be areas of national concern, those areas which failed to receive due consideration from this government which is now in full control of the legislative process. High on the list of priorities is the government's pledge to "wrestle inflation into the ground". Those are the government's own words. The reality, of course, is that not only has inflation not been arrested but it has galloped ahead, straining every sector of our economy and placing undue hardship upon each and every Canadian.
Food costs alone have risen at an unprecedented rate, and many on fixed incomes and the old age pension find it almost impossible to lead a life of self-respect and personal dignity. Is it any wonder that pensioners and, indeed, all Canadians gaze in disbelief at a government which has permitted over 25 million eggs to rot, despite national and world food shortages. Despite this, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) proclaims himself to be more popular than ever. The minister must have been held in low esteem if he now believes his popularity is high.

Certainly, the issues of inflation, food costs in particular and the state of our economy as a whole must be given highest priority. It is hardly necessary for me to expound on a subject of which apparently every Canadian, with the exception of the Liberal administration, is aware. The President of the United States felt it incumbent upon him, on assuming office, to call a high-level conference almost immediately with industry and labour. All this country received after the Prime Minister obtained a majority was an immediate three-month stalemate of the parliamentary process. Allow me, Mr. Speaker, to quote part of a Globe and Mail editorial from the edition of the day before yesterday, which I find most appropriate:
Yesterday-93 days after his third election as leader of the Canadian government-Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau with his colleagues in the House of Commons was busily engaged in the processing of a bill .which would provide the moon and sixpence for west coast grain handlers.
Yesterday-61 days after the tragedy of Watergate catapulted him to the presidency-Gerald Ford was before the United States Congress setting out the steps he intends to take to fight inflation which could 'destroy us as surely as any war'.
I find those comments appropriate to our times. Perhaps the Liberal government expected the inflationary situation simply to go away on its own. Perhaps it was embarrassed to face the situation and admit it had no answers and, obviously, no plans. Meaningless generalities and page upon page of non-specifics, as illustrated by the Speech from the Throne-will never be sufficient to deal effectively with the complex areas of concern facing this country today.
Where is there any concrete evidence that the government is ready and willing to "wrestle inflation to the gound"? Where is there any indication that a tough, but just and uniform immigration policy will be established? Where are the proposed changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act, long promised by the government and certainly long overdue in our country? Can we afford to ignore situations such as arose in Toronto during the last postal strike, when approximately 48,000 unemployment insurance cheques were not even picked up and subsequent investigation disqualified some 25,000 of the claims? Is it any wonder that almost every Canadian is demanding a full inquiry into the operation of the Unemployment Insurance Act? In my own constituency, for example, 99 per cent of those replying to a questionnaire favoured such a full investigation. And still there is no action by the government.
During the last wildcat postal strike and the Ministry of Transport firefighters' strike, millions of dollars were lost and thousands of Canadians suffered directly because the government has failed to deal with the illegalities associated with such strikes. The former President of the Treasury Board, the hon. member for Westmount (Mr. Drury), in answer to questions I raised in this House last May stated that a government policy regarding illegal strikes in essential services would be forthcoming and that continuation of such strikes would not be tolerated. Has the government changed its mind in this regard as well, and is such illegal and unlawful action expected to continue unchallenged?
October 11, 1974

Mr. Speaker, I feel it is necessary once again to bring to the attention of this House the dismal financial circumstances which now surround the 1976 Montreal Olympics. Not only have initial costs risen far above the forecasts, but net proceeds from coin sales are falling far short of the expected $250 million. Results have been particularly disappointing in the United States, where large sales of coins were anticipated. As of April 1, with the main portion of the first of seven in the series completed, the net return, less reserve but including stamps, has been a meagre $2.5 million.
Even the most optimistic sales projections based on proceeds thus far envisage a deficit of at least $200 million, notwithstanding the success of the lottery program. Now is the time to face reality and accept the fact that a large deficit will be incurred by COJO, the city of Montreal and the province of Quebec. It is not good enough simply to expect the Canadian people to support the spirit of the Olympics and share the financial responsibility, as they will ultimately do. We find the Montreal city council authorizing the construction of Olympic facilities with moneys obtained from federally-authorized programs such as the sale of coins and stamps, and doing so without offering contracts for public tender. The time is long overdue for the federal government to take an active role in supervising the over-all financial administration of the Olympics, particularly as such matters relate to the Olympics financing legislation passed by this House. As a nation which has committed itself to the Olympics in Montreal, we cannot now wash our hands of the whole affair as the Prime Minister seems to be doing.
The air of secrecy which has surrounded the entire Olympics program from its inception, including the arrangements for the letting of the television contracts and the closed bidding on other contracts, must be dispelled, and the indifferent attitude of the Prime Minister must be changed so that Canadians may be able to lend their complete support to the 1976 Olympics. Only then will they see clearly the many benefits which will accrue not only to our youth but to our entire country.
There are many other areas which should be looked at, Mr. Speaker-areas which have long been contentious as far as Canadians are concerned. For example, the issue of abortion continues to divide hospital boards and interfere with patient-doctor relationships. It has sparked demonstrations both in favour and against, and has inspired mass advertising by those on either side of the argument. Yet the government is still afraid to clarify the issue by bringing it before the House for open discussion.
As a matter of record, Mr. Speaker, on November 5, 1973, I introduced in this House a motion whieh read as follows:
In view of representations made to most members of the House over the past few days, not only in person but also by thousands of telegrams and letters, urging the House to examine the abortion laws now in existence in this country, and in view of the fact that this is a matter dealing with life itself, I move:
That the government be instructed to form forthwith a committee comprised of members of this House to thoroughly investigate this entire area affording such organizations as the Alliance for Life and others, in fact all segments of our society, the opportunity to express their views in a matter involving the very lives of thousands of unborn children.
The Address-Mr. Jelinek
The Liberals felt at that time that this motion should not go forward, and it was defeated. I believe they did not wish it to go further because they felt it would be too embarrassing or too risky, too controversial, in a period prior to a possible federal election. An election did indeed follow. However, the party opposite now has an over-all majority and they know they will be here four or five years. The time has come to look into this serious question by means of a committee such as I have proposed. I urge all hon. members to look forward to the setting up of the committee in order to give a chance of participation to millions of Canadians who are interested in this matter.
Mr. Speaker, I see it is one o'clock. Perhaps I can continue after lunch.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until 2 p.m.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, prior to one o'clock I had the opportunity of touching on numerous subjects, such as unemployment insurance, illegal strikes in essential services, as usual I touched on the Olympics, and I finished off by saying that the government obviously became afraid to raise the abortion issue. Naturally, I also discussed the inflation problem of which the whole country except, it seems, this government is totally aware.
I would continue on that line by saying that there were other areas touched on so lightly and superficially in the Speech from the Throne as hardly to constitute serious consideration. Can anyone really find a determined effort to curtail the excessive government spending which has grown out of all proportion under this Liberal administration? It is true that vague references and veiled promises have been made, but these are hardly sufficient to initiate cutbacks in spending by provincial and municipal governments, as this government is now preaching. Nowhere was there any specific reference to federal government cutbacks in spending or hiring programs, and I am wondering whether this government does not believe in the principle of example but relies on the "do as I say, not do as I do" principle.
I should like to quote a few statements made by Mr. J. Wilson, president of the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, who spoke at a dinner last night. These statements are contained in today's Ottawa Journal. He said:
The record of government spending, stacked up against spending in any other sector of the economy, leaves no argument against the contention that government is one of the major contributors, if not the major contributor, to the current inflation problem.
We all know that, Mr. Speaker.
The civil service was increasing "at wartime rates" but without a national crisis to account for the attitude of the public to this growth-

October 11, 1974
The Address-Mr. Jelinek
It is doubtful whether citizens seeking more government services are really consciously aware that they are thereby demanding high taxation.
At present there are over 443,000 federal government employees. There are some 1.4 million people employed at all levels of government, and in fact one out of every seven Canadian workers is employed by some level of government. There has been no levelling off at the federal level, as promised by the Prime Minister some time ago. I suppose we are getting used to his promises that are never kept. Excessive government spending and empire building are the major causes of internal inflation, as we have said, and this situation can no longer be tolerated.
These are some of the things that one would have expected the Prime Minister to deal with in his initial address to this thirtieth parliament. But what did we hear? What subjects did the Prime Minister dwell on at length and consider so crucial? What does the Prime Minister always talk about when he wishes to shroud his administration's inability to cope with the real issues? Bilingualism, of course. And there is nothing wrong with bilingualism. But my God, surely with the serious problems facing Canada today, the fact that the Prime Minister considers bilingualism the most critical issue is completely beyond comprehension. But then, what better way to avoid the real issues facing this country than to create and talk about false ones?
I wonder whether any member of this House except the Prime Minister, or anyone in Canada believes that bilingualism rates more priority at this time for more government action than inflation or unemployment? Has bilingualism driven up the cost of food? Has bilingualism affected production in this country? Has bilingualism created unemployment? Or, indeed, has bilingualism affected our critical housing situation? On the one hand, we have a Prime Minister espousing the virtues of bilingualism for Canada. On the other hand, we have a Prime Minister who is reluctant to protect the rights of the English minority in Quebec by reversing that province's controversial, if not unconstitutional, Bill 22.
After spending hundreds of millions of dollars on bilingualism, are we now to look at nine bilingual provinces accepting bilingualism, and one province rejecting it? I wonder how the Prime Minister would have reacted had the province of Ontario, for example, legislated its own Bill 22 in respect of English. The fact is that the province of Ontario has recently taken the very responsible step of initiating French-language courses from kindergarten on. For the Prime Minister to say that Francophones of this country are being treated unfairly by the rest of Canada is, quite simply, ridiculous.
Let us consider, for example, some of the federal funds that were allocated as recently as last year. Under the Opportunities for Youth Program the province of Quebec received $28.5 million, compared with Ontario's $15.5 million, with an over-all Canadian total of $68 million. That represents nearly 50 per cent for Quebec alone-hardly an anti-Quebec situation.
Let us consider, also, Local Initiatives Program grants, of which Quebec received $80 million and Ontario only $31

million out of a total Canadian allotment of $202 million. Again, that is hardly anti-Quebec. The DREE figures are equally slanted in favour of that province and are also a matter of record.
I for one, and I believe there are millions of others in this country, am becoming sick and tired of the constant pressure by this government to cater at every turn to la belle province. I am not an English Canadian. I am not a French Canadian either. I am simply a Canadian, and I am proud of it. As some members know, I was born behind the iron curtain and escaped with my family at an early age to come to this great country, a country full of promise, opportunity and freedom. That is something we did not, and do not, have back in Czechoslovakia. I do not like the idea of the possibility of a language curtain being erected in this country, right under our noses, with the prodding of the Prime Minister. It distresses me to find this country divided by language instead of united by language.
Let me make it very clear that by no means am I against bilingualism. As a matter of fact, I would be more than happy to see more Canadians speaking both languages. I am presently taking French classes and therefore hope to add that language to the three I already speak. The answer, then, does not lie in forcing bilingualism upon any person or group of persons but, rather, by incorporating language training into the earliest grades of our school systems. As long as bills, such as that passed in Quebec, to legislate against any minority are allowed by the federal government to stand, our country will continue to be divided and will never show its truly great potential.
It is up to the elected officials to unite this country through co-operation, understanding and reasonable compromise, and not to permit any minority to suffer the injustice of restraint of freedom, whether that freedom be of religion, education or language. These principles are the very foundation of our country and must remain firm if we are to truly remain, as our national anthem states and, I hope, continues to state, "strong and free".


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I join those who have preceded me in this debate in extending sincere congratulations to Mr. Speaker on his elevation to the chair. I was one of those who had the duty of escorting him, resisting, to the chair. The way in which he has conducted our proceedings since then confirms my view that his modesty was excessive and that we should have overcome his resistance. I also wish to congratulate the two hon. members, the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. Those two speeches were in the best parliamentary tradition and, I may add, in the authentic Liberal tradition of concern for one's fellow man.
All members of parliament, both newly elected, like the mover and seconder of the address in reply, and those who have been here for a number of years, are conscious of the unprecedented challenge presented to this institution to measure up to its responsibilities. In a system based on laws and not on power wielded by men, where government is carried on with the consent of the government, it is important that institutions possess the flexibility necessary to translate earlier individual concepts of human liberty into terms relative to today's mass societies and
October 11, 1974

their challenges of mass communication and instant response.
I, therefore, have no hesitation in asserting that one of the primary tasks of this parliament should be the continuation of the process of reform of our procedure and structures which will enable us to discharge our responsibilities effectively. From the model parliament of Edward I to the sweeping revisions of our own procedures beginning in 1963, the history of reform is an attempt to strike a balance between the manifest need to sharpen parliament's capacity to respond quickly to public demand and the preservation of the fundamental principles of redress of grievances and control of expenditures. These are no mean objectives; they are the pillars upon which this institution depends. They were of urgent importance in Simon de Montfort's time when the barons asserted their right to represent the people against the exigencies of the royal exchequer; and they continue to be fundamental objectives today.
At this point, having outlined something of the nature of the problem, I wish to congratulate my predecessor as leader of the government in this House, who is also my successor in the post of Secretary of State for External Affairs-a post to which I am sure he will lend lustre and distinction-for the manner in which he discharged the onerous functions of his office while keeping to the fore the great and fundamental principles on which the institution is erected. My distinguished predecessor in office will agree, I am sure, that the inevitable growth of executive power, inevitable because of rising public expectations and increasing complexities of the problems facing the government, calls for a consequent strengthening and shoring-up of the legislative branch by rendering its deliberations more effective and more responsive.


John George Diefenbaker: And without destroying the rights of the opposition.


Mitchell William Sharp: Exactly. Cynicism about representative institutions is characteristic of our time. If parliament is to respond to criticism, it must be ready to adapt to change, to preserve the advantages of a system in which the executive branch can perform its essential functioning of governing while subjected to wholesome checks and constraints on the untrammelled, growth of its power. Going a step further, it is not enough for parliament to be accessible, for governments to be responsible, for ministers to be accountable; not only must these things happen, they must be seen to happen, in order for Canadians to retain confidence in and continue to identify the management of their own destiny with our noblest institution.
By making parliament a more flexible vehicle of public participation, by emphasizing its function of informing and enlightening Canadians about the business of government, we shall be moving toward closer identification of Canadians with this institution and system which has served us well. This is essential, for parliament cannot accomplish its historic functions in isolation or by being shunted aside in a welter of conflicting demands for public attention. If parliament ceases to hold a position of priority in public affairs as the centre-piece of the democratic system, then parliament's capacity as a protector of our freedoms will be diminished.
The Address-Mr. Sharp
In some emerging nations, populations grapple with the subtleties of "one man, one vote", while in other countries with a long tradition of democratic institutions, freedom is stifled. In vast areas of the supposedly civilized world, individual freedom has retrogressed to a level comparable to that of the Middle Ages. In many areas of the world a new age of darkness has encompassed man's aspirations. But everywhere the aspiration for freedom remains a flame in human hearts.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, and through you the members of this House: is there any parliamentary democracy that we know of that has had to erect a wall protected by barbed-wire or patrolled by armed guards to keep people in? There have been occasions, and there will be occasions in the future, of high drama, of inspiration and eloquence on the floor of the House. But it is in the day to day assertion of our freedoms, the rights and privileges of members, including the right to question, criticize and disagree, that parliament renders its most valuable service.


John George Diefenbaker: I apologize for interrupting, Mr. Speaker. I have been called out of the House on short notice. I shall be back as soon as I can. I would not want to be unfair to the minister in the very interesting address he is giving. Excuse me.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman is always very courteous. I thank him. One of our greatest parliamentarians, Edward Blake, said 100 years ago:
The privileges of parliament are the privileges of the people and the rights of parliament are the rights of the people.
The current reform wave-if I might so describe the process which began in 1963-was given new impetus in 1968 under the distinguished and purposeful leadership of the present Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) who, as leader of the House, ushered in sweeping reforms. My immediate predecessor, the present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen), carried on the process in a minority parliament. Revision of parliamentary salaries-which will have to be considered again-increased and improved facilities for members, including research, control of election expenses- now in effect-an innovative and constructive approach to redistribution of parliamentary seats, and a landmark green paper on conflicts members face when outside interests may affect their independence in the discharge of parliamentary duties, are among the achievements of his tenure of office.
The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), who will once again officiate as House leader of the official opposition, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), that acknowledged expert on the rules, and many others made their distinctive contributions to these far-reaching reforms.
It fell to Mr. Speaker Lamoureux to preside over the introduction of the new rules with that wisdom and impartial judgment which made him an ornament to the chair. I am sure that you, sir, his successor in that high and crucial office, will exhibit the same qualities along with a flair for innovation already shown in your conduct

October 11, 1974
The Address-Mr. Sharp
of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, all of which will contribute positively to our deliberations.
To strengthen parliament's role as a vehicle of reasoned dissent when no institution, human or divine, is immune to critical scrutiny is surely the purpose to which we should be addressing our endeavours. It is important in this connection, it seems to me-and I hope I will have general agreement in the House-that steps be taken to increase parliament's accessibility and the ordinary Canadian's sense of participation. All Canadians are affected by decisions we take here, on the floor, and in the standing committees. The high court of parliament must in turn reflect the concerns and anxieties of those it represents in a tangible and visible way.
First, let me deal with the matter of the granting of supply, one of the primary functions of parliament. The 1968 reforms transferred the essential scrutinizing function of the committee of supply to standing committees of the House. Some, like the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), have felt that the present procedure does not permit the intensive and detailed scrutiny of major estimates which is parliament's right. Referral of estimates to appropriate standing committees has relieved the House of a great deal of the burden of routine scrutiny, while the principle of redress of grievances has been preserved and indeed amplified in the allocation of 25 days every year to the opposition parties. Nevertheless, it is important that the two great principles of control of expenditure and redress of grievances not only be imbedded in the system but that they be visibly a part of it.
I should emphasize that I do not think there should be any question at this time of returning to the old committee of supply procedure; the present procedure on the whole is superior. On the other hand, there may be occasions when particular estimates could be scrutinized in a committee of the whole House, and the government approaches the question with a flexible attitude. Indeed, within the next couple of weeks we will have an opportunity to experiment with this method of scrutinizing estimates pursuant to the special order approved at the opening of this session.
It has been said that government proposes and parliament disposes. In any parliament there are two major components, the party in power and the opposition. This produces a definite polarization in the conduct of House business-not always an idealogical or even political polarization-the polarization of the "ins" and the "outs". This is a healthy state of affairs when it leads to careful and well organized programs by the government and vigorous, positive and informed criticism by the opposition. As in all human affairs, ideal conditions do not always prevail, even in the high court of parliament.
Nevertheless, when it comes down to those critical periods when it is a case of making parliament work, both sides generally place partisan considerations temporarily to one side in the interests of the proper functioning of the institution. I anticipate no dissent when I say that this parliament will have to be made to work steadily and with concentration if we are to deal with the backlog of work before us at the beginning of this session. I am encouraged by the meetings I have already had with the House leaders of the opposition parties to believe that this is well under-

stood by all of us as we try to arrive at a consensus on the time-frames within which government-sponsored legislation can be made to pass through the House and its standing committees.
There has been good success in the past several sessions in reaching agreement on methods and timing for dealing with legislation, and while we have not yet reached the state of organization prevailing in the mother of parliaments, the volume of important legislation in our last two parliaments is evidence that with goodwill and co-operation we are moving in the right direction. It is my view that we can go a good deal further in the organization of our business without weakening the effectiveness of the opposition in its essential function of critic and, as a by-product, raise the level of debate and give members on all sides a better opportunity of participation.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in his speech in this debate dealt with the use of the period devoted to oral questions. This 40-minute period is a routine procedure, as some hon. members know, of comparatively recent origin. I can recall watching from the officials' gallery some years ago when oral questions were very few in number and were prefaced by the words, "Before orders of the day I would like to address an urgent question to the minister". I can also recall sitting in the House when the opposite extreme was the case and there was no time limit: sometimes the oral question period lasted more than an hour, sometimes as much as two hours. Our procedure with respect to oral questions has evolved to conform to the nature and requirements of the Canadian House of Commons and it is without doubt the most lively period in our daily deliberations, the best show in town. This it should remain. In my view, however, it can be improved without losing its liveliness. The televising of this part of our proceedings would in itself help to discipline the questions and the answers.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Maybe we would get answers.


Mitchell William Sharp: The points that need most careful consideration are, first, the giving of notice of the opening questions to be put to the ministry and, second, the attendance of ministers. As a minister, I confess that I rather like the challenge of trying to answer questions without notice.


Donald W. Munro: Or evade them.


Mitchell William Sharp: I also know that if I receive notice I must give better answers, and the supplementaries could provide the stimulus of the unexpected. Neither will the oral question period suffer in liveliness or in value if some sort of system is introduced that would not require all the ministers to be in the House every day so that each of them is present in case somebody, without notice, happens to address a question to them. I am not suggesting that we will revive the roster system, or anything like that. What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that this is a question for consideration, in the interest of the opposition. They can contribute to improving their own performance in the House by giving the ministers an opportunity-


An hon. Member:: Gee whizz; thank you.
October 11, 1974


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Thank you for that gratuitous advice; it is worth what we paid for it.


James Hugh Faulkner: We are doing what we can for you.


Mitchell William Sharp: The designation of days on which particular ministers will be questioned makes sense from the point of view of this House, on all sides, including the opposition, and of course in the interest of governmental administration. It would make the question period an even better show.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister accept a question before he leaves that point? In view of his interest in the question period being a better show, as he puts it, would it not be a good idea for all the ministers to be here just to see what is going on?


Mitchell William Sharp: There is nothing that I enjoy more than being here to watch the fun, but there are occasions when even I put other business ahead of just watching, and I do believe it would be in the interest of the House and of the country if some way could be found to direct questions to ministers at particular times so they could be here well prepared and able to satisfy the curiosity of the members.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: In a hedonistic pursuit of pleasure.


Mitchell William Sharp: The House will once again be asked to come to terms with the question of the redistribution of parliamentary seats. As hon. members know, there is a deadline of December 31 beyond which, under current legislation, consideration of this matter cannot go. I have reason to believe that there is sufficient consensus on this question among the parties, resulting from discussion in the Committee on Privileges and Elections of the last parliament, to enable a bill to be introduced in time for it to be approved before the end of the year, and that will be the government's intention.
The question of the independence of parliament, the freedom of hon. members from outside attachments which might exercise undue influence on the conduct of parliamentary business, is one which has been examined in the green paper on conflict of interest. It is the government's intention that the House, through the appropriate committee, once again be seized of this urgent question.
It is my concern to devise a more efficient and speedy machinery for supplying information adequately and accurately in reply to members' questions on the order paper. I would point out that we are not yet through the debate on the Speech from the Throne and already there are well over 400 questions on the order paper. I would solicit the co-operation of hon. members in avoiding duplication of questions, avoiding matters of minor urgency, answers to which could be obtained by simply asking the department, or matters of unnecessary complexity and amplitude. Many times-and I suggest this from experience in the House as a minister for many years-fishing expeditions which are enormously expensive and produce much irrelevant information can be avoided by advance consultations with the minister concerned or, if need be, with the President of the Privy Council.
The Address-Mr. Sharp
Under the rules of 1968, the standing committees perform a major portion of the parliamentary workload. Under my predecessor as House leader, the performance capacity of the committees was strengthened by staff allocations and budgeting of time. I would hope that consideration might be given to stabilizing committee membership so that members can maintain a continuing attachment to committees in which they are interested. In effect, the practice of platooning memberships should be carefully examined from the aspect of its impact on the really serious and effective work being accomplished by a number of committees.
There will be agreement, I am confident, that the standing committees have become an effective medium for channelling expert and informed opinion on complex and involved questions before the House and in that respect, too, they are providing a useful parliamentary service. In my various ministerial capacities when I have appeared before parliamentary committees on many occasions, I have seen a gradual evolution in the functioning of these committees. When I think of how much more effective and informed these committees are today than they were, say, 11 years ago when I first entered the ministry, I feel that the rules under which we are now proceeding and the way in which parliament is using the standing committees make it evident that we are on the right track. Presumably we can do better, but I think we could do better if we had a more permanent kind of attachment to committees and a building up of more expertise on the part of individual members.
It would no doubt appear curious to present-day Canadians if parliament closed its doors against the media and persisted in viewing its debates as a purely private matter. Yet it was not until the middle of the eighteenth century that the principle was accepted of an overriding public interest in the fullest possible coverage of parliamentary business. Parliament once claimed the right of privacy against the Stuart kings, and even now there is nothing in the rules of procedure to guarantee the presence of strangers, even the media, in the House. Nevertheless, open and impartial coverage of the parliamentary process remains an essential element of a free, democratic society.
In an age when public assemblies are constantly in danger of being overtaken by events, piecemeal reforms are not enough; there must be a unifying element providing a matrix of dedication to the principle of participation by legislators, administrators and citizens. Since the number of Canadians who are able to participate directly in or attend important parliamentary debates is restricted by available time, cost of travel and lack of opportunity, for many the only means of participation is through coverage by the media. This brings me to the question of broadcasting the proceedings of the House of Commons. This question has been considered on several occasions by the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization and a number of important findings have been published, including those of the second report of the committee in June, 1972, which favoured television broadcasting in principle and recommended additional technical studies.
358

October 11, 1974
The Address-Mr. Sharp
The report of the committee inter alia put forward the proposal that the television record should be produced as a kind of electronic Hansard, with production controlled by parliament and distribution in the hands of the final users, as is now the case with Hansard. It would appear to me that the House is in possession of sufficient information, both of a procedural and technical nature, to pronounce itself on the principle of television coverage and that the time has come for consideration of a motion to secure the judgment of the House in the matter.
In my view and the view of the government, it should be possible to bring to Canadians not only the opening of parliament, which is now in the way of becoming a tradition, on the nation's screens but perhaps one or two important episodes of parliamentary business on an experimental basis. I put this question to hon. members through you, Mr. Speaker: are we justified in continuing to delay the implementation of the kind of installations capable of bringing to Canadians a more vivid, more compelling and more complete record of our proceedings than has ever before been possible?
To me there seems to be only one answer to that question: we are not justified. The matter has been considered at length and I believe in this House there is an overwhelming opinion in favour of proceeding. This should be tested in the House of Commons by early consideration of a motion to approve the televising of our procedures. Whether the television record is distributed live through cable channels, educational television or existing national networks, or as a nightly or weekly summary of events in this chamber, is a matter for discussion. The overriding consideration is that the material should be made available both for purposes of public information and for future archival and historical use.
In opening its doors to the electronic age, parliament will be taking a step as fraught with historic significance and the possibilities of procedural evolution as the admission of verbal journalism in the eighteenth century. I am satisfied, for example, that some of the practices of this House-such as a series of statements on motions initiated by a minister-would not survive in their present form if they were conducted under the scrutiny of the television camera. It seems to me we could probably find a better way even before we permitted television into this House. Surely this is one of the procedures we should consider and improve.
It does seem ludicrous that television should be barred from the oral question period, but that ministers and critics from the opposition should appear outside the chamber to answer questions put by reporters in what amounts to a mock-up of the question period. Surely the public should be able to witness the real thing when the government faces its critics across the floor of this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: None of that extramural TV.


Mitchell William Sharp: As one of those who has participated in many of these extramural encounters, Mr. Speaker, nothing would have appealed to me more than to appear on television answering the questions of the right hon.

member for Prince Albert. It would have been a dramatic encounter.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That is, if you had answered them.


Mitchell William Sharp: I wish to assure the House through you, Mr. Speaker-and I trust that what I have said reinforces this assurance-that the government wishes to proceed by way of consensus in reforming the procedures and structures of this House. In this connection, I should like to associate myself with the remarks made last evening by my parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid), and the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald), who expressed themselves as being in favour of having discussion of the rules of this place conducted in public so that the public can participate and make its input to the reform of our procedures.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: Our concern is not so much the ability of the government to get House approval of its program, although this is a legitimate concern of any government, as it is to enhance the performance and reputation of parliament. No party gains if parliament falls into disrepute either because urgent legislation is unnecessarily delayed or because the opposition is prevented from discharging its essential critical function.


Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to congratulate you upon election to your high office. I have no hesitation in saying that I know you will preside over this House in the same manner, with the same diligence and in the same conscientious way as was ably demonstrated by your predecessor. In the same vein, I should like to congratulate Mr. Deputy Speaker, the hon. member for Beauharnois-Salaberry (Mr. Laniel) upon the appointment to his high office. I should also like to congratulate the hon. member for Montmorency (Mr. Duclos), the mover of the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, and the seconder, the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Lee), for the way in which they performed their respective tasks.
It is a fact, Mr. Speaker, that Canadian governments spend a considerable amount of all the income earned by business establishments and Canadian taxpayers. It has been established that this amount has now reached the 50 per cent mark. When I refer to Canadian governments, Mr. Speaker, I am including not only the federal government but municipal and provincial governments as well.
It is no secret that many Canadians share the opinion that we are today overgoverned, and in the last 25 years the size and power of government has grown in a most phenomenal way. In addition to the three levels of government, there are Crown corporations of many kinds, government-owned utility services, government-owned transportation services, government monopolies of alcohol, government-sponsored marketing monopolies, and government-financed broadcasting media and health plans.
The point I would make, Mr. Speaker, is that more and more power is being concentrated in the hands of government at the expense of the citizen. When all the government enterprises are added up, the rest of the Canadian economy is in a minority position. Most Canadians have
October 11, 1974

failed to realize that we are in real danger of becoming a one-boss economy. It is well-known that most people are resentful and suspicious of all big establishments, big unions, large corporations, large governments and big utilities.
Some people ask, what is the difference between working for a hugh company and a large department of government? What is the difference, they ask, in being responsible to a company's shareholders and being responsible to a minister of the Crown? Why worry about huge governments? It is a question of relative size. In a truly mixed economy we do have a choice. As consumers, we can choose among competing suppliers and select those which give us the best value in price and quantity.
Someone once said that competition is the key to the welfare of the worker and the welfare of the consumer; that competition is the protector of the interests of the citizen. The point I am trying to make, Mr. Speaker, is that we are fast losing our freedom to choose between the government employer and the competitive enterprise employer in the marketplace.
Canada is fast moving in the direction of the 50-50 proportions of that famous stew which contained one horse and one rabbit, which is to say that the share of the private sector is steadily shrinking. This kind of thing should be reversed. It is imperative that we strengthen the competitive enterprise system, to enable it to do for us the jobs which it does best. This system has built in checks and balances which government operations lack. Industry, manufacturing firms, including the large multinational ones, are constantly exposed to the healthy cleansing action of vigorous competition in an open economy such as we have in Canada. Competition is the incentive and the force which develops both people and products.
If present trends continue, Mr. Speaker, the state will either operate or control all economic activity in Canada by the turn of the century. When we reach that point there will be only one employer, backed by the full power of government, to ensure that the monopoly cannot be challenged at that stage. One can predict that the one remaining employer will begin to dictate wages and working conditions. This is where we are heading. This is what will happen to us unless we demand that all government programs be confined to those activities alone which cannot be handled in any other way.
If the job can be done in any other way, government should step aside. The government's only job should be to set the rules and ensure that the rules are adhered to. The philosophy of the all-powerful state is unacceptable to the Canadian people. We all like a little freedom to make our own decisions. Further, Mr. Speaker, there are no guarantees that an all-powerful state would remain benevolent.
Long ago, Lord Acton said, "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely". Other voices are beginning to echo the same sentiment on the subject of the rights and freedoms of the individual citizen. One person, whose name escapes me at the moment, said, "The transfer of power from the individual to the state is sometimes expressed as moving from the private sector to the public sector. In fact, the truth is that power is being transferred
The Address-Mr. Mitges
to the government and away from the public, not towards it." United States economist, William Peterson,
The problem of containing government power is an historic, universal and external one,... A free individual cannot exist in a society where the state controls all means of employment and income.
Richard Needham said in his column recently:
Let Ottawa give real power back to the provinces, then let the provinces pass real power back to the municipalities. Local is beautiful, control is ugly.
On the CBC program "University of the Air," some time ago Professor W. C. Hardy of Alberta told us this:
The world of the Roman empire in the first two centuries is almost frightfully similar to modern North America. As benevolent paternalism and bureaucracy took over, personal freedom tended to disappear. To the cost of bureaucracy was added the expense of the dole.
There was an attempt to combine a subsidy to Italian farmers with charity to needy children. All of these expenditures had to be recovered from the taxpayer. To compound the difficulty there was an adverse balance of trade. The middle class was taxed out of existence. The same principle was imposed on farmers and labour. The welfare state had become a despotism.
History, Mr. Speaker, can repeat itself unless we are vigilant. One of the things which dulls our alarm mechanism is the evident sincerity of those who advocate even bigger governments. They have convinced themselves that they are the chosen keepers of the holy tablets; they are certain that they alone hold the secret of the public good and so are scornful and arrogant of anyone who dares to differ. Another factor is the skill of these advocates in selecting words which act as hidden persuaders. Everything they propose is "social". They call themselves "Liberal minded" or "Liberal Democrats", but they promote the planned state, which means planning the citizen too. Their opponents on the "right" side of politics are neutralized by always being termed "extreme" right.
This word-play is aggravating to those who believe that a liberal person holds that the individual is more important than the state. It is infuriating when one seeking to uphold individual freedoms is ridiculed as a reactionary, especially when the epithet is hurled by those who are actively promoting the centrally planned, all pervasive state, the computerized version of the feudal system. The financial damage done by big, overblown governments, Mr. Speaker, is ever apparent. It is increasingly recognized that inflation is one by-product. The statement that all inflation is either caused or condoned by governments is probably not entirely accurate. Nevertheless, back in 1966 the following statement was made by Professor H. W. Hutt:
Nearly all inflations have been intentional calculated actions of governments. Inflation has been a slow, inexorable transfer of consumer freedom to the state.
In 1968, Arnold Hart of the Bank of Montreal stated:
A substantial share of the blame for the excessive upward push on prices and costs must be assigned to our governments of all three levels.
Earlier this year, John Beare, an economist, pointed out that printing too much money starts the wage-price spiral in motion. He went on to say:
The finger is usually pointed at "greedy" unions and "nasty" monopolists for the cause of inflation. The finger could more accurately be pointed at the institution which gains more from inflation-the government. Bigger government means more inflation.
28305-24'A

October 11, 1974
The Address-Mr. Abbott
Inflation is now around the 12 per cent mark in Canada, a level calculated to shake any Canadian able to grasp its implications. It is no answer to say, as this government has been saying, that there are countries which did even worse last year. This is true, but most of them cannot be rated serious competitors of ours in world markets. It is equally true that the United States, with which we do 70 per cent of our trade, had a somewhat better inflation record than we did. That is very much more to the point. It hardly needs to be pointed out that our economy is very much less efficient than that of the United States. Trade is vastly more important to us, which means that we can ill afford to allow our prices to rise four times as fast as they need to rise.
We cannot continue, as we have been doing, complacent in the knowledge that inflation is hurting our competitors too. The penalty is all too evident-a lot of lost business, plus a great many lost jobs. We can no longer contend with increasing inflation in our country, inflation which is force-fed by this government whose spending has risen year by year at a faster rate than we can create new wealth. Mr. Speaker, if we continue to expand the public sector and annually boost the expenditure of government at the present rate, both the private sector and the climate for business in Canada will suffer, our wealth-producing capacity will suffer and with it the national standard of living. To think otherwise is to deceive ourselves.
The Economic Council confirmed that spending on social and welfare programs is soaring and must be brought under control before it sinks all of us. Government spending, Mr. Speaker, has been growing close to twice as fast as our gross national product. The figures show that general government spending has been rising at least as fast as transfer payments from government to citizens. The main beneficiary of the welfare state seems to be the government. The injection of more money into a welfare sector never seems to eradicate the welfare sector. The costs, the failures and the dangers will not become less if this government continues to grow faster than we can increase the annual value of the goods and services we produce.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I hope that all of us during this parliament will have the wisdom to base our future policies in Canada on the premise that the more people can do for themselves the better, and the more we can limit the future growth of the government, also the better.


Mr. A. C. Abbott (Mississauga):: May I first join with other hon. members in offering congratulations to Mr. Speaker and to his deputies. I know they will carry out their difficult task of overseeing this House with the same skill as was shown by their predecessors. I should also like to congratulate the mover (Mr. Duclos) and the seconder (Mr. Lee) of the Address in Reply, new members like myself, who have set a high standard at the beginning of a new parliament.
I am pleased that I can follow in this debate the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp), and that I can offer congratulations to him on his appointment. I should also like to say, as someone who has known him over the years, that I suspect there is no member of this House, with the

possible exception of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), who has rendered more service to this country than the President of the Privy Council.
As a new member it is with feelings of some trepidation and awe that I rise to speak in this Chamber. I suppose it is a feeling known to all who have done so. Anyone with a sense of history must feel somewhat overwhelmed by an appreciation of the great figures who have spoken here, or in the Chamber which preceded this one, or in the British parliament itself. I suggest that no greater honour could fall to any Canadian than of being elected to this House and speaking to fellow members of this Chamber.
I am grateful that the right hon. member for Prince Albert is in his place. There is no one probably, in the history of this parliament-who has added more colour, more drama or more excitement to its proceedings, than has the right hon. gentleman.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Whatever else I may accomplish in this parliament I can at least say that alphabetically I lead the list of all the members since confederation. I do not know how long I can maintain that record.
I represent the constituency of Mississauga. There are some members who are perhaps not overly familiar with this community. Possibly there are some who cannot even spell it.


An hon. Member:: What about you?


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: I can most certainly spell it, and I can speak of it with enthusiasm because it is already among the major cities of Canada in size and importance, adjoining, as it does, the great metropolitan area of Toronto. There is a disposition on the part of the residents of that great and dynamic metropolitan community to look upon Mississauga as merely a part of that metropolis and to take it for granted.


An hon. Member:: Shame!


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Just as we Canadians living on the border with the United States have a feeling sometimes that our own great community is overshadowed by the United States, so do those who live in Mississauga sometimes have a sense of being overshadowed by Toronto. But perhaps I might paraphrase the words of Sir Wilfrid Laurier and say that if the latter half of the 20th Century belongs to Toronto, the first half of the 21st Century will belong to Mississauga. In any case, the city's rapid growth and its promise of a brilliant future assure it an important place among the metropolitan centres of Canada.
Despite the growth of industry, business and other phases of activity which go to make Mississauga a splendid community, there are certain areas of concern. The vast growth of recent years has created transportation needs which have not yet been dealt with. Many people in the area find it necessary to commute either to Toronto or in a westerly direction, and the transport services are in dire need of improvement. I welcome the initiative which the government proposed to take in this field during the last election, along with the other measures which were
October 11, 1974

promised, and we look forward to action being taken in due course.
I am sure many hon. members frequently visit the Toronto international airport in Mississauga. Originally that airport served a more modest community. However, it has been extended to the point at which it has become a great centre of transportation, a source of noise and smoke pollution. People who live near it are extremely concerned, and justifiably so. The present state of our thinking in this country is to regard the people, their well-being and their way of life as of primary importance, and not what is loosely called progress in a technical sense.
Today, people who live in an area which was relatively unscathed by the disturbance of aircraft taking off and landing find themselves very seriously inconvenienced. Thus, there was great relief among the people of my constituency to hear that the government did not intend to expand this airport further. Instead, another airport is to be built elsewhere in another part of the province. There may, of course, be complaints from residents of the area designated by the plan, and we must maintain an open mind. At the same time, I am dedicated to the proposition that the airport in Mississauga should not be enlarged to the point at which citizens have to deal with flight congestion 24 hours a day.
I should like to say a few words about one of the issues to which reference was made in the Speech from the Throne. I refer to the dangerous situation created by inflation. There is nothing which touches Canadians more drastically than this, and it is heartening that the government is dealing with this problem-


An hon. Member:: "Wrestling".


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: The word wrestling has been used. It might be noted that when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) attempted to introduce some budgetary improvements, it was necessary to wrestle the Tory party to the ground. This proved to be a relatively easy task. Nonetheless, it was a time consuming job though, fortunately, it resulted in a stable government, one of which Canadians can be proud. I was greatly encouraged by the speech of the Minister of Finance.
I was greatly encouraged by the message in the speech of the Minister of Finance. I found it to be realistic, sound, sober, dealing with the problem, not offering any pat or magical solution, and taking note of the great suffering that a number of Canadians are enduring. People talk readily and easily about citizens on fixed incomes being the victims, but too often we pass quickly over this and fail really to consider what is meant by that phrase.
I was reading in the September 28 issue of the London Economist a paragraph that perhaps described the problem which in Britain is more severe but which cannot be overlooked as being akin to the problem we face here. The paragraph reads as follows:
Although the society appears more concerned than before to look after the old and the unfortunate, which is only partly a reflection of the improved political strength of the pensioners, much of the older generation's sense of independence is being eaten away. The virtue of thrift is disregarded in the general compulsion to spend, the rewards of such
The Address-Mr. Abbott
savings as contributory pensions schemes are being wiped out in the inflation, so that men who retired only three or four years ago with pensions to keep their wives and themselves in modest comfort are now dependent on the charity of their old firms-if those firms are still making profits.
The Minister of Finance has stated what surely any sensible person in this House will recognize if he only reads his daily newspaper, that the fires of inflation are burning everywhere in the world, particularly in the western industrial world; and, if anything, they are burning with less severity in this country than in almost any other country in the western world.
The minister further indicated that this was no matter for comfort or tranquility. He has recognized the problem but said that despite all the world's economists being gathered, under the best possible auspices, no ready solution has been prescribed for treatment.
The President of the United States in his message dealt with the problem in a fashion that I think was responsible. It approached the situation with a number of formulas. Many have already been tried in this country and found to be helpful. He did not indulge in overkill, as the minister stated, and he certainly did not engage in a renewal of the bankrupt policies of wage and price controls which were so favoured by hon. gentlemen opposite.
I have been reading a book called "The Edwardian Era" by Andre Maurois, and one paragraph describing Arthur Balfour could perhaps be applied to the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield). It need not be added that Mr. Balfour was a very considerable figure in British public life as the Leader of the Opposition is here, and I hope this mildly critical passage has enough complimentary things to say. However, I felt it was curiously apt for the situation that we have seen in the last few months of offering a policy of incomes control to the Canadian people, notwithstanding that it was tried and found to be a failure elsewhere. Perhaps it is not as apt as it seems to me to be, but the paragraph reads as follows:
Like Lord Salisbury, he was frankly conservative because he was gently pessimistic. He considered that a wise man contented himself by a gradual solving of the problems of his generation, with prudence and proportion, and always mindful of his own feeble powers of foresight and of the narrow limits of his field of action. He also believed that there were advantages in doing a stupid thing which had been done before, rather than a wise thing which had never been done. And that is the quintessence of conservatism.
If that is the quintessence of conservatism, I suggest that the Canadian people recognized that spectre and decided that they should return to a strong majority government, and I am proud to be on this side of the House supporting that government.
I am also glad that the Minister of Finance has promised that the government will reduce spending wherever possible, because I believe that government spending in excess is one of the great contributors to inflation. Government spending is not confined to the federal government; the provincial governments of this country have been spending with an open hand, at a rate far exceeding that of the federal government, especially the province of Ontario.
With regard to who is to blame for inflation, government must certainly take its share. Members of the government cannot turn to the business community and assert that they are chiefly responsible for inflation by

October 11, 1974
The Address-Mr. Mazankowski
profiteering, because the facts would indicate otherwise. Smaller and medium sized businesses in this country face very severe problems in terms of maintaining themselves. It is difficult to found a business. Extremely high labour costs and high taxation make entrepreneurship a far less welcome prospect than perhaps going to work for government. I think the government's program to attack this problem is very laudable.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I was further heartened by the promise in the throne speech that the government was going to address itself to parliamentary reform, about which the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) spoke today. Needless to say, it is a presumption for a new member to rise and start pointing out defects in rules with which he has not yet become familiar, indicating that there should be improvements made. However, I think, like many Canadians who have read their newspapers, or seen parliament in action, that there is an unquestioned assumption that parliament can improve its performance. I hope I am not overstating the case.
It is not simply a matter of parliament improving its rules and so enjoying the comfortable knowledge that it is being more effective and efficient. The real point of it is that if parliament, in what may be difficult economic days ahead, falls into disrepute, if it becomes an object of contempt on the part of the general public, then the consequence will be that all our institutions of government, our courts and our systems of administration, will be also cast into disrepute. At a time when we want Canadians to be conscious of the dignity and strength of their governmental system we must strengthen our own parliamentary system so as to enjoy that confidence better.
Again, Mr. Speaker, may I thank Your Honour and the House for their indulgence, and I look forward, with my fellow members on this side and elsewhere, to the coming parliament.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, may I say at the outset how very pleased I am to have the privilege of following the hon. member for Mississauga (Mr. Abbott) and I commend him for what I consider a very excellent speech. It is a tribute to the people of Mississauga who have successively sent very capable representatives to this chamber. I refer as well to my good friend and colleague, Mr. Blenkarn, whom, I am sure, the hon. member knows very well and with whom perhaps he had some very interesting experiences in the course of the last few months. While I may not agree with the hon. member's analysis of the throne speech and some other of the analyses he put before the chamber, I do want to say that his speech was enjoyed by members on this side and we certainly look forward to his participation in our future deliberations.
I want also to join with the many other hon. members of the House in paying tribute to Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Jerome), who has been elevated to the Chair. I know that the hon. member for Sudbury, who is now the Speaker of this august Chamber, will discharge his responsibilities in a very distinguished fashion, and will not only bring honour to his friends and colleagues here, but indeed honour to his constituents and his family. It is a special honour for me to be one of those

members of the class of 1968 who came to this House at the same time as Mr. Speaker. It is a tribute to him that, within such a short period of time, he has been able with his capacity, knowledge and legal experience to assume this very distinguished position.
Let me also extend my congratulations to those other members of the House who have been elevated to important positions; the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, the Deputy Chairman who is the hon. member for Thunder Bay (Mr. Penner), and my very good friend the Assistant Deputy Chairman, the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Morin).
As I said at the outset, I certainly do not share the same feeling about the Speech from the Throne as expressed by the hon. member for Mississauga (Mr. Abbott). In fact, I find the speech less than comforting. I find it to be somewhat distressing in that it offers no clear direction for the future of Canada's economy.
Moreover, the speech delivered by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), to which I listened intently and read very carefully, offers very little hope in the enunciation of a clear economic direction for this country.
Given these circumstances, with the philosophic rhetoric we were exposed to, we on this side of the House are lead at least to presume that we can only anticipate more of the same kind of economic mismanagement we have experienced under this government, and which has been its pattern since assuming office in 1968.
All I can say as far as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) is concerned is that he is merely travelling about the country and the world attempting to seek out some kind of national or international consensus of economic matters. Certainly that is not the kind of leadership one would expect from a majority government, and certainly not from a party which supposedly placed before the Canadian people all the answers and solutions to our economic ills. We now see the Liberal party, having been delivered a mandate by the Canadian people, slipping back into a state of suspended animation. In that respect we need simply review the record to put things in perspective.
In 1968 when this government took over, inflation was running at 3.2 per cent. Today it is running at 11 per cent, and for the last quarter it was running at 1414 per cent. We are now experiencing a zero rate of growth, a situation known as stagflation. We have the prospect of higher unemployment. As a matter of fact the forecast for 1975 shows unemployment running in the vicinity of 7 per cent.
We have an accumulated budget deficit that has totalled $2.3 billion since this government assumed office. We have government spending more than doubled, and a public service that has increased from 369,000 in 1968 to 434,000 at this point in time, an increase of something in the order of 65,000. We have a money supply that has been doubled without a commensurate increase in productivity, and a cost of living which has increased by more than 40 per cent since the government took over. I would ask the government through you, Mr. Speaker, are we to continue on this path which has produced a record of dismal economic failure, incompetence and ineptitude?
October 11, 1974

It is unfortunate that this country and this government have missed a golden opportunity to show the world that we can deal effectively with problems of inflation. The government should be doing a much better job because it does not have the same irritants that have faced other nations of the world. For example, it has not been faced with an energy crisis to the same extent as that which has faced the United States, the United Kingdom and Japan. This country has not had to fight a war in Viet Nam as did the United States, and we have not experienced a Watergate fiasco. In spite of the lack of these irritants which have faced some of the other nations of the world we constantly hear from the government the suggestion that Canada is doing as well or better than other nations. I suggest we should be doing much better.
The United States administration has just enunciated eight different points in the fight to overcome its inflationary dilemma. More than half of the factors contributing to United States inflation do not affect Canada, so the government is misleading the public when it blames inflation on an international phenomenon. Such an approach is nonsensical and, I suggest, dangerous. It is not good enough to take comfort in the fact that we are better off than the United States, Japan or the United Kingdom. The failure of the government to deal effectively with inflation constitutes a major threat to the economic and social fabric of this nation.
Inflation affects everyone. Some can live with it, some can recover their losses, but some just cannot overcome the difficulties, particularly those who are unionized, the pensioners, the veterans, small businessmen and young couples. They are not able to overcome the impacts of inflation.
I should also refer to the farmers who are faced with increased input costs of the order of 20 per cent. It is true that food costs to the consumer have increased appreciably over the last few years, but the farmers' share has been constantly declining. Their share of the food dollar is now about 36 per cent, with the other 64 per cent taken up by marketing, processing and transportation.
We all know the experience of the livestock industry. The industry has never been in a more urgent state of turmoil than it is in Canada today. We are experiencing what is in fact a war with the United States in the movement of cattle across our borders. We all know the serious position the cow-calf operator finds himself in. This segment of the industry is fundamental to the survival of the beef industry.
We know the record of the government in its mishandling of the beef industry, with export restrictions and ill-conceived management of subsidies. We know of the manipulations and the interferences by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and the government in respect of the beef industry. If there has ever been a body that has harmed the beef industry of this country, surely it is this government.
The government has destroyed confidence in this industry. Yesterday the Minister of Agriculture admitted in the House that he knew nothing about beef. He said he had never raised a beef cow in 20 years. It is obvious from the manner in which he has handled the beef industry that he has rarely seen a cow, let alone a bull.
The Address-Mr. Mazankowski
Considering the depressing prices of beef to the producer one must ask oneself why the price to the consumer continues to stay at such a high level? Perhaps it is time that Mrs. Beryl Plumptre made a report on this situation. It is certainly time that the government brought some stability and assurance to the beef industry. We do not need another marketing board; what we need is something now to help the cow-calf entrepreneur.
Several proposals have been advanced. The governments of the provinces have indeed advanced proposals which would be of assistance in respect of the cow-calf operations. I ask the Minister of Agriculture to tell the Canadian people and this House what he intends to do about cow-calf operations in this country. I ask him also for leadership in the matter of the movement of grain and in respect of labour disputes. Where is the leadership? Where was he when demurrage costs were piling up? Where was he when demurrage costs were piling up? There was a burden to the farmers during the railway strike. This amounted to $10 million. Then another $10 million was involved in respect of the grain strike on the west coast and on the Great Lakes.
Where was the Minister of Agriculture during these situations? He does not speak on behalf of the farmers. He acquiesces with the minister responsible for the Wheat Board. We have had the inflationary settlements of 65 per cent in respect of the Great Lakes, and 61 per cent in respect of the grain handling industry.
I am wondering what the policy of the government is in this regard because the other day the Minister of Finance suggested we should be careful because, in fact, there is a danger that settlements might go beyond that which is necessary to catch up with rising living costs. Wage increases over the next three years, according to projections about the rate of inflation, could ensure that there will be inflation in perpetuity.
If 61 per cent and 65 per cent are not inflationary, and do not accelerate inflation, I do not know what they are. We do not have a policy from this government containing any guidelines. Therefore we find ourselves in a situation where inflation will indeed get worse based upon the pattern set by this government.
So far as I am concerned the Minister of Agriculture has failed to defend the interests of the farmers of this country. He is submitting to his colleagues, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang). His speech in this House reflected that.
As a matter of fact it seemed as if the Minister of Agriculture has been pleading for some mercy. If the minister cannot stand the heat he should get out of the kitchen. I represent a large segment of agriculture in the country, as well as in my own constituency, and I shall not fall for his superficial humility. In my opinion agriculture, like the transportation system, is in the biggest mess it has been for a period of 20 years. I mentioned demurrage costs.
I want to repeat that the Minister of Agriculture should be making representations to the Prime Minister and his other colleagues in the cabinet to the effect that they should defray at least a portion of those costs which have

October 11, 1974
The Address-Mr. Mazankowski
been incurred through no fault of the farmer. These costs have accumulated to the point that they represent millions and millions of dollars.
Then we come to the question of agricultural input. What has the Minister of Agriculture done in respect of maintaining the price of fertilizer and chemicals, which have doubled in price in the last year, or what has he done in respect of the price of steel which has increased 50 per cent in the last 12 months, or the price of twine which has increased four times?
What has the minister done about the availability of these products? It is bad enough that the price has increased, but many of these products are not available to the producer. Prices become secondary when availability is not there. Perhaps some form of a prices review board should monitor the effects of the pricing policies of these various corporations. Yes, Canada's number one industry, agriculture, is indeed in a mess. The egg situation is merely part of the over-all problem as a result of the philosophy of this government which still patterns its policies after the Task Force on Agriculture.
The government is still following the general policy of its marketing bill, Bill C-176, or programs such as Operation LIFT, supply management, and things of that nature. We now hear from the Minister of Finance that agriculture is to be expanded. Ever since the government has taken office it has been attempting to contract agricultural production. Its flip-flop policy has cost the farmers millions and millions of dollars. This is the type of leadership which leads agriculture down the drain, and leads individual farmers to financial ruin.
I now should like to turn to the matter of transportation. It is still a mess. It has not changed one iota since the last session. The government had an election platform which now has been abandoned. I find it appalling that some of the exotic and very aggressive proposals that were advanced during the election campaign have now casually been cast aside. These were proposals conceived in desperation, I suggest.
This situation has been known in this House for many years, but it has been more serious during the time we had the previous minority government. The fact is that we still have discriminatory freight rates. Nothing is being done about that. My party during the election campaign advanced a policy in this regard which we were prepared to adopt had we taken office.
We all know that the trackage and roadbeds in this country require upgrading. There is need for improvement in respect of the safety of our railroad lines. The other day the President of the CNR indicated that we require an expenditure of something in the order of $5 billion to improve our trackage and roadbeds. Does the government intend to do anything about this? The government must provide some of these answers and take action. The President of the CNR in a speech in Montreal the other day said:
We are beginning to reach the capacity of our rail network and unless we begin immediately on large-scale programs of doubling our main lines in many parts of Canada and increasing the capacity of our yards we will not be able to maintain the level of service we are providing now. This is one of the biggest problems facing the future of transportation in Canada.

There are problems. We haven't had solutions. What we require is action. The Canadian Transport Commission and the National Transportation Act need restructuring. Appeal procedures must be changed. The thrust for economic development must be enshrined within the National Transportation Act. Let us see some action now from this government in this regard.
Then there is the question of branch line abandonment. Branch line abandonment is frozen until the end of 1974. What is the future policy of the government in this regard? This government, which has had a mandate since July 8, still has not made an enunciation of policy.
What is to happen in respect of the freeze on freight rates which is to expire by the end of December 1974? What is the situation for the future in respect of the Crowsnest Pass freight rates? Does the government intend to abandon the Crowsnest Pass freight rates? What is government policy in this regard? The producers of this country must have answers to these questions.
What is to be done about the Port of Vancouver? And what is to be done in respect of improved grain handling facilities to which I referred in the question period today? A commitment was made in the Speech from the Throne that steps would be taken to facilitate the movement of grain this winter. To date we have had no answer action in this regard.
Any time the government finds itself in difficulty it speaks of nationalization. Now it is speaking of the nationalization of the grain handling companies, the co-operatives, the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, the Manitoba Wheat Pool, the Alberta Wheat Pool and the United Grain Growers. These grain handling companies are owned by the farmers of Canada. Because there have been some difficulties in respect of labour-management relations members of the cabinet suggest that the grain handling companies should be nationalized. What is the policy of the government in this regard?
What is to happen in respect of the third air carrier policy? We heard much talk about this during the election campaign. As yet we have not had an enunciation of policy. What about air navigation in the north? We know that air navigation facilities in the north are far from adequate. We have lost too many lives and too much property has been destroyed for us to go along with this inaction of the government.
It is time that we got down to specifics. The government has a majority. It has a mandate from the Canadian people to carry out some of the lofty proposals which it made during the election campaign. Let it get on with the job.
There have been many studies carried out with regard to transportation, particularly in the last 18 months. I should like to remind hon. members that it was this government that allowed railway services to deteriorate. It was this government that failed to provide effective and adequate leadership in transportation policy which is so vital to the economic and social wellbeing of this country. It was this government that created the National Transportation Act which the minister now suggests is ineffective. It was this government which acquiesced in the downgrading and eventual removal of many railway passenger services.
October 11, 1974

It was this government that discouraged commuter lines, this government that did not accept the recommendation of an all party committee to re-establish railroad transportation in south western Ontario. The mess in transportation is this government's mess. We on this side of the House have just about had enough of the slick talk, the flippancy and the evasiveness that we have read from the Minister of Transport. It is time that we received a realistic answer from him. It is time that the minister took his portfolio more seriously.
I say the same thing to the Minister of Agriculture, and for good measure I will throw in the Minister of Justice. All three of these ministers have tremendous responsibilities.


An hon. Member:: And tremendous weight.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Those are important and vital fields, but I do not believe these gentlemen are treating their portfolios with the seriousness that is demanded. I urge them to discard their lackadaisical attitude and take a firm hold of their portfolios.
I want to deal briefly with some comments that were made by the Prime Minister in his speech. I think it can be said that he successfully engaged in a ploy to sidestep the real issues facing the country by talking about such things as parliamentary reform, the question period, electronic voting, television in the House, and constitutional reform. While these subjects may be important I do not believe they merit the same attention as some of the urgent social and economic needs of this country. Surely at a time such as this when we have gone through an election, during which the Prime Minister waged a vigorous campaign on the important issues faced by the country, and after experiencing a void of three months, we should have something more positive from him than we did.
The Prime Minister mentioned Bill 22. I want to touch on that matter briefly because I have been receiving a tremendous amount of mail from interested people across this country. I think the Prime Minister owes it to the House and the country to clarify his position more fully. It seems to me that the intent of Bill 22 is to provide a new approach to bilingualism.
Bill 22 as it affects the Official Languages Act is somewhat ambivalent. Under that legislation the application of bilingualism will vary from one province to the other. As the Prime Minister stated, as recorded at page 47 of Hansard:
This government will stand in opposition by all possible means to any legislative or other measures liable to restrict the use on the part of citizens of the official language of their choice.
We have a clear indication from many learned gentlemen, constitutional experts, senior political observers, and many Quebeckers, particularly those whose mother tongue is neither French nor English, that this bill constitutes an abridgement of the rights of minority groups in that they are not allowed to send their children to schools using the language of their choice. I think that that is a very important issue. Perhaps it is part of the whole government attitude toward the ethnic groups in this country. I think this was demonstrated today when the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) put his question regarding Valentyn Moroz. He made a serious request, one
The Address-Mr. Mazankowski that certainly could have been honoured by this government.
He simply asked that representatives of the Ukrainian-Canadian Committee and a qualified physician visit Mr. Valentyn Moroz to determine the state of his health. Surely this is not too much to ask for. The minister's reply was that the right hon. gentleman's request was irresponsible. I think this is an insult. It demonstrates the cavalier and contemptuous attitude of the government toward many ethnic minorities in this country. We also see the downgrading of multiculturalism in Canada in the fact that the minister who was in charge of that portfolio was fired and not replaced.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: We see it also in the discriminatory immigration laws according to which a central European, particularly one who is living behind the Iron Curtain, cannot legally immigrate to Canada.
I suggest that all these actions demonstrate the blatant contempt of the government for the many ethnic people of Ukrainian and Polish origin, and those from the Baltic countries, and I urge the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen), and the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras), to reassess their position in that regard because this country derived its greatness from the melting of many cultures, the result of which is a truly multicultural country.
The issue in Bill 22 in my opinion reopens a festering wound which could be avoided if the Prime Minister simply clarified the government's policy and followed the principles enshrined in the Official Languages Act. I think that if language is fundamental to the preservation of a culture, the restrictions placed upon English in the province of Quebec constitute a step toward the deliberate destruction of the English culture in Quebec. Bill 22 goes against the grain and spirit of the Official Languages Act as well as of the Bill of Rights, and the Prime Minister, as the leader of our nation the author of the legislation, should put forth his position more vigorously instead of stating his regrets about the bill.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Tell us about the situation of the French in Ontario. Do they have equal rights?


Jeanne Sauvé: I had to write my exams in English.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: We teach French in Alberta. The best we can say about the Prime Minister is that his position can only be described as one of partial acquiesence.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Do you have equal rights for the French language?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Yes we have but I do not want to fan the flames of emotion, Mr. Speaker. I am simply putting forth my personal views and they may not be the views of my party. I say this with a deep love of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

October 11, 1974
The Address-Mr. Goodale


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: The hon. member may continue, of course, if there is unanimous consent. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I want to thank hon. members for allowing me extra time. I shall only take two or three minutes.
I want to talk briefly about the Senate reform that was mentioned in the Prime Minister's speech, and to commend him for some of the proposals he advanced. In my opinion, however, the Prime Minister could be doing Canada a great service by moving to restrict the excessive political participation that some of our senior Senators engage in, particularly in the matter of holding office in their respective parties.
I will not mention any names but I think it is fairly well known that many notable Senators of the Liberal Party engage in vigorous political activity, particularly at election time. I think it is time for Senators to appear as servants of the Canadian people and not servants of the Liberal party. In my opinion the actions of certain notable Liberal Senators constitute a blatant interference with the process of legitimate parliamentary democracy. I would hope at least, even if it is not legislated, that some hon. Senators would think twice before engaging in this sort of activity. Such actions downgrade the performance of the Senate and downgrade the performance of its individual members.
Surely the time has come when we should consider necessary parliamentary reforms. The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) in his speech described at great length what he though was necessary to accomplish this. If we are to appear credible to the Canadian people, and if this institution is to appear credible, surely steps could be taken to restrict such blatant abuse as we witnessed on the part of some members of the Senate.


Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Assiniboia):: As I begin my brief remarks today I want to extend, as have other members of this House, my congratulations to Mr. Speaker, and those associated with him, on their appointment to office. I am sure it is a great tribute to his electors and to his great abilities that he has been elected to that high office. I know we all wish him well and are confident of his ability to discharge his responsibilities to this House.
When I spoke earlier this week about the urgent problem of the grain handling situation in Vancouver I was a bit preoccupied with that situation and did not have a chance to extend my congratulations. On that topic I am indeed pleased that parliament moved expeditiously to end the tieup at Vancouver. It was a demonstration of this parliament dealing with a situation as speedily as possible. I must admit that in the early stages I was just a little concerned about the possibility of delay through filibuster or some other tactic, but fortunately that did not happen and I think members of this House are to be congratulated.

Particularly, Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank and congratulate the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro), his parliamentary secretary, and also the government House Leader for the leadership they showed as the legislation moved through the House and in committee. I think enough has been said for the time being on that topic. The grain is beginning to move again and that is good news for all Canadians, especially western farmers.
To all members of this chamber, Mr. Speaker, veterans and freshmen, I want to extend best wishes and congratulations on behalf of Assiniboia constituency. I know the people of my riding are looking forward to a busy and productive parliament.
I do not think I have to provide too much background to this House on the historic constituency of Assiniboia. In almost every parliament it has been a highly visible riding. It has a tradition of vigorous representation and, if I may beg the indulgence of the House, I should like to name some of those who have occupied this seat in this House. There were names like Ross Thatcher, Hazen Argue and, as he is still known in Saskatchewan, Tommy Douglas. They are still a part of that vigorous tradition. Traditionally Assiniboia has not been what one would describe as inconspicuous in this House, and I hope that tradition will continue in some measure at least.
I should like to make special reference in this Throne Speech debate to one particular former member for Assiniboia. He was a very special man and I think he especially deserved the designation "honourable member". He was a tireless worker dedicated to his constituents. He was well spoken and and when he spoke people listened because they knew what was being said had significance. I am sure many members here today, especially those of the class of '68, recall with a keen sense of pride Mr. A. B. Douglas who served Assiniboia so well from 1968 until his untimely passing in 1971.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Douglas was indeed a great Canadian and it is a privilege for me to follow him in this place. I suppose it was Ab Douglas more than any other person who demonstrated to me very graphically that this place can work and does work to meet the aspirations of Canadians; that things can be achieved here, and that a member of this House can with success strive toward a better way of life for the people he represents. It was that lesson, and more particularly the example of Ab Douglas, which helped persuade me eventually to get into this business in a full time way myself.
As a new member from western Canada on the government side of the House, Mr. Speaker, I would like to devote most of my time in this Throne Speech debate to a few thoughts about the role which western Canadians are playing in our great confederation, and about the legitimate aspirations which they have-I may say "which we have"-for the future.
It is necessary first of all to look back 100 years or more to the 1860s and 1870s, that bold and early period of nation building. The government of the day devised a total economic scheme to assist in the development of the country in that early period. Sir John A. Macdonald called it his national policy. It included agricultural and industrial
October 11, 1974

strategies, a tariff structure, the building of a railroad, a system of freight rates and an immigration policy all designed to achieve one end, that of strengthening the fledgling economy of the new country. Central Canada was the core-the core of population and the core of industrial and economic development. The west was seen primarily as a vast storehouse of resources and quite literally the people there were intended to be hewers of wood and drawers of water.
As it was introduced to the House of Commons in the throne speech of 1879, the original national policy consisted of a new and extensive system of tariff protection intended to promote domestic industries and agriculture. It was coupled with plans to press forward with the construction of the transcontinental Pacific Railway, and with the promotion of new settlement in the great northwest.
The basic idea was that the tariffs would create a national market and that the railway would serve that market from coast to coast. The railway was to carry new settlers to farms in the west, and in turn to transport the new farmers' agricultural produce to the east.
Thanks to the tariffs, industry was to flourish in central Canada. That industry was to supply the western demand for manufactured goods, while providing a large urban market for western produce.
Certainly under this arrangement the west was designed to be, in fact, a hinterland-a storehouse of primary resources to be utilized as required by the flourishing industrial east.
The government of the day repeatedly referred to western Canada as its "great empire"-famous and useful for its rich soil, boundless resources and salubrious climate.
That policy, begun in 1879, has been followed for 100 years, until recently. Despite party affiliation, successive governments down through the years have followed it. By and large it remained unaltered. Nobody tried to amend it until our present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) made his attempt to alter it in 1973. You could say that attempt was long overdue. Indeed, it was. I am proud that it was the Prime Minister who is leader of my party who made that decision and took the initiative.
In the summer of 1973 there was convened the Western Economic Opportunities Conference in Calgary, a major historical event for the west and all Canada. For the first time in this country's history a national leader devoted the entire resources of the country to solving the particular and peculiar problems of one region. For the first time in our history there was provision for a full examination of what was wrong and lying at the root of western discontent or, as some call it, western alienation.
For the first time a national forum was established in which the government could study the problem with the political leaders of western Canada. For the first time we were given a commitment from the Prime Minister of Canada that the economic arrangement of things would change. The topics discussed are well known. They included agricultural policy, transportation, financial institutions subject to regional sensitivity, regional industry,
The Address-Mr. Goodale
growth built on the vast storehouse of natural resources in western Canada, and decentralization of industrial and government operations. As the Prime Minister said, never before have the resources of this country been dedicated, outside of wartime, to a single project like this. Work was done on these topics before the western conference took place. They were discussed at the conference, and work in this area has continued since then.
I know western Canadians are, as I am, impatient for greater changes to come about. We are anxious to see the initiatives begun during the western conference go forward. We are realistic enough to understand that we are dealing with a situation in this country which has persisted for over 100 years and we are not likely to turn the world on its head overnight, or even in a few years. Yet the first steps have been taken, commitments have been made and I am confident that, under its present leadership, the government will honour those commitments. Good progress has been made in the initial stages of carrying out the commitment. There is lots of work ahead and we are all anxious to get on with it.
We need, more than anything, good will and an honest, frank effort on all sides. I am referring to the way in which this country is organized. To overcome our difficulties will require good and honest effort. I ask opposition members of the House to make a special effort and offer constructive assistance, so that work following the initiatives of the western conference may reach fruition, and so that our legitimate aspirations, as raised at the conference, may be realized. I am asking opposition members to depart from patterns of the past. I hope I do not sound critical or negative.
We can attack and change two difficulties whose roots are in the past. First, a great many members from western Canada sit on the opposition side. The situation was somewhat altered in the last election; none the less, to a certain extent it continues as before.
The function of the opposition is to oppose. The difficulty is that Canadian people watching this chamber or listening to press reports of its debates-indeed, this applies to members of the press gallery who report our proceedings-may be under the impression that western Canadians are negative and critical. Such an impression does not advance our cause, especially if we want it to be known that something is wrong and needs changing. If change is to come we must have the co-operation and active assistance of people in all parts of this country. They may not be favourably disposed to offer that assistance if they constantly see western Canadians carping, offering negative criticism and, if I may say so, frequent cheap shots.
To give a specific example, Mr. Speaker, we have seen much press criticism of transportation. The government is blamed as much for snowfall in the Rockies as for problems relating to freight rates. Members can criticize freight rates legitimately, but there is not a heck of a lot the government can do about snowfall in the Rockies. Yet the people of Canada hear criticism offered under these two heads with equal vigour. The impression of the people may be that it is difficult to raise legitimate questions about legitimate grievances, and there are some.


Mr. Paproski:: There are quite a few in Alberta.

October 11, 1974
The Address-Mr. Goodale


Ralph Goodale: Indeed, there are. If we enlist the co-operation of all Canadians in solving our problems we may succeed. But we will not gain their co-operation if we fail to explain our problems.


An hon. Member:: You don't understand what you are saying.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, if hon. members criticize the government as severely for snowfall as they do for our freight rate structure the government may move more quickly with regard to the snow problem but this, I suggest, would not be of much advantage to western Canada.


An hon. Member:: Have you mentioned your ideas to the minister?


Ralph Goodale: I have, indeed, and I found him very receptive. If we want the rest of Canada to understand us, let us try to be constructive and positive in the ideas we put forward, and not always display attitudes which are negative or critical. Western Canadians are not negative and critical by nature, but constructive and positive. They want to build this country and be part of it.
I want to talk now about the opposition's attitude to this question of "selling the case". Again, it has to do with getting the co-operation of our fellow Canadians. To whom should we be selling our case? Since the benches opposite contain a goodly representation from western Canada, the opposition could be very much of assistance. Do we need to sell it in Manitoba, or in Saskatchewan, or in Alberta, or in British Columbia? I suggest not. The selling job, the information job, the arguments, have to be presented in Ontario, in Quebec and in the maritimes because these are the provinces we are asking for co-operation.
Where have most of the speeches made by the western members of the opposition been delivered in the last few years? Had a tally been kept I suggest it would be clear from an examination of the record that most of the speeches were made in western Canada. Madam Speaker, we in western Canada know what the problems are. There is no need for us to hear an explanation. The efforts of honourable members opposite would be more profitably spent if they were to devote their time informing the people of eastern Canada, and the rest of the country, why we need those adjustments in freight rates, why we need a better balance of industrial distribution, why we need regionally-sensitive financial institutions.
When we mr.ke this case to our fellow Canadians, and make it clearly, they are prepared to act. I ask the opposition to assist me, because I propose to take up that task. It is important for Assiniboia, and I hope to get the co-operation of my fellow members opposite, especially those who come from western Canada, in explaining our case to the rest of the country, because they will not understand that case until they know what it is.
I ask the opposition to take part in this new approach, because the government of which I am proud to be a supporter is determined to strive toward the achievement of a new role for western Canada-it really amounts to a

new national policy-to see that we come close to meeting the needs and legitimate aspirations raised at the Western Economic Opportunities Conference.
The government, as I have said, is determined to succeed. Why? It is because the government, under the present Prime Minister has recognized more clearly than any other administration in Canada's history that strong, full and fair participation from each region of the country makes confederation strong, and makes Canada a better place in which to live.
I invite hon. members opposite to share that eventual success, because the effort will, indeed, be successful. Having seen the government in action during and since the Western Economic Opportunities Conference, and having been associated with some of the work which has gone on, I may say there is one thing which perhaps more than any other helped me make up my mind to run in the last election and become a supporter of the government. I believe it has been demonstrated that it is not a matter of sheer numbers or political power that guides the decisions this government makes.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Ralph Goodale: I have found-and this is demonstrated in the case of western Canada-that it is a matter of Canadians putting their ideas together reasonably and fairly. These adverbs are, perhaps, difficult for the opposition to keep in mind. Nevertheless, as I say, it involves Canadians putting their ideas together reasonably and presenting a case fairly to the government. The government, for its part, has demonstrated a willingness to listen whenever a case is made both fairly and reasonably, and a willingness to-


John Douglas Reynolds: To study the question.


Ralph Goodale: -to take action to solve the problems. I submit that since action is to be forthcoming we need not be negative, carping or critical, but rather emphasize the positive and the constructive, and the opposition can contribute greatly to that job if they choose to do so.


John Douglas Reynolds: We shall study it.


Ralph Goodale: Go right ahead. You will be where you are for many years to come.
I wish to conclude by saying to the House that I expect results from this parliament. I am very optimistic about what can be achieved here if we approach our task in a spirit of co-operation, and I believe that western Canada particularly can look forward to productive action in the years ahead.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, it might seem rather strange to you, who so gracefully graces the chair, but though I have been in this chamber many times before, this is my first speech in a debate in reply to a Speech from the Throne. I don't intend to ask that the House extend to me the generosity it usually affords other uninitiated members of this chamber, for some of the matters I intend to raise may provide the odd reply or two. If they do, that is just part of the stimulation or purpose of this chamber.
October 11, 1974


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: At the outset, as others before me have done, I sincerely want to congratulate one of our own on his elevation to the Chair. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has recognized the work he has done in this chamber in the past, and also-and I think this is more important-the potential he has for the future in this chamber. The position held by the Speaker is one of great importance to the proper functioning of this institution. There has to be balance and impartiality from the Chair because without it the House would soon get out of tune, and from the discord of debate, chaos and confusion would result. Further, if the chamber were allowed to get out of tune too much it would lose touch with the people and with the reality of this land.
I also wish to congratulate the mover (Mr. Duclos) and the seconder (Mr. Lee) of the Address in Reply. They are two new members who certainly acquitted themselves well and showed great promise for the future. In congratulating them, I am sure that I and other members are really congratulating all the new members who are contributing to this debate.
I think it can be fairly said from the speeches we have heard in the last few days that all the new members-the new class of '74 on both sides of the House-have acquitted themselves well and in a most constructive way. This not only augurs well for their own political future, but it augurs well for the future of this chamber. They displayed a delightful blend of idealism mixed with political reality.
This necessary mixture after every election, infusing those who have been here before with the idealism of newcomers, gives us the potential for some of the juice that is necessary to give balance and new vitality to this time-weathered legislative institution.
Who knows, Madam Speaker-their energy and enthusiasm may even give new direction and relevance to this place. Let us not kid ourselves; we can do with a few changes around here. I was hoping for some more fundamental changes than occurred as a result of the July 8 election, but we live with the verdict of the people. Certainly I predict that after four years in this thirtieth parliament-and I also feel that since July 8 the same can be said-a lot more people in Canada will be wishing there had been a more fundamental change on July 8, and that the government opposite-not hon. members opposite but the government-which is so encrusted with the status quo and inhibited with graduates from the public service who have entered the ministerial ranks, had the potential, imagination and initiative to help resolve some of the fundamental problems facing the country. I predict that before the thirtieth parliament is over many more Canadians will wistfully yearn in retrospect that the change had been more fundamental.
Leaving aside the basic issue of which government is in and which government is out, I could almost put myself in the shoes of a new member. There are a few trappings around here in the pomp and circumstance that initiate a parliament that I think should be changed, and that are long overdue for change. Such a change would not sub-
The Address-Mr. Nowlan
stantially affect the deliberations of this House, but could go a long way toward bringing a tone and temper to this place.
There are pundits in the gallery, and sage philosophers across the land who come and look down on this chamber, write screeds upon screeds and reams upon reams of rhetoric about some of the inconsistencies, irrationalities and irrelevancies of this place. I must admit to those who have finally made it here, seeing it from the floor of the House and not from the gallery, that some of their perspectives might be emancipated.
Be that as it may, a throne speech debate after an election is for eight days an interesting time for all of us. The new members mix and meet with old members and with the officers of the House, and we all hear the different viewpoints of members on all sides of this institution. This institution is the personification of this land. It is the only institution wherein at one time you can say, in an allegorical way, that this country has a heart consisting of 264 vessels and with all the imperfections of any heart- with I suppose a little scar tissue around somewhere, and perhaps a little blockage of the arteries and veins. Nevertheless, this is one place where the representatives of the people can meet.
I think it is very necessary that we go through this so-called baptism of members, who sit here listening to others and begin to appreciate that there are obvious differences of opinion. Even though we do have the odd catcall from side to side those differences of opinion are based on a sincere belief that a particular point of view is perhaps a little better in resolving a problem than another point of view.
All of us are here to try to resolve in a collective way some of the basic issues confronting this land. I think it takes eight days for us to put our feet in the water before we start to swim along the channel of this thirtieth parliament in which we will all be working and fighting together over the next three, four or five years. An eight day throne speech after an election is a necessary and interesting vehicle that enables us to understand each other.
I must say I do question in terms of procedures whether it is necessary to have a speech from the Throne between sessions during the life of a parliament, when we have all got to know each other, when the issues are lined up and when we have started to debate legislation. In the last parliament I think there was a curtailment of that debate because there was not the necessity to explore and try to get the tone and temper of the land by listening to speeches in this chamber.
I should now like to come to a few oddities that, frankly, have always amazed me. We can begin by looking at some of the pomp and circumstance of this place. Some of this pomp and circumstance is based on the reality of history. For example, we see the Speaker designate dragged from the back benches by the Prime Minister, who puts his arm through the Speaker's arm and drags him, protesting, to the Chair. When I first came here I thought that was rather ridiculous, and did not appreciate it until recently. This whole performance goes right back to the days when the King used to chop off the head of the Speaker if he did not agree with him, he being the spokesman for the commoners of the land.

October 11, 1974
The Address-Mr. Nowlan
Then there are other forms and trappings which to me, Madam Speaker, have developed a sterility of ritual, where the conditioned response replaces any thought or reason. One is that which begins the proceedings of this House. I refer to the convoluted prayer which daily begins our proceedings and, in its attempt to cover all, as far as I am concerned, stimulates few, if any. I wonder whether a simple moment of silence for others, or a simple prayer for Canada, would not be more appropriate than the present litany that we "listen to" with our ears closed.
We then have the performance given by Black Rod. He has to knock to come in, because the last King that walked into a Commons chamber lost his head. I think the representative of the King-which in effect he is-should knock. I must say in times gone by I have watched the procession from the door to the Chair with the "Black Rod tango" of seven steps and a bow, seven steps and a bow. I find that difficult to rationalize.
Frankly, I think this business that we go through of receiving a message from the Governor General signed by his own hand, as a result of which we all jump up like puppets, like marionettes, is unnecessary. I suppose there is reason for it. I suppose it is respect for the sovereign, who is the soul of the land. We are the heart of the land. Perhaps there is some other force that goes on in perpetuity. We do not; we come and go with elections, but the sovereign of the land does not. I know other members make the odd grimace when we receive a message signed in the Governor General's own hand and we all have to stand and go through this little ritual.
These are a few of the things that have assaulted my sensibilities, and I think at times the sensibilities of others too. This sort of thing makes me really question how relevant it is today. If we have this kind of blind vision on some of the little things, we require tunnel vision on some of the big things.
Obviously, Madam Speaker, I want to talk about the Speech from the Throne and to make reference to a few things referred to by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). I only wish the Prime Minister had had the intestinal fortitude to say on the campaign trail what, in effect, he said in this House in his one hour and 20 minute speech. I suppose from his point of view it was one of his more interesting speeches, certainly one of the most interesting speeches I have heard him give in this House.
I find it insulting to the nth degree that having fought an election campaign during which the economy was an issue-and this is something that affects all Canadians regardless of their station in life-the Prime Minister mentioned the word "inflation" only once during his speech. I think that is borne out by the record.
I think the Prime Minister's speech was more interesting in respect of what was left out than what it contained. In any event let us start with what he did say, because I want to cover this matter and deal with some of the problems facing the Department of Transport and Communications. If I have time I should also like to describe the virtues and the beauties of the riding I have the great privilege to represent.

In the eyes of even those hon. members from other parts of the country, the Annapolis Valley is the most beautiful riding in Canada. Every member expresses a similar view about his own riding, but I assure you that I felt that way about the Annapolis Valley before becoming a member of this House, and I will feel the same way long after I have left. To anyone who has travelled in the east I am sure that the Annapolis Valley, whether it be in the spring, summer, winter or fall, is beautiful to the eye. The people there are most intelligent and some of the most emancipated in this country.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: You've only got two hours!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: My leader says I am limited to two hours so I had better get on with my remarks and leave that until later. Let me refer to some of the things the Prime Minister said in his speech on the Address in Reply. I have listened to other speeches he has made during throne speech debates in the past, and I remember particularly his speech in 1968.
The Prime Minister talked about reform of the rules of this House. That is a popular phrase among laymen one meets around the House. Of course there has to be reform. If we do not maintain reform of our own rules and procedures as an ongoing process, making things more relevant, we are not doing our duty. I commend the Prime Minister for focussing some attention on this matter.
I was here in 1969 following the election of another majority parliament in 1968. The present Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) was then the House leader. He was popularly known then as "Thumper", probably because he went around trying to thump members of the opposition into accepting rule changes. Those rule changes resulted in a very acrimonious debate, particularly in respect of Rule 75A, 75B and 75C. Those members who were here then will remember that we fought against those rules long into the summer because we felt this was not reform but de-form of the House of Commons. We felt that the proposed rules would emasculate this place and that members would become political eunuchs in terms of any real contribution they might make here, on the floor of the House or in committees.
Some members I am sure feel we have made some good changes to the rules. There was a fundamental change in 1966 which, I suggest, adversely affected the rights and privileges of members of this House. I have in mind the change that resulted in the estimates of the various departments being considered by committees.
Before the change hon. members could question ministers about certain items of expenditures that had a direct bearing on their constituencies. At that time a member could get an answer under the threat of refusing to pass the estimates of a certain department. A member might not agree with the answer he received, but at least that was a step in the right direction. The member could then confront the minister with his answer six months or a year later, with the hope that something constructive would be accomplished. In any event the estimates were taken out of the House and I suggest this was a retrograde step.
The Prime Minister's reference to reform bothers me because of something I recall very distinctly that took
October 11, 1974

place following the debate in 1969. The Prime Minister held a press conference summarizing the activities of that parliament. I cannot quote his exact words, but the reports indicated that the Prime Minister smiled and laughed when saying that he had certainly sucked in members of the opposition by asking for massive reform. He went on to indicate that after a long, protracted and acrimonious debate, which finally ended in a form of closure, the opposition accepted something else.
I am a bit worried when I am faced with that frame of mind on the part of the leader of the government. This is the same Prime Minister who a few years ago said that parliamentarians were nobodys. I suggest it is not surprising that many members of this House are suspicious about this type of reform. We must examine this whole matter of reform carefully before we unilaterally and fundamentally change some of our procedures.
Before we go too far down the road of parliamentary reform we should have the opportunity to express our opinions about the suggestion that we should allow television coverage of our procedures here. I personally believe that if we can resolve this question about television coverage in the House we will have taken a great step in the direction of making this place relevant. Perhaps in this way we can do more than has been done in the past by changing the rules.
Whenever one mentions the word "television" in the context of parliamentary procedure people begin to talk about the ham in everyone coming out. They say that everyone will be vying for position. I suggest that television coverage will prevent a lot of hocus-pocus on the part of members quicker than any change in the rules. It would effectively unmask the clowns and uncloak the fools. I think television coverage would result in every member of the House acting a little more like he does when he is at home, and would result in better attendance here than at home. Incidentally, hon. members are not often at home because they are either here in parliament or travelling around their ridings carrying out constituency business.
I think all the arguments that can be made against television coverage were made in the British House in 1737 in opposition to the presence of the quill, a reference to the reporting of those debates. At page 278 of the British parliamentary debates of 1737 to 1739 we find the following reference, and I might add that this is in a sort of old English, perhaps a bilingualism of that time. Someone was apparently reporting a speech in the House, and this is the report we find:
After which Mr. Speaker informed the House, that it was with some Concern he saw a Practice prevailing, which a little reflected upon the Dignity of that House: What he meant was the inserting an Account of their Proceedings in the printed News Papers-
I should point out that this reference contains some strange letters such as "f's, p's, ff's" and others. What he was referring to was an insertion of a printed report in the newspapers of the day. How long has television been with us; some 10, 15 or 20 years? The complaint to which I referred was in reference to printed newspapers. I like to complain about the press from time to time, but they do attend this place and write their reports. We have learned to live with the situation, the same as I suggest we will have to learn to live with television coverage.
The Address-Mr. Nowlan
Referring to these proceedings of the British parliament again it states:
-he had in his Hands a printed News Paper, which contained His Majesty's Answer to their late Address, before the same had been reported from the Chair, the only way of communicating it to the Public. That he thought it his Duty to inform the House of these Practices, the rather because he had observed them of late to have run into very great Abuses; and therefore he hoped that Gentlemen would propose some Method of stopping it.
Good gracious me! I suppose they thought this would likely give a false impression of how the gentlemen conducted themselves. I do not know if television coverage will give a false impression of the conduct of members in this House, but I suggest it will certainly focus the camera on this Chamber, as a result of which we will not be able to conduct ourselves in the manner that some of us have in the past. I for one believe it would fundamentally change the character of this place. It would certainly shorten debates. It would stop repetition. If a member got up and stumbled through his speech he would have something to think about as he might be on television that evening. Some of the catcalling, which I sometimes enjoy getting involved in, would have to be conducted with discretion.
Perhaps I should not waste my entire time on this subject, but I suggest that what was said during that debate in 1737 is relevant to any debate now in respect of television coverage. It is time we came back to the 20th century. That was reform in reverse.
I have many more things I wish to say but I do not know how much time I have remaining. I should like to mention something that is causing concern on all sides of the House. I do not think the Prime Minister appreciates this. In 1968 when he obtained a majority he was clear during the election campaign on two things. One was regional disparity. He said he would do something about it. The other was the official languages bill. He made it clear that if he were elected something would be done. Something was done. At that time he had a mandate.
However in 1974 there was no mandate to the government on any issue because the Prime Minister did not talk about an issue. All he did was promise this and that. He promised material things. He did not make promises in respect of philosophical issues or even economic issues which could be disturbing to Canadians. I think there is a real difference between what the Prime Minister did in 1974 compared with what he did in 1968-69.
On another occasion, because my time is running out, I should like to speak about the matter of transportation and communications. The Prime Minister did not mention much about that, or about bilingualism during the election campaign.
As I cross the country and travel around my constituency I find that people ask me to rationalize the situation in respect of Bill C-22. They wonder, when there is unilingu-alism in one part of the country, how bilingualism can be developed in the federal structures of the country. I find this question difficult to answer. There are other elements of this on which I should like to elaborate at some other time.

October 11, 1974
The Address-Mr. M. A. Dionne
However, I should like to ask members of the House to go back to the debates on bilingualism in 1968. At that time the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), the Prime Minister, my leader, all leaders and most members who spoke on the Official Languages Bill adopted the very necessary principle in that bill, but the understanding was that there would be institutional bilingualism and not necessarily individual bilingualism. That is not merely a semantic difference. I believe in and I voted for the right of any person, whose tongue is either English or French, to be able to communicate or correspond with any bureau of the federal government in either native tongue.
The shift, however, has gone from institutional bilingualism as such. For instance, we might take the example of the unemployment insurance office in the Annapolis Valley where there were bilingual districts when I was the member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings. Let us suppose the language composition was 80-10. Obviously a federal institution to serve that area should be staffed roughly in the same ratio. This does not mean that every person in that office should be bilingual, because that would be an impossibility, just as it would be very difficult in any area outside the central part of this land. I say this same situation is applicable across the country.
In the west where there are other language groups, such as German or Ukrainian, a quota system is being established so that there are people available to service different language groups at federal offices, whatever those offices might be. I notice that the former President of the Treasury Board is present today. I think he has a dual ministry now. I heard him say first that there would be red circling of 25,000 positions. Then later he said that there might be 50,000. Then again he admitted he was not sure how many.
Then, having said that, the minister said the easy thing. He said that after all since there were 50,000 positions in the public service one should not really complain about 4,000 or 5,000 of them. But when the designations and red circling involved bilingual positions, complaints were heard. I think the shift should be reversed.
In conclusion may I say that in my opinion Bill 22 is substantively bad. We may unfortunately see the bench mark of real linguistic development in this land because Bill 22, as it presently stands, puts the lie to the Prime Minister's campaign in 1968 when he refused to accept that there were two nations, and misrepresented our deux nation position.


Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Madam Speaker, since this is the first time I have risen in my place to address this chamber I wish to take this opportunity to offer my congratulations to the Speaker on his elevation to that position. I want to assure the Chair that at all times it will have my co-operation in its performance of the arduous duties that lie ahead. I should like to ask the forbearance of this House until I have become familiar with its rules and procedures.
I wish also to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne for the masterful job they did in their maiden speeches in this House. Through you, Madam Speaker, on behalf of myself and my constituents, I should like to express my pleasure

at the progress His Excellency the Governor General is making in his convalescence. We wish him a speedy and full recovery.
One of the best known public figures in our nation is the dean of this House, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). I want to tell him how pleased I am to be here to hear him and watch him perform in this House. While I do not often find myself in agreement with his opinions I know he holds and expresses them with conviction. For that attribute, and for his dedication and service to our country and its well being, he has my respect and admiration. May I express to him and to his loyal and gracious wife my wishes for many more years of health and happiness.
I should also like to express my admiration for one other member of this House before I get to the main part of my maiden speech. I refer to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). He is known across the land as the embodiment of what a parliamentarian is supposed to be. He has made himself the formal expert on the House itself. I shall not hesitate to call on him for advice in trying to understand how the House functions because I must confess that at the present time it is rather puzzling to me.
I also want to express my great joy at becoming a member of the House, which I consider to be the noblest of Canadian institutions. It is an honour for which I must express gratitude to our party and its leader, the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). But, most of all, I must express my gratitude to the electors of Northumberland-Miramichi for their expression of confidence in me to represent them in parliament. The people of my constituency are well known for their friendliness and hardiness, and it is indeed my privilege to be their representative here.
The constituency which I represent occupies much of the watershed of the Miramichi river and its tributaries, as well as the parishes of Carleton and Acadieville in Kent County, New Brunswick. The Miramichi river is famous the world over for its abundance of fishing opportunity, particularly for Atlantic salmon. Because of the importance of the fishery to the economic wellbeing of my constituents I am very pleased that the Prime Minister has, in fulfillment of an election promise, appointed a Minister of State responsible for Fisheries (Mr. Leblanc), and I am particularly gratified that the position is occupied by a fellow New Brunswicker.
The hon. member for Westmorland-Kent is well known for his ability, forthrightness and integrity. He has a difficult task to perform in devising policies that will answer the increasing demands of our population and those of the rest of the world for consumption of fish and fish products, and at the same time conserve fish stocks for future generations. In my judgment, that is an essential part of his mandate, but it is no easy task. I wish to congratulate my colleague and assure him of my support and co-operation.
I am also gratified that the federal government has undertaken a hydraulic study of the Miramichi river and bay to determine the engineering and economic feasibility
October 11, 1974

of dredging the channel to allow larger vessels to proceed up the river to the towns of Chatham and Newcastle. I hope that this study will prove that dredging is feasible. If such is the case I shall expect the work to the carried out forthwith. The dredging of the channel is of utmost importance to the economic wellbeing of our area, so that its products may be moved on to the markets of the world at a transportation cost that is not prohibitive.
Although I am fortunate to live in and represent the area I do, we are not without problems. For many years the future of the ammunition depot, CFAD Renous, has been in question. After my election I asked the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) to make a public announcement regarding the present and future status of this installation so that the employees there would be able to plan their future in an orderly fashion.
On August 23, 1974, the minister announced that CFAD Renous would close on September 1, 1978, and that the closure would be accomplished through a series of lay-offs spread over four years. The minister also committed his department to making every effort to ease the hardships by finding alternate employment for those who will not be eligible for superannuation without penalty. Most of those employees are veterans of world war II and the Korean war. Therefore, I strongly urge that Her Majesty's government consider, on an emergency basis, a satisfactory solution to this serious problem.
We cannot afford to lose an establishment which brings $2.5 million worth of economic opportunity into a rural area where other job opportunities are practically non existent. Since this situation has been brought about by a government decision, I hold the government responsible for showing initiative in solving the problem.
We are still plagued in northeastern New Brunswick with a woeful lack of television and radio production and transmission facilities. Indeed, to my knowledge New Brunswick is the only province in Canada that lacks of CBC owned facility. Northeastern N.B. is now served by Moncton Broadcasting Limited, operating on channels 7 and 12 whenever they are able to overcome technical difficulties. On September 27 the CRTC handed down a decision according to which the New Brunswick Broadcasting Company would provide CBC programming to northeastern N.B. on channels 12 and 7, while Moncton
The Address-Mr. M. A. Dionne Broadcasting would provide CTV programming on channels 4 and 6.
But to the consternation of everyone in my constituency, CRTC has allowed these two companies a full year to work out the arrangements for the one to compensate the other for channel transfers. The same decision forbids the construction of the required facilities until a compensatory solution has been achieved. It appears then that the television service for northeastern N.B. is still two years away, and that is not satisfactory. At the same time that entire area in N.B. is without FM radio reception. I hardly knew before I came to Ottawa that one could listen to a radio station that was not 80 per cent commercials.
Many other proposals in the Speech from the Throne will improve the lot of my constituents. I was happy to hear the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) state in this chamber last week that he wants to increase protection for the consumer. I subscribe to his view that those who rip-off the little man for the sake of unfair corporate gains should be sent to prison. Surely they are as criminal as those who break the game laws. If the little man stole from the corporation presidents, he would very soon find himself before the courts. Justice must be even handed, and I have no sympathy for those who gouge the public.
I am sure that the veterans of this nation will be relieved to learn that their benefits will soon be increased, as will those receiving old age security benefits. I hope that the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) will be able to find a way to speed up the deliberations of the Canadian Pension Commission. It is small consolation for a needy veteran to be told he will probably get a pension in six or eight months when the commission gets to his application. I do not intend this to be a criticism of the commission. I am sure its chairman and members are sincere and sympathetic individuals doing their jobs as best they can. I only hope that we can find a way to expedite the processing of the application.


Some hon. Members:: Five o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The hon. member can call it five o'clock. It being five o'clock this House stands adjourned until Tuesday, October 15, at eleven o'clock.
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, October 15, 1974