Mr. Lewis:

Mr. Speaker, of course I am prepared to continue at this time but I wonder whether the other members of the house would prefer, as I myself would, to call it six o'clock.

Agreed.

Mr. Speaker:

Pursuant to standing order 6 (1) this sitting is suspended until eight o'clock this evening.

At six o'clock the house took recess.

[DOT] (8:00 p.m.)

Mr. David Lewis (York South):

Mr. Speaker, because my time is limited-and I do not say that by way of complaint-I do not intend to attempt to range widely over the many subjects which were treated by my predecessors.

It is with very real pleasure that I join the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and

September 16, 1968

the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in congratulating the mover and seconder of the address. The elegance of their expression and the depth and sincerity of their thought give us assurance that they will make important contributions to the deliberations of this house.

It seemed to me, Mr. Speaker, that in their person as well as in their remarks, they showed the diversity of Canada and drew attention to some of the problems that must be solved to create true unity and a deep sense of justice in our society.

Both are happy about the opportunities offered by our country but each of them was forced to remind us of the great wrongs which make our society much less than just. The Canadian of French origin said that he was worried about the lack of facilities which would enable his compatriots in New Brunswick to learn about their country in their own language. The Canadian of Indian origin, a member of the community which was the first to people Canada, is deeply affected by the degrading conditions in which his own people still live. In short, Mr. Speaker, the two speeches pointed out the problems of bilingualism and social injustice which threaten unity throughout our nation. It seems to me that those questions and many other aspects of our national activity should have been strongly pointed out in the Speech from the Throne, but this was not done. I know that the Speech from the Throne is a traditional formality and it would be useless to try to find therein some grounds for inspiration or even some enlightenment, but during the election campaign, millions of Canadians, young people mostly, had set their hopes in the new Prime Minister. They expected from him a new political style and a new, deeper commitment for the attainment of a richer, more exciting life not only in Canada but throughout the world.

It is therefore, Mr. Speaker, a very great pity that these expectations have not been even partially met. Exactly the opposite is true. Since this government took office we have read of the appointment of numerous defeated and disappointed Liberals to positions in the other place and on boards and commissions, as detailed earlier by the Leader of the Opposition. If I may, I want to remind the Prime Minister, who is just entering the chamber-

Hear, hear.

The Address-Mr. Lewis

Mr. Lewis:

Apparently, Mr. Speaker, the members of this house still have the expectations for which the people of Canada fell. I want to remind the Prime Minister that for decades this kind of appointment has been the cynical mark of the old politics, riddled with favouritism, nepotism and patronage. That the Prime Minister is following the same line makes a mockery of the alleged "new politics" about which he has boasted.

In the field of economic policy all we have had so far is retrenchment, and emphasis on the irrelevant concept of the balanced budget. This is not merely outdated, especially at a time of sizeable unemployment, but it creates a financial strait-jacket which makes it impossible to deal imaginatively with the problems crushing many sectors of Canadian life.

No one is so naive as not to realize that long term programs require time to develop and to implement. I am therefore prepared to hope that such programs are in contemplation and under study. But if so, I simply cannot understand why the speech from the throne was so silent or so vague about them. During the election campaign, and in one or two places in the speech from the throne, and in the Prime Minister's speech this afternoon, there were and are references to the need for involving the people of Canada in the democratic process, as reflected in parliament and in government. The throne speech gave the Prime Minister and the government the opportunity of speaking to the people of Canada in a way which might fire their imagination and evoke their interest. How else is it possible to involve people in the democratic process, except through full and frank information and the articulation of inspiring national goals and programs pointing toward those goals? But the speech from the throne has nothing of this. It consists of the customary and tired emphasis of the obvious; it is a sonorous collection of little homilies which make Shakespeare's Polonius a model of originality. It lacks intellectual depth and moral concern.

[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)

Somewhere, something happened to stop the swinger in his tracks, and to transform the promising modern into the dull traditional. How did this happen? I suggest that it derives directly from an economic and social philosophy which makes it extremely difficult to meet the challenge of the modern age. The intention is no doubt good but it is frustrated by an out-of-date approach.

September 16, 1968

The Address-Mr. Lewis

Somewhere near the beginning of the speech from the throne there is a statement-and it is put in a tired way, if I may say so respectfully to the right hon. gentleman -that financial and intellectual resources are not unlimited. This is the kind of fatherly admonition which is as obvious as it is misleading. Enunciated in 1968, it shows a failure to appreciate the significance of the modern scientific revolution and the potentialities of the age of automation and cybernation. I agree, of course that at every stage of development priorities must govern policy.

But history has rejected the timid, fearful caution that confines policy within the limits of human knowledge available at a particular point of time. The fact is that the limits have been constantly extended by scientific development and by human ingenuity. The capacities to produce goods and services, to develop a rich environment in which the physical, moral, and spiritual joys of life may be available to all, are almost beyond exaggeration in this age of cybernation. The problem before us is not the limit to our capacities and resources, but their efficient use and the just distribution of the fruits of that use.

Our problem also stems from an important difference of opinion as to what constitutes efficient use of our resources. I am not concerned merely with higher productivity and more production, regardless of the kind of product or service that is the result. This kind of efficiency we have known for a long time. It has too often resulted in the production of luxury amenities for a relatively small group, while the large group at the bottom of the income ladder was almost ignored. What is perhaps worse, it has resulted in wasteful expenditures on products and services which are socially unnecessary as compared with the urgent need for houses, schools, hospital beds, parks, universities and recreation centres. We reject this kind of use.

By efficient use of our resources and capacities my colleagues and I mean higher productivity and more production of goods and services which are socially necessary, and which are essential to the building of the just society. This involves careful allocation of resources according to social need. It involves government control of investment, government standards and a degree of government intervention in the economy from which conventional wisdom still recoils. In many instances it will involve public investment on a considerable scale, because private investors will lack '.he courage or imagination or

because they will think they can make a faster buck elsewhere.

These thoughts seem to me self-evident. Yet the throne speech shows no inkling of relevant, modern social analysis. Because the government leans toward the old, traditional economic and social ideas, because it does not seem to be able to adopt policies which can take full advantage of the immense potentialities of the age of nuclear power, automation and the computer, the people of Canada may well be in for another great disappointment.

The likelihood is, and I hope I shall be proven wrong-and I will apologize to the Prime Minister if I am wrong-that we shall wake up four years from now and find the same 20 per cent poor, almost the same regional disparities, a similar crisis in education, in housing and in urban life generally. No doubt there will be a patch here, a repair there, and an improvement elsewhere, because whatever the stripe of the government we always manage to make a little progress. But the major inequalities and most oppressive social neglect will still be largely with us. The just society will still be a political slogan and a seemingly unreachable dream. More, Mr. Speaker, is the pity, because it is so unnecessary.

Somewhere else in the speech from the throne there is another statement of economic philosophy which is equally disturbing. This is the notion that all incomes should be tied to productivity and even that government spending must be so tied. A very little thought shows how false and dangerous this attitude is and how it builds another strait-jacket, hampering the development of useful and imaginative programs.

This typically bureaucratic notion assumes, first, that there is an acceptable measurement of productivity, which is itself very questionable. It assumes also that productivity can be measured in all cases, which is patently absurd. How do you measure the productivity of a teacher, or a nurse, or a researcher, or even a postman?

Second, the throne speech theory assumes that the inequalities in income in our present society must remain, and that the low wage and salary earners must be satisfied to make no more relative progress than the high wage and salary earners. I suggest that anyone who articulates this crass philosophy, and at the same time talks about the just society, suffers either from self-delusion or from heartless cynicism.

September 16. 1968

To tie government spending to productivity-whatever that means-is equally fallacious. It suggests, whether intentionally or not, that in time of low production resulting from a recession or from other causes, government spending should be low, and that at a time of high production government spending should be high. This certainly stands John Maynard Keynes on his head.

[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)

Surely it is now accepted conventional wisdom that precisely when the economy is slowing down government expenditures must rise to fill the gap. To speak of balancing the budget when the seasonally adjusted rate of unemployment is 50 or 60 per cent, higher than the highest rate of 3 per cent urged by the Economic Council of Canada, presages a policy which will certainly make our society more rather than less unjust as far as the unemployed, the poor, the young and the old are concerned.

Furthermore, and just as important, it means the government accepts the notion that the size of the public sector must remain relatively the same. It must not increase. Yet it is surely clear that increased public spending is essential if manpower training is to be effective, if urban problems are to be solved, if Indians, Eskimos and Metis are to be rehabilitated, if regional disparities are to be eliminated, and if the problem of poverty is to be tackled meaningfully. Indeed, it is surely also clear that public spending on education, on manpower training and on research is the major means for increasing productivity itself.

Mr. Speaker, the fifth report of the Economic Council stresses the necessity of increasing technological research in Canada. It analyses our industrial structure and deplores its lack of rationalization and efficiency. In so doing, the report only dwells on what experts have been saying for years. Since its second report, the council has been urging the necessity to multiply our efforts in the field of education.

There was a time not so long ago when education was sought for itself, when a thirst for knowledge and the study of the universe were very exciting objectives. For many, that still obtains, but the automation age has given to education what might be called a practical dimension. Jobs are increasingly scarce for those who have little education. And the time is gone when one could keep his job for a

The Address-Mr. Lewis lifetime. Most people will now have to learn two or three trades, go through retraining almost every decade. Therefore social investment in education has become an economic requirement.

The industrial society is producing or aggravating other acute problems. Air and water pollution poison the atmosphere in our cities, and not only offend our senses but threaten our health. The pressures of living in the jet age are producing a shocking rate of mental illness, and hundreds of thousands of disturbed children for whom there are no treatment centres and no hope. Crime is on the increase and juvenile delinquency haunts homes in every economic class. As we develop new and more abundant means to meet our material needs, we endanger the quality of our lives. A people that awakens to these dangers must be ready to deal with them collectively. No one can do so on his own.

As Professor Galbraith expressed it, "Nearly all of the investment in individuals is in the public domain. And virtually all of it is outside the market system." Yet our traditions cause us to question public investment in people, whether through cash payments or through the provision of health services, educational opportunities, safe roads, clean waters, fresh air, decent homes, green belts, planned cities, slum clearance, recreational facilities or artistic and cultural activities. All these are essential to a decent, human, civilized quality of life and all of them require public spending on an ever increasing scale. Yet when governments spend money their action becomes immediately suspect, even though without it life would be almost as dismal for the well-to-do as for the poor.

Thus I reject the philosophy which seems to animate this government. The public sector is not expendable; it is essential for growth and justice. It must not stand still; it must and will grow in response to collective needs and goals. In my view, it is irresponsible private power which must be curtailed and controlled to serve the public good.

I do not mean that every public expenditure is right because it is public; not at all. It is necessary to review public expenditures periodically, to change their direction and emphasis. Indeed, we believe there should be a permanent government agency to review expenditures on a continuing basis so that they may be put to the best and most productive use. But in our view it is impossible to think realistically and honestly of building

September 16, 1968

The Address-Mr. Lewis the just society without an ever-increasing role tor public participation, public planning and public control. Because the speech from the throne seems to be timid about this, the pretensions about a just society may turn out to be a mockery.

Mr. Speaker, I am perfectly aware of the fact that it is possible to suppress a good many social injustices which have not been brought about, in part or in whole, by economic factors. We are in favour, as we were during the previous parliament, of the various proposals to amend the Criminal Code, of the introduction of legislation to implement, within the federal jurisdiction, the recommendations of the Laurendeau-Dunton commission, and other important legislation of the kind we will wish to support.

We agree in principle with the fact that our parliamentary procedure must be brought up to date. In fact, it is something which we have been advocating for some years now. During the last session, on April 20, 1967, the leader of our party, Mr. Douglas, recorded on page 15141 of Hansard, eight proposals providing for a reorganization of the business of the house. They dealt with most of the main questions under study. Therefore, our party is prepared to support any reasonable proposal which would result in an improvement and modernization of the business of our house.

But I should like to emphasize that in our view changes in the procedures of parliament must not be such as merely to assist the government to increase its power and control over parliament. They must also respect the rights of members of parliament, particularly those in the opposition. A parliament which is completely under the control of a majority governement cannot represent the views of the people as a whole and would be an unfortunate step in the direction of a one-party state. From the words of the Prime Minister this afternoon and from other statements I can recollect, I have reason to hope that the government agrees with this approach. I merely emphasize that while we intend to give active support to changes in the rules which will render parliament more efficient and more up-to-date, we do not intend to support proposals which may reduce to impotence the role of parliament, a role which can only be fulfilled if the opposition has the fullest freedom and opportunity to scrutinize, criticize, propose alternatives and investigate

thoroughly the manner in which the government is carrying out its trust. We feel, Mr. Speaker, that it is important to do so, not only to make parliament work more efficiently, but also to allow us to study estimates and legislation more rapidly and more conscientiously, and above all to make Canadians have greater confidence in parliament and in the democratic process.

I fully agree with what the Right Hon. Prime Minister said this afternoon in this connection.

In this connection, we welcome also the promise contained in the speech from the throne that additional assistance will be made available to the official opposition and to . other opposition parties in order that they may carry out their work with more information, more understanding of issues and more appreciation of the programs with which this parliament will deal. It is unnecessary to emphasize that it is the presence of an opposition in our legislatures which distinguishes the democratic from other societies. And the more opportunity the opposition has to be relevant, alert and effective, the better our democratic system. It is true that the social reforms and the reorganization of government and parliament are important, but they do not impinge on the major areas of economic and social ills in our society.

[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)

Mr. Speaker, I could hardly believe my ears when I listened to the speech from the throne and found that there was not a word about housing, or urban development, or the problem of galloping rents,-not a word; and not a suggestion about the mounting difficulties assailing our people in the grow ng urban centres of our society. Yet urbanization in Canada is proceeding at a rapid rate. Some 70 per cent or more of our people live in urban centres now, and in a few years the percentage will be 80, but the speech from the throne contains not the slightest awareness of this fact or of the crushing problems it has produced.

Inside and outside parliament we have had endless discussions about the housing crisis, the growing problems of large urban centres, the traffic congestion, the lack of amenities for decent living, and the growing pollution of our air and water. We looked in vain for effective action from past Liberal governments, and as far as the speech from the throne is concerned-and the speech of the Prime Minister this afternoon did not

September 16, 1968

help-we are still at a loss. Instead of action we have yet another task force.

The relative poverty affecting millions of Canadians to-day has existed in our country for many years; in fact, it has existed since the very beginning of our society. It is obvious that western societies, and Canada is one of them, have done much to somewhat improve the condition of the poor and underprivileged. Certainly it is true that we have made great strides during the past three decades from the time when we had virtually no social security and a small number of laws on social welfare. But those humanitarian measures always were, in my opinion, reluctantly adopted, incomplete and even miserable. They were rather aimed at insuring men's survival and neglected to study the causes of poverty and the factors which made poverty hereditary from generation to generation in a family, community or region.

Some years ago, Mr. Pearson and his government which counted amongst its members several of the present ministers, declared war on poverty. It was a war which was waged on paper and, in the end, the paper itself was discarded for reasons of economy. Today, the Economic Council of Canada has revived the subject and the present government still acknowledges its existence. But the Speech from the Throne and the speech that the Right Honourable Prime Minister delivered this afternoon both emphasize more particularly the long period of time necessary to eradicate poverty, forgetting completely to point out the means to reach this objective. Boldness and determination which we have a right to expect have given way to prudence and timidity.

I am sure that the Prime Minister will be the first to admit that talk about the just society is not new or original. I have been reminded in the last few months of a cry of the Chartists in Britain a century and a half ago, in the following words, "The just society is the only worth while object of political warfare." Apparently the Prime Minister agrees. So do we. So does everyone. Indeed this has been the declared objective of all democratic governments, but progress toward the just society has been painfully and unnecessarily slow.

We have had variations on the theme. In the country to the south of us we had talk of the "great society." Mr. Pearson talked about

The Address-Mr. Lewis the "good society," and the present Prime Minister talks about the "just society." They all mean the same things, and until now they have on the whole been mere political catchwords. I hope that the impression given by the speech from the throne is wrong, that this Prime Minister and this government really means to do something in the next four years, but it is my duty to point out and to underline that so far there is no evidence of this, that the tone and the words are but echoes of the past giving little more hope than in earlier years.

Not only on the domestic front but also in the international sphere the speech from the throne is flat, stale and unfeeling. Imagine, sir, the proponents of what they are pleased to call the just society asking flippantly, "Where is Biafra?" in relation to a conflict which has seen tens of thousands of innocent people mutilated and starved to death. Imagine a speech from the throne which in these circumstances does not even mention the word Biafra.

On Friday the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) uttered, and today the Prime Minister repeated what I can only describe as a shameful half truth. It is true, according to my information, that the first airstrip which was offered by Biafra and agreed to by the federal government of Nigeria was subsequently refused by Biafra because the federal government insisted that nothing else but outside relief supplies land on it. At that time Biafra was using it for landing weapons, which it was buying mainly on the black market simply because the big powers were selling to the federal government.

But surely the Secretary of State for External Affairs, if not the Prime Minister, ought to know-and if they do not know, then we ought to know why-that Biafra has built a second airstrip and offered it for delivery of supplies to the starving people. But the federal government of Nigeria has refused to agree to this second airstrip. Surely the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Prime Minister ought to know that Sweden has agreed to lend a plane to the International Red Cross. If it did, why can't Canada? I suggest that when one is dealing with so painful a situation as the mutilation and starvation of tens of thousands of people, half truths in this parliament are particularly reprehensible.

Imagine also, Mr. Speaker, a statement about Viet Nam in the speech from the throne which sonorously reminds us that there are

September 16, 1968

The Address-Mr. Lewis unsuccessful negotiations going on in Paris -no condemnation of a war which in my view is legally unjustifiable and morally indefensible, not even a repetition of the government's appeal to our big neighbour to stop the bombing of North Viet Nam. And imagine, finally, a puny reference to foreign aid which merely promises the same inadequate program we have had until now, characteristically embellished by the establishment of a study centre.

In short, Mr. Speaker, there is no sense of urgency in the speech from the throne, neither about the evils at home nor about the threatening events and suffering abroad. There is primarily a technocratic preoccupation with organization and structures as if they alone can solve the social problems facing Canadians and the world.

Mr. Stanfield:

And appointments.

Mr. Lewis:

And appointments. There is no argument about the desirability of building a just, or compassionate, or good, or great society: This has been the goal of human organization for centuries. The argument centres on the elements of a just society and how to achieve it, and this is where we in this party differ from the approach laid out in the throne speech.

We do not believe a society can ever be just or good when it is characterized by glaring inequalities; when effective control of the use and allocation of resources is concentrated in a few centres of private economic power which have no legal obligation and little moral incentive to give priority to the public welfare.

[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)

We do not believe a society can ever be just or good when its system of values places material success, however attained, at the top of human achievement, regarded more highly and envied more frequently than the works of the artist, the writer, the athlete, the teacher or the spiritual leader. We do not believe a society can ever be just or good when fancy office buildings take priority over homes; when doubtful defence expenditures are considered indispensable while the Indian, the Eskimo, the Metis and the poor generally must wait long years before they are given the opportunity to join the mainstream of life; when the social system places competition and conflict ahead of human co-operation.

And we believe that to achieve the just or good society we must restructure our economic system and our social relationships. Admittedly this cannot be done overnight; but it cannot be done at all by those who do not question the basis and values of our present society, who are governed by conventional wisdom and by traditional attitudes. No doubt this government will accomplish some good things, as have all governments in the past. But there is no suggestion of a new approach, of a new life-style, as the modern phrase goes. In the result we will continue to have the basic inequalities, human degradation and injustice which mar the face of our society and haunt the social conscience.

I am of course aware that material wellbeing is merely the foundation of a good or just society, that there are other elements which are essential to an intelligent people eager to shape its own destiny, collectively and individually. There is today, particularly among the young, a feeling of alienation from the social order, of being overpowered by big business, big unions, big government, large schools, large universities, and by rules and disciplines imposed from above. I think that this lies behind the restlessness and revolt on our campuses and in our streets.

I appreciate that we must find new ways of using the modern media of communication and new relationships between the governors and the governed in every sector of our society and in society as a whole. This is why I welcome the reference in the speech from the throne to an inquiry into government information services. But, I must admit, that again I have some fears.

There are obviously two alternative purposes for government information services. One is to provide the people with objectively accurate information to guide their thinking and acts, and to evoke from them a desire to participate in social and political activity and to enrich the democratic process. But government information services can also be used as a political propaganda machine to serve the party in power and to befuddle instead of educating, to confuse rather than to clarify. We shall be on guard, as I suggest all members in all parts of this house should be, to ensure that the first and not the second purpose is served by the consolidation and improvement of information services which this government is planning.

In this general area we also have a duty to provide our people with means of defence against the alienation imposed by bigness. We should establish effective machinery by which

September 16, 1968

the citizen, without cost and without fear may challenge authority when he feels aggrieved.

Mr. Speaker, I am reaching the end of my remarks in which I shall be moving a subamendment to the amendment. I am sure the Prime Minister will be the first to agree that his election first by his party and then by the people shows that Canadians are willing to be challenged, to accept a new approach, to embark on new adventures. I have always believed this of our people. But I venture to suggest that to challenge them, particularly the young, and having reached the pinnacle of power to let them down with a dull thump is the cruellest act of all. This is a sure way of undermining democratic participation and eventually of undermining democracy itself.

This is the disappointment of the speech from the throne: The promise was great, the performance is dismal. Instead of going forward, we are back where we were. The style may be different, but the actions are the same.

I have always believed that the Canadian people can be mobilized for national goals in peace as they have been in war. Expo and the centennial underlined our collective pride and potentialities. We need only imaginative and meaningful leadership to fulfil the promise which is ours. But to reach that goal we must become much more independent and self-reliant. The throne speech ignores the problems of constructive Canadian nationalism, except in the reference to the language bill. The government is apparently satisfied with the foreign control of our economy and with our satellite role in international affairs. These basic problems affecting our future as a nation do not receive even a mention. Nor does the problem of our inequitable tax system, analysed and condemned in the Carter report, the reform of which is surely an essential first step toward the just society.

Perhaps the government will do better in the future. For the sake of our country, I devoutly and sincerely hope so. But on the basis of the throne speech and the Prime Minister's speech this afternoon, it is impossible to have confidence in the ability and intention of this government to deal with the new and old problems crushing so many of our people.

I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):

That the amendment be amended by inserting therein, immediately after the words "social problems", the following words:

"including housing, urban development, unemployment and poverty;"

The Address-Mr. Caouette

[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)

Mr. Real Caouelte (Temiscamingue):

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I wish to extend my warm congratulations to the mover and seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne (Messrs. Corbin and Marchand). They discharge their duty very easily and in a remarkable way.

I also wish to extend to you, on behalf of my colleagues, our most sincere congratulations upon your appointment, without opposition, to the office that you now hold. Indeed you know the satisfaction felt by all members of the House of Commons for the impartiality with which you always treated us in the house.

Mr. Speaker, we listened, last Thursday, to the reading of the Speech from the Throne. This afternoon, the Leader of the Opposition moved the following amendment:

But we respectfully regret that Your Excellency's advisers have refused to recognize or respond to Canada's current and urgent economic and social problems: and have failed to provide parliament with an agenda of priorities to define and implement the "Just Society".

The acting leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Lewis) moved an amendment to the amendment reading as follows:

That the amendment be amended by inserting therein, immediately after the words "social problems", the following words: "including housing, urban development, unemployment and poverty;''

Those are very worthy motives, very ordinary reasons expressed in the House of Commons for many years. And it is for that, Mr. Speaker, that at the dissolution of parliament on April 23 last, there were eight members of the Ralliement creditiste and there are now fourteen. You noticed it yourself, Mr. Speaker. I know that is a surprise for my good friend opposite, who interrupts me; it is a surprise not only for him, but for many others, because people were anticipating the disappearance of the Creditistes in the House of Commons. *

You must admit that the Liberals did not get us elected. You must admit also that the journalists did not get us elected. Nor was it the C.B.C. with its free time broadcasts. An hon. member has just said: It was Johnson. It was not Mr. Johnson, from the province of Quebec, either, who got us elected, Mr. Speaker.

After the elections, a study of the free advertising given to the various political parties in the province of Quebec alone showed

September 16, 1968

The Address-Mr. Caouette that the Liberals had received 42 per cent of it, and the Conservatives 38 per cent. The latter did very well. They managed to get four members elected in the province of Quebec with 38 per cent of the free advertising. The New Democratic party got 19 per cent of the advertising in the newspapers of the province of Quebec, including the fat Montreal newspaper La presse, the Montreal Journal or the Journal de Montreal, the great patriotic newspaper Le Devoir, Montreal Matin, Daniel Johnson's newspaper, the Journal de Quebec, as well as small weeklies all over the province.

The Ralliement Creditiste was treated generously. We were given 1 per cent of the free advertising granted to political parties. And thanks to all that advertising, Mr. Speaker, we came very close to unseating three ministers. I see one of them not far from me. He expected to be beaten by the big organization of the Union Nationale. While the Union Na-tionale was spending perhaps $100,000 or $200,000 to defeat the Minister of Forestry and Regional Development, the Creditistes came second, the Union Nationale behind them. I admired, that night, the courage of the minister who said on television: I am happy that the second place went to the creditistes. He was happy also to say-and I think he was the only minister who spoke with a little sense that night: The Creditiste vote is a warning to us to propose deep economic reforms in Canada. That is why people voted for the Ralliement Creditiste, and not for reasons alleged or put forward by newspapers such as Le Devoir or Montreal-Matin in their June 27 edition. Listen to this, Mr. Speaker, and tell me if it is not intelligent. "P.S.", which stands for Paul Sauriol of Le Devoir, another intellectual with his head lost in the clouds, wrote as follows:

The Creditiste phenomenon:

While the Liberals made considerable gains in Ontario and in the Western provinces, they have barely retained the number of seats they had in the previous Parliament. In spite of the popularity of Mr. Trudeau, the poor regions of Quebec cast a protest vote which did not go to the Conservative party, as in the Maritime provinces, but to the Creditiste party.

The fifteen ridings won by the Creditistes-

They are now fourteen, because we lost one to the service vote.

-in southern and northern Quebec correspond to the under-developed areas of the province.

That was written by Paul Sauriol. According to him, had there been no underdeveloped areas, we would have won no seats

in Parliament. But look at each on the members of the Ralliement Creditiste in the house, study the economic situation in their respective ridings, and you will see that there is less poverty in the riding of Beauce, for example, in the riding of Bellechasse, where we defeated "Ti-Gus" Choquette, in the new riding of Villeneuve, in Roberval-in fact, there is less poverty in Abitibi, Megantic, Lotbiniere, Portneuf and Shefford than in the ridings of Saint-Denis and Lachine, in Montreal. The greatest number of people who are not only underprivileged economically but mentally backward is found in Montreal, in the province of Quebec. You meet them on the street and ask them: Who is your

representative in Parliament? They do not even know.

According to a radio news bulletin this morning, 38 per cent of the poor live in the city of Montreal; there are 87,000 unemployed in that city, 26,000 families on welfare. And they vote red. These are underdeveloped people, Mr. Speaker. They do not fight for reform, but I shall come later to the reforms we advocate. I hope, at least, to hold the attention of the Prime Minister on that question, that he might study the possibility of making changes. It is all very well to travel across Canada distributing pecks to 14-year old girls, but that does not change the system.

Yesterday morning, I left Ottawa by plane for Prince Edward Island where I addressed the young students of 18 to 22 of Prince of Wales College. I met the lieutenant governor and other personalities. We talked of the causeway the government has been promising for the last seven or eight years. For perhaps 25 years now the people of Prince Edward Island have been promised a causeway; a carriage road from the mainland of New Brunswick to Prince Edward Island. Two years ago, I heard the former minister of Energy, Mines and Resources tell us that a complete survey had been made, and that the government of the day, the Pearson government, had decided that they would go through with it, that it was decided.

Mr. Pepin:

We were talking about the Bay of Fundy at that time, and not about what you are discussing now.

Mr. Caouette:

Mr. Speaker, I did not

understand what the minister said.

[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)

Mr. Pepin:

Mr. Speaker, I said that a decision was reached on a survey of the Bay of

September IS, 1968 COMMONS DEBATES

Fundy and not on the problem the member is now discussing.

Mr. Caouette:

Mr. Speaker, have no surveys been made on the feasibility of that causeway between the mainland of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island? Ministers went to the site during the recent election campaign. The Prime Minister also went there, saying that the matter was settled, that it was decided. Time passes, then we are told: It is feasible. But what is lacking? I shall come back later to what is lacking for a just society.

Mr. Speaker, all honourable members will realize this tonight, or I am no longer true to myself, I can assure them. There is a limit to promises that are only followed by speeches. Every possible subject is being raised, but nothing concrete is being done. They mean well, but that is all. The speech from the throne reads, in part:

In the complexities of modem society, effective programs take time to develop and more time to implement.

It takes years to develop them, then three times as much not to implement them. They forget to implement them. At every stage, governments in power require financial resources; on that point, this government is right. Intellectual resources which are not unlimited and must be used with careful planning and the hard judgment of priorities. It is a simple fact of life that everything cannot be done at once.

This morning, it was announced on radio, that 22 years today, I was elected for the first time to the house of commons.

Hear, hear.

Mr. Caouette:

On September 16, 1946 I hardly managed to be elected and I was much more easily defeated three years and a half later in 1949. I came back, nevertheless, but at that time, the same comments could be heard. We have a new Prime Minister. The right hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King was prime minister; in 1948, he was replaced by the right hon. Louis St-Laurent. We kept on reading about the same thing: planning. Nothing can be done right away, everything cannot be done at once. That was 22 years ago and nothing has yet been done.

Hear, hear.