Mr. Caouette:

They may well agree with me when they understand my explanation.

What about the position of B.C.?

[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)

Mr. Caouette:

I am opposed to nationalization even in B.C. As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, power in Quebec was nationalized, and

DEBATES 87

The Address-Mr. Caouette look at the situation in which Quebec Hydro finds itself today. In former days minister Rene Levesque was telling the people that the big profits realized by Shawinigan Water and Power would be distributed among the population of the province, that they would benefit in the form of a rate cut. So, after six years we ask ourselves one question. Are we better masters today than we were in 1962? No. Have the rates been cut? No, they have been doubled.

Oh, oh.

Mr. Caouette:

And Shawinigan is not making any profit-oh, no. The government of Quebec could not even pay Shawinigan for the nationalization cost. So the government made an agreement to pay interest on the money they owe to Shawinigan.

In the last few years Shawinigan had been making a profit of 4.2 per cent on its capitalization. Now, without having to administer anything, without workmen having to climb posts, without having to put up wires, the company is receiving from the government of Quebec 5.8 per cent.

Oh, oh.

Mr. Caouette:

That is the result of socialization or nationalization.

Free enterprise makes profits, yes. Free enterprise will give us results; governments, whether provincial or otherwise, will not give similar results with our own money because no one in government wishes to be responsible. When you fall into the hands of any government agency or bureaucracy you do not find people who are willing to take responsibility. One man will send you to another and this other knows nothing of your problem and sends you somewhere else. You keep going round and round. On the other hand when you go to someone in private enterprise, to someone who owns a private enterprise, he will deal with your problem. He will tell you about the extent of his enterprise.

A man in private enterprise will tell you, "We are making so many millions a year." Where are the men in Canada today who can write out a cheque for $1 million? Where are such free enterprisers? They are not piling up their millions in the corners of their rooms. They are using their money to expand industry, to create more jobs, more goods, to fight inflation and to fight unemployment.

We do not think the government should do everything for us in our society. We are

September 16, 1968

The Address-Mr. Caouette strongly opposed to all political organizations the aims of which are the furtherance of the sectional interests or organized labour, business or finance.

I come to my fourth point, after which I shall have finished. The physically possible must be regarded as the financially possible. Whatever is physically possible, desirable and morally right can and should be made financially possible, and the Prime Minister need not be a magician to bring about such a state of affairs.

He knows that we have the necessary men with skills, as well as goods and productive capacity to create enough goods and services for all our people. In so far as we have the capacity to use our national resources, credit ought to be provided to make their utilization possible. In other words, we should make financially possible what it is physically possible to carry out.

I have been talking about the government of Quebec and I wish to read something that is in French.

At the National Harbour Board, we have asked the president, or rather the bridge superintendent, what was the cost of Montreal Jacques-Cartier bridge, what amount we had to pay in interests, since it had been built, and what was the amount of our debt on Jacques-Cartier bridge. Well, here is the content of the letter that Mr. J. A. Clement engineer, bridge superintendent, sent to a certain Mr. Chenier, and I quote:

Mr. Jos. A. Chenier Greenfield Park, P.Q.

Dear Sir:

Your letter of May 9, 1968, requesting some information on Jacques-Cartier bridge, has been brought to my attention. I am pleased to supply you with the following informations:

1. Original cost of Jacques-Cartier Bridge: $18,571,308.71.

That is the cost of the bridge: materials, labour, contractors, anything related to the construction of the bridge: $18,571,308.71.

3. Interests paid so far: $20,198,266.53.

The amount of our present debt on the bridge? $14,065,605.39.

The just society!

Mr. Caouette:

That is what the just society is!

Just for the fun.

[English1

Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):

That is private enterprise.

Mr. Caouette:

There is a distinction. This is not private enterprise; it is the private enterprise system, and the government is responsible for this state of affairs.

The other night on television the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier), who now represents the constituency of Hochelaga, said in so many words, "Well, the interest is nothing. You can see all the cars and all the trucks and people which have crossed that bridge. All that traffic paid for it in the end. What is the $20 million when we have made $100 million out of the investment." At any rate, that was his explanation. I want to ask this: If his explanation is right, then the bridge cost us $18 million. Why then have we not built a second bridge with the $20 million of interest so that we can transport more goods, more people and more of everything over it and be $20 million better off?

Mr. Speaker, that is the solution, beyond the shadow of a doubt. If the Prime Minister really wants a just society, let him study these four points; if he does not have the time to study them, he should have the people around him study them, his private secretaries, and let us have first some order in our finances. This afternoon, the Prime Minister told us: we cannot carry out these works, we cannot undertake this other thing, nor can we carry on any longer this other project because we lack money. However, he knows full well that we shall continue paying practically one billion and a half in interest this year alone on our public debt. And that will not be to the advantage of the Canadian people. The monetary system is wrong. I am looking at the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson). He knows what I say, he understands it.

Hear, hear.

Mr. Caouette:

I hope that the Minister of Agriculture will have some influence on the Prime Minister, in order to make him understand the importance of monetary reform. We go back to our ridings and we get reelected. We come back here and we have problems. I had the visit of a member of the just society and people like him I receive by the hundreds, Mr. Speaker, every day, between the sessions, because we have to pay for our stamps at the parliament in Ottawa, we the members and even the party leaders. I have myself paid about $800 in stamps, while working for my constituents, for the Canadian people, as a member for the riding I represented at that time.

September 1$, 1968

Mr. Speaker, it is inconceivable that we must pay such sums. But to come back to the just society in which we live, and more especially to the famous social welfare that exists in all the provinces, in Quebec as elsewhere, the federal government provides for 50 per cent. That is a joint program. We must get together to decide whether the joint program must be reduced or not. In any case, Mr. Moise St. Denis who is 75 years old and whose wife is 63 presented himself last week at my office, in Rouyn. Mr. St. Denis used to receive a pension of $107.10 and his wife used to get a supplement of $30 which gave them $137.10. Last year, Mr. St. Denis managed to find a small job that enabled him to earn $500. The government learned of that-officials of the welfare office. Then, last week, he was told that $10 of his money will be kept back every month to refund the sum which he received while he was working last year for two or three months. Today he gets $127.10 to live on with his wife. He pays $75 rent monthly. Can one imagine how with $52.10, a man and a woman can live today. That is the just society in which we live nowadays.

Mr. Speaker, we know that poverty in this land is a fact and the Prime Minister might well say it. We know that there are poor people, but we just want to replace their plight by a just society. In my view, only one step needs to be taken if we are to achieve a just society in Canada; that is to put our finances into order and not only our taxation system. The Prime Minister may well introduce programs, as those expected in a mid-October budget, to divert money from the wealthy to the needy, and I shall say in English-

-it is the system by which you take away from the "haves" to give to the "have nots". Finally you will have all kinds of "have nots" and no more "haves" in Canada.

[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)

Hear, hear.

That is what is going to happen.

So Mr. Speaker, we hold that what is physically feasible-not on the moon but here below in Canada, in our own country-may be financially possible. Once such a system is adopted, other reforms will come about easily. It will not take ten, twenty or twenty five years. Once order is restored in finances, the

The Address-Mr. Allmand rest will come out very easily. Such is the solution, the means, the way to achieve a just society in Canada. If the Prime Minister is serious whenever he speaks about a just society, I hope and I wish he will be serious when introducing the legislation that will bring the financiers to reason and allow the government of Canada to put Canadian abundance at the disposal of Canadians who need it, and at the same time to assist the foreign countries that need our assistance.

Mr. Warren Allmand (Noire-Dame-de-Grace):

Mr. Speaker, when I put my name on the list of those who wished to speak I did not realize I would follow such eminent speakers as those to whom we have been listening today. Indeed I feel somewhat guilty to be following the hon. member for Temis-camingue (Mr. Caouette) who spoke so humourously, and who made so many excellent points.

I should like to begin by congratulating you, Mr. Speaker, upon your appointment, and by extending congratulations also to Mr. Deputy Speaker, the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Faulkner) and to the Deputy Chairman of Committees, the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Bechard). I also wish to congratulate the hon. member for Madawas-ka-Victoria (Mr. Corbin) and the hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo (Mr. Marchand) who moved and seconded the motion for the address in reply. Both did excellently and I have no doubt we shall hear much more from them in this house.

This afternoon and this evening we heard the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) list a long litany of subjects which were not referred to in the speech from the throne. This was not in it, they said; that was not in it-and so on. The hon. member for York South spoke about originality. Well, I do not think it would take very much originality for any one of the 265 of us in this chamber-

Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):

Order.

Mr. Allmand:

-to call attention to matters which were not mentioned in the speech from the throne. I note that the hon. member did not refer to any of the 47 bills which were tabled after the speech from the throne had been delivered, and neither did the Leader of the Opposition. None of these bills was mentioned, although they were a clear indication

September 16, 1968

The Address-Mr. Allmand o 1 the intentions of the government with regard to legislation. I though this was a strange omission, because in that list were such bills as the bill to lower drug prices and the bill to amend the patents legislation. I recall that when this party was seeking to leave the House of Commons in order to elect a new leader, members of the New Democratic party insisted that we stay here because that bill was so important that they did not wish parliament to adjourn without dealing with it. Yet today the leader of the N.D.P. comes to the house and says there is nothing of value in the speech from the throne.

As I said earlier, it does not require much originality to make statements of that kind. I myself feel there are many important pieces of legislation among the 47 bills listed; for example the languages bill, the agriculture legislation, the legislation concerning the Bankruptcy Act, and many others.

Both the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for York South referred very often to the subject of poverty, and drew attention to the statements made about poverty by the Economic Council of Canada. But as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said this afternoon, poverty was not discovered by the Economic Council when it put out its report. The Liberal party has been trying to deal with poverty for more than 30 years and has been doing a reasonably good job.

I would remind hon. members opposite that it was the Liberal party which secured the passage of the Canadian assistance plan legislation; it was the Liberal party which was responsible for the passage of the Canada Pension Plan, the medicare program, the manpower program and many similar pieces of legislation. So we have been trying to wage this war on poverty for a long time. When I listened to the Leader of the Opposition and to the hon. member for York South the question which occurred to me, as it did to the hon. member for Temiscamingue, was this: If it is so easy to eliminate poverty, why did not the Leader of the Opposition, who was premier of Nova Scotia for 11 years, deal with this question in some of his speeches from the throne. The last time I was in Nova Scotia it appeared to me that poverty had not been defeated there, despite the programs put into operation by this government during the past five years. If it is just a matter of putting things in speeches from the throne, why was more not done in the 11 years during which the Leader of the Opposition was premier of Nova Scotia?

Then again, as the hon. member for Temiscamingue put it, if the New Democratic party possessed these magic solutions, if it knew these answers during the 17 or 19 years during which it held power in Saskatchewan, why was there still so much poverty when it left office there? The hon. member for York South spoke about reprehensible actions and half truths. I thought it was very reprehensible for the hon. member to make the statement in this house-and members of his party applauded him-to the effect that other members of this house were making the same mistake as the Canadian electorate had made. Too often members of the N.D.P. take the attitude that when the voters become more intelligent they will vote for that party. They leave the suggestion that the voters are not too intelligent at present, but when they become better educated they will vote for N.D.P. candidates. I find this a reprehensible attitude. The Canadian people know better than either the Leader of the Opposition or the hon. member for York South who can best handle the business of this country-and it is the present Prime Minister, and the party to which I belong. The people have the good judgment and the intelligence to know it, though they are aware that there are no panaceas, as we pointed out during the campaign. The hon. member for Temiscamingue made a good point when he reminded us that if the New Democratic party or their colleagues in Britain did, indeed, possess magical solutions we might have expected them to embody those proposals in speeches from the throne and proceed to eliminate poverty.

What is wrong with speeches from the throne? In my opinion they are anachronistic, completely out of date in this modern age. Under this system a man who is a politician, a man who knows where he is going, has to prepare a speech to be read in an impartial way by someone who is non-political. I should like to see the session started with a speech from the Prime Minister, and the debate would go on from there. I do not know exactly how it would be arranged. Possibly when we appeared in the Senate chamber the Governor General could say a few welcoming words before concluding: "Now my first minister will deliver the program for this parliament."

Hear, hear.

Mr. Allmand:

We should not have to attend here and listen to the first speech in this house being made by the Leader of the Opposition. The first speech should come from the

September 16, 1968

Prime Minister. He should set the tone for the work of the session. As the procedure is now, even if the speech were read by Christopher Plummer I do not think he could come up with anything inspiring, whatever the content. As I say, I believe the present procedure to be anachronistic, and feel it should be changed.

One of the points I wish to bring up this evening concerns the Canada Elections Act. I feel we should not allow our experience of the election to become too distant before correcting some of the provisions in that legislation which in my opinion are unfair, and which denied the franchise to many Canadians.

[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)

Today a question was asked of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) by, I believe, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Osier), about whether amendments would be made with respect to bedridden people, and so forth, and the President of the Privy Council replied that he would be quite willing to hear suggestions. I think we should give him suggestions now, while these things are fresh in memory.

The election was held at the beginning of summer, just when the vacation period had started. Some people had planned their vacations a year ago. They had bought tickets to go across Canada, to go south or overseas. There should be a provision in our election act for absentee voting in such cases, and it should be more elaborate than the present two days advance voting. With all the technical advances we have, there is no reason why people who have been enumerated cannot vote, despite the fact that they are not in their constituencies on election day. Their votes could be transferred to another returning office in Canada, or to a consulate or embassy abroad.

It is also unfortunate that Canadian citizens living abroad, such as members of the foreign service, cannot vote through their embassies and consulates. Other countries have procedures whereby this is done, and we in Canada should do likewise.

Since this is the debate on the speech from the throne I would like to put on record some of my goals for this parliament and some of the goals of the people living in the Montreal area particularly, since my constituency is in Montreal. I know that the poverty program is a matter of priority. I have already mentioned the drug bill which will assist the war

The Address-Mr. Allmand on poverty and help achieve the just society, despite what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) may say.

I feel that in my constituency poverty is felt most by the older people. They suffer more than any other group. I would hope some things could be done to improve their situation. Although this party has done a lot in that regard I think we should do more. For example, Mr. Speaker, I would like to see the extra $500 exemption, which is now given at age 70, granted at age 65, particularly because we have lowered pension eligibility to that age.

Montreal is one of the principal transportation centres in Canada, and many people in that city have been wondering when there will be an appointment to the presidency of Air Canada. This important crown corporation has continued for a considerable length of time without a president. People in my area feel there are good men available. They do not believe it is good for the morale of the company that it continue to operate without a new president and I think the government should act on this matter as quickly as possible.

A frustrating experience with air transportation, despite the advance in aircraft technology, is the time taken to reach an airport from one's home. In the Montreal area one can spend more time going from his home to the airport, and from another airport to his ultimate destination, than he spends in the air. Something should be done about this problem, especially with respect to the proposed new airport in Montreal. I understand the government is taking this matter into consideration with respect to that new airport, and I urge that every effort be made to make the best use of fast jet travel.

I also wish to mention questions of security and labour problems at the port of Montreal. Last spring the Minister of Labour did a fantastic job of settling a potential strike at the port. However, I wish to point out to the house that the agreement reached then will last only until the end of this year, and then we will be faced with another situation.

Several things to make life more agreeable for men working in the port should be done by the government, but it appears that these things are not being done as quickly as possible. I refer to the provision of rest rooms, restaurants, waiting rooms and so forth. They have been sought for a long time and the government has promised them. I understand

September 16, 1968

The Address-Mr. Allmand that a pilot project has begun, but I believe the government should act more quickly.

There is also the question of security in the port. The other night I read an article by Bruce Taylor in the Montreal Star, describing the lax situation that exists, whereby anybody can go on to the docks in Montreal and steal goods. This comes at a time when a royal commission is sitting to investigate the question of security of the docks. One would think that the National Harbours Board could do much more to prevent theft and improve security on the wharves.

I hope that within the next three or four years this parliament will do something definite with respect to the pollution problems of air and water. Anti-pollution measures have been adopted in the United States and other countries. We are starting to act on these problems in Canada, and we should adopt a national water act as soon as possible. We are one of the richest countries in the world so far as water resources are concerned, but unless we act quickly these resources will not be preserved in a good state. To combat air pollution better automobile exhausts must be devised, and there must be legislation to maintain the purity of air.

The Prime Minister and the government are to be congratulated upon their intention to introduce an official languages act. It is important that the federal government set an example by introducing that bill as quickly as possible because some extremists in Canada, extremists on both sides, want to try

to eliminate the language of those with whom they disagree. At present in Montreal a group of new Canadians, mostly of Italian origin, live in an area where the local school board is controlled by a group of people whom I call extremists, people who are trying to eliminate the use of the English language in the local schools. I hope that by passing legislation such as the proposed official languages act, a higher level of understanding between language groups will be reached in all provinces of Canada.

I also hope that we will continue to press for the incorporation of a charter of human rights in the constitution, so that no school-board, no municipality, no province can take away the language rights of citizens. Mr. Speaker, I have confidence in the government and I know it will do a good job for us.