Mr. Jamieson:

I shall only talk for another minute or two. I believe we are on the right track in modernizing the Newfoundland fishery and instigating programs which are long range in their effects. That is the objective I have set for myself, and in that I am sure I have the enthusiastic support of this government.

Mr. Speaker:

Pursuant to standing order 6(2) I do now leave the chair.

At one o'clock the house took recess.

Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):

Mr. Speaker, I should like first of all to thank you and to congratulate you on your appointment as Speaker of this house. You were chosen by the members unanimously because of your personal qualities which so well qualified you for such an important and difficult office.

This is the first time, Mr. Speaker, that I have the honour of sitting in this house, and I am therefore not familiar with the rules. [Mr. Lundrigan.l

However, I shall try to learn them and if I happen to break any of them by mistake, I beg you to excuse me and to show indulgence. I should also like to thank the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) for his kind words of welcome to the new members, as I am one of them. I should like also to pay my respects to my devoted and dynamic leader, the worthy member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) whom I would call, like so many others, a great Canadian. He is a French Canadian who has not been afraid to firmly insist on the rights of the French element across Canada without interfering with the rights of others or destroying them.

Hear, hear.

Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse):

I consider it a pleasure and an honour to belong to a Canadian political party whose leader is such a highly devoted man and who has the courage to foster the economic security of all through freedom.

I would also like to congratulate all the other members who have been re-elected or elected for the first time. However, I would be unfair to myself if I did not entertain a very special feeling for my colleagues of the Ralliement Creditiste who so valiantly deserved the trust of their fellow-citizens.

At the same time, I would like to congratulate and thank those entrusted with the legislative and parliamentary function who have achieved the present degree of parliamentary organization and efficiency. Even though perfection has not been attained and some may not be satisfied, there is an impression that, at least, we are not starting from zero. Already we are facing something that exists, that moves, that is organized and is improving and that is continually being completed, without ever reaching its final stage.

You will agree, Mr. Speaker, that beginning at the very early age of 16, as in my case, to farm the land and also becoming an orphan at the age of 11 and starting from nothing in almost all my undertakings, I have a very clear impression, on my election to the House of Commons, that truly something has been accomplished. I feel contented and happy, and I congratulate those who were here before.

But I do not come here without anything to my credit; something has happened in the past 40 years. I have always tried to understand why the people I came into contact with acted as they did. I learned first to get along pretty well with the members of my

September 20, 1968 COMMONS

family and now, for a long time, I have cultivated my land as well as my family and social relations. For 25 years, I have been the secretary of a municipality created with the help of my fellow-citizens, because the municipality I am talking about is relatively young, since it goes back only to the thirties. That municipality, which today is the pride of the riding of Lotbiniere, is well organized, because the hard-working people who live there have cleared the land and settled on farms. I would say therefore that I have some experience of public life.

For the last 30 years or so, I have been taking part in all the activities of farm associations. I have followed with a great deal of regularity, in the public gallery, the proceedings of the legislature in my province. Therefore, I do not feel completely as a novice in the social and public life when coming here to Ottawa. I am happy to feel at home, to have a part to play and not to feel as if I had stolen somebody else's place when taking my seat as a member. I feel that I am here really as the choice of most of the voters in my riding who honoured me by selecting me over my opponents, and whom I would not want to disappoint during the term of my mandate in the Ottawa parliament.

[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)

I am here, Mr. Speaker because I have something to say, a representation to make, and maybe also something to defend. I do not want to be too severe but I do want to be explicit, frank and honest in asserting the rights of all the citizens of my riding, of my province, of other provinces, in a word, of Canada as a whole. In my opinion, it is life that counts the most in the "qualification" of persons with whom I am in contact. To live on a farm and having chosen to do so, one must love life.

Since redistribution, the new riding of Bel-lechasse includes, besides the provincial county of Bellechasse, a large part of Montmagny and the major part of Dorchester. It is a large riding where the people, who used to live exclusively of agriculture and lumbering, now earn their living, partly, by working for industries which have settled there.

The agricultural production of the riding of Bellechasse, which formerly was quite considerable, has also decreased, as everywhere else throughout the province of Quebec and Canada, precisely because agriculture is not profitable.

As far as existing industries are concerned -there are large ones, and small ones-the

DEBATES 285

The Address-Mr. Adrien Lambert larger ones could still expand, and the Industrial Development Bank Act should of necessity be amended to allow loans to those industries, at lower interest rates, so that they might achieve their goal and expand for the benefit of the people who live in my area.

There are also smaller enterprises which have hired help. These are family undertakings, which can also develop but which, as it is, hire a certain number of workers who, for the better part, are farmers who work there to increase their income because their own farms do not bring in enough revenue.

There is talk, generally, and there has been for a long time, of industrial decentralization but not much is being done to achieve that objective. I feel that in order to achieve that industrial decentralization, interest must be developed at every government level, municipal, provincial and federal, amongst, the go-betweens, and also the people who live in that sector of society, in order to promote the development of the municipalities and to enable them to provide the services essential to the establishment and expansion of new industries.

It should also be realized that if we want to maintain a decent level of population in our rural areas, new industries will have to offer employment to the local manpower, in addition to farm labour. If this objective could be achieved, we could hope to see an interesting level of population, the construction of new family dwellings, on condition, obviously that it be found possible to offer rural areas the advantage of a housing loan policy that would encourage the construction of real family dwellings, buildings in which not only modern machines could be housed, but also little Canadians, so that those spouses who still want children are enabled to house them properly.

Mr. Speaker, we also have in our areas, in my riding, as in other ridings in Quebec, many abandoned farms.

The farmers had to abandon them because their income did not allow them to live there. If you go through those parishes, you see many farms which used to be the pride of our people, of our province. However, today, when you see them, you wonder what happened to bring about such a situation in such a great and beautiful country where there is still so much to do.

Mr. Speaker, those people who, for the most part, cannot offer their services to industry because they are not qualified have

September 20, 1968

The Address-Mr. Adrien Lambert become social welfare recipients. It is not good for our country when too many ablebodied people cannot do their share to build our country and to increase productivity in order to wage an effective war on poverty about which so much is said in the Speech from the Throne.

We will also have to work seriously to give our children, who will soon leave schools with a vocational or industrial training, a job enabling them to put into practice the science which they strived to acquire during all those years we kept them in school. People complain that education is expensive but, if so, it is one more reason why we should do something without delay so that these youngsters whom we are preparing for the future will not be discouraged, after having left school, when applying for a job. The first question put to a student seeking a job is: Have you a diploma? When he answers, yes, I have; here it is, he is asked a supplementary question: Have you any experience? But as he had always gone to school in order to get his diploma, he was not able to work and get experience, of necessity he had to answer no. And when he said: No, I have no experience, he was told: It is just too bad, but I cannot hire you because you have no experience.

Mr. Speaker, I mention those cases because they have occurred frequently in the last few months. Indeed, I have witnessed such dramatic situations and our children find them discouraging, because they are led to believe that a diploma some training or other, would enable them to earn a living and get ahead as easily as one drives a car on the highway.

Mr. Speaker, attempts were made, perhaps involuntarily, to lead all our young people to believe that diplomas would be sufficient to earn a living and to make their way up into society but, then our children discover that this is not enough, and they blame the adults for not telling them the whole truth.

Mr. Speaker, I see that my time is quickly running out. There are so many things to explain so that the house may improve the economic situation of the eastern part of our province. I am not the only one to have witnessed that situation and to have seen such things as I described to you.

During the conference of premiers which I followed on television-I heard one of the premiers of the eastern provinces say at one time: Yes, it is true that there is a constitutional problem in our country, but there is an even more serious problem, the economic problem.

Hear, hear.

[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)

Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse):

He then described our country. When we speak of a united Canada, united culturally and in our common efforts to develop and expand the country, I am entirely in agreement. But the provincial premier said that Canada is divided into two sectors, one rich and the other economically weak.

Mr. Speaker, I belong to the latter. I happen to represent a part of this economically weak sector, and I would like to make my contribution and to co-operate, working hand in hand with my colleagues. By co-operating with the government, we will find effective solutions which will give results. The people will then no longer think that we only come here to pass the time, without any intention of producing results.

Mr. Speaker, there is an exceedingly serious problem in the field of agriculture which is in urgent need of a solution, or else it will play us a nasty trick.

There is now some talk of importing certain products which people need to feed themselves. Unfortunately, in my opinion, if we keep on the course that we already have taken, it will not be long before we shall have to import more of those products.

When a country has to turn to others for its own subsistence, then it loses its freedom.

Farmers in the province of Quebec are said to be inefficient, unable to plan their production, unable to set the course of their business. Those same charges were made from 1930 to 1939, when the prices of farm products were at their lowest. Farmers indeed were being discouraged because they were unable to earn adequate revenues.

Of course, production dwindled, and that was normal. When a businessman, or a manufacturer is not in a position to make some profit, he becomes disheartened and is compelled to give up.

However, Mr. Speaker, this was not the truth. What was true is this: in 1939, when war broke out, we called on our farmers to do their war effort. Intensive production committees were set up in every community. I was the chairman of one of those committees, and I used to hold informal meetings with local farmers to incite them to produce more butter, cheese, eggs and various meats. We succeeded in increasing the production of those goods by offering the farmers higher prices, as well as the possibility, the hope of at least earning their livelihood.

One or two sons were taken away from them, Mr. Speaker, for military training.

September 20, 1968

Eastern Canadian farmers, Quebec farmers, proved their efficiency, since they answered the call of their government, of their country, and generously made their war effort.

Mr. Speaker, this prosperous situation enjoyed by the farmers in the post-war years continued until about the 50's when the marketing of our products was adequate enough. However, since 1951, according to the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, the farming conditions of Quebec farmers have deteriorated from year to year. They did to such an extent that, in 1968, according to some D.B.S. figures published in La Terre de Chez Nous, a weekly publication of the province of Quebec, it is shown that the net income of Quebec farmers, calculated on constant dollars, has decreased since 1951 in spite of a remarkable increase in productivity. In fact it has almost tripled. Therefore, the net farm income per unit which amounted to $1940 in 1951 had decreased in 1967 to $1684 constant dollars.

Note that these figures include the farmer's remuneration for his work, his administration, as well as for his net investment in his farm, that is more than $2,500 in 1967. This net property, capitalized at 5 per cent, would alone absorb more than $1,250 per year, which leaves barely $434 per farm in Quebec as working and management income.

Mr. Speaker, the disastrous situation of the farmer in eastern Quebec, stems from something, and one of the main causes lies in that the products used by farmers have increased, by 60 per cent from 1951 to 1967 while the price of agricultural produce has increased by only 17 per cent.

What is worse is that, in the meantime, the cost of living in eastern Canada kept going up to such an extent that at the end of 1967, it was one third higher than in 1957.

Mr. Speaker, some people complain sometimes because the farmers want more for their products, and when they make representations to get higher prices, some uninformed people might think that they are going too far.

So that producers and consumers can agree once and for all, they should stop accusing each other and quarrelling and try to rectify the situation.

I have here a small half pint container of cream, with 18 per cent fat, which I bought in Ottawa this week. I paid 34 cents for it and the producer-and I am happy to say publicly to that I am one-gets only a small fraction of that amount. On the other hand, 29180-191

The Address-Mr. Adrien Lambert the manufacturer of the container, the printer, and the selling companies get more for the container and its handling than the value of the contents paid to producers, but the consumer is unaware of that. We do not have the support of the consumer when we want to assert, in an honest way, the legitimate rights of the farmer or the producer.

The situation is the same for soft drinks. Mr. Speaker, has it ever occurred to people that 40 ounces sell for 50 cents, if we consider that an 8 ounce bottle costs 10 cents. At the present price of milk, farmers and producers of manufacturing milk, receive approximately $4.80 a hundredweight which represents 12 cents a quart. Imagine; 12 cents for 40 ounces of milk. However, one must pay 50 cents for 40 ounces of soft drinks.

I am interested in the consumer because I have children, I am myself a consumer. I tell you that we must do something for him in a common effort to establish a just society.

[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)

I am referring again to the establishment of a just society, of the just society, just for everyone including the small wage-earner. Mr. Speaker, I live among the poor people, I have always lived among those who have to work, on account of their circumstances. Therefore, I can tell you this: Today, I know all those problems, I am here the spokesman of the poor people, but I do not know what it is to work with you all, so that in the light of the requirements of each and everyone, we could do something.

Mr. Speaker, has the farmer any rights or has he only obligations in Canada? What are the obligations of the farmers, what are the obligations of the agricultural class? They are to cut down the trees in the forest, in an effort to make a farm out of it. This has always been done in Canada: My forefathers and yours did it. Before the building in which we are gathered was erected, there were but trees on this site. They are men like the one who is speaking to you, as many others in Canada, who have worked manually to fell forests and tried to make the Canadian soil fertile in order to feed mankind. Such is the nature of the obligation, such is our duty, Mr. Speaker, and I believe that we have rather creditably discharged it. Even when it is not profitable, cows are milked, crops are reaped and stored in order to keep them and make them available to Canadian citizens.

Mr. Speaker, this is our responsibility. Those are our obligations to the community, but I consider that there is never any obligation and responsibility without corresponding

September 20, 1968

The Address-Mr. Alexander rights. And the right for the farming class is that of a vital minimum; it is the right of a farmer to have an income enabling him to earn honourably his family's living. The farmer has a right to have enough revenue to pay for public services, like everyone else. They ask no special favours. If, two weeks from now, it should cost 6 cents to mail a letter, the farmer will pay 6 cents. If it costs $3 to get a tooth fixed, the farmer will pay $3. We are glad to pay the price, but in order to be able to meet the prices asked left and right, we have to have enough money. The farmer has a right to it, and that is why I am asking today whether something could be done about this. I am expressing myself as best I can, with the vocabulary at my disposal-for society did not give me much, and I do not have much of a university education, but at least I tried to get an understanding of the French language and arithmetic. If something could be done about this problem, it would help my fellow-citizens and perhaps my own family.

Mr. Speaker, I ask for the support of all

parties in this house to try to get some justice, not ten or twenty years from now, but as soon as possible, within a few months, so that the dairy farmers, the producers of manufacturing milk, may get at least a guaranteed price of $5.50 a hundredweight. That is not going to ruin anybody. Mr. Speaker-

Mr. Speaker:

Order. Since we live in a just society, I think it would be unfair towards this house if I did not tell the hon. member that the time allotted to him has expired. Unless he obtains the unanimous consent of the house, I cannot allow him to continue.

No.

Mr. Speaker:

Since there is not unanimous consent, I must recognize the hon. member for Hamilton West.

Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank you for giving me this opportunity of speaking to this first session of the twenty eighth parliament as the representative for Hamilton West. To me this is a privilege and an honour which I shall long remember because it is at this time that I feel a sense of involvement and belonging.

I begin by congratulating you, sir, on your election as Speaker and informing you that there can be no doubt in my mind, after listening to the many plaudits extended to you, that we shall continue to be directed by

TMr. Lambert (Bellechasse) .1

your excellent guidance and leadership. My congratulations are also extended to the Deputy Speaker, whose ability has been recognized. I, as well as many others, particularly those sitting in this house for the first time, have been very impressed with the way you have been discharging your responsibilities, being knowledgeable, impartial and giving evidence of your wit.

My sincerest congratulations are extended to the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin) and the hon. member for Kam-loops-Cariboo (Mr. Marchand), both of whom, because of their seriousness of thought and ability to communicate, have gained the respect and admiration of this entire house.

I would also like to bring to your attention, sir, that at this moment I am very conscious of a meeting that I had in Toronto some time in 1964 with the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). It was there and then that he, in his wisdom and experience, believed that I should be engaged in politics as a candidate because, as he stated, he had faith and confidence in my ability and believed that I could and would make a contribution toward the ultimate destiny of Canada. For this I am extremely grateful.

Hear, hear.

Mr. Alexander:

I am also pleased to say that fortunately the electorate of Hamilton West were of the same opinion, and because of this faith and confidence, as expressed in many ways prior to the last general election, I now speak as the hon. member for Hamilton West. My gratitude is also extended to a former hon. member, Mr. Joseph Macaluso, who in his wisdom has helped me tremendously to be here this afternoon.

Hear, hear.

Mr. Alexander:

Mr. Speaker, there are no words that can adequately express my thanks and those of my family for this great honour. Therefore I can only say with deep sincerity and conviction that I am profoundly grateful for this unprecedented honour and I shall do my utmost to become a worthy member of parliament under the leadership of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), who has continually encouraged and counselled me, and the guidance of many hon. members on both sides of this house who have expressed an interest in my political career, sanctioned, I fervently pray, by Him without whom all goals are unattainable.

September 20, 1968

I am privileged to say that I was born in Ontario, the province of opportunity, the province to which many people in Canada look for leadership because it has progressed so dynamically, welcoming all peoples, regardless of race, creed or colour, desirous of contributing to its phenomenal growth and sharing its wealth and the good life. Within that province is the city in which I live, the city that has adopted me and propelled me with jet-like propulsion to the House of Commons.

In view of the time allotted to me, and because I would like to make some observations on other matters, I cannot recite a complete and adequate picture of the city of Hamilton, or in fact my riding of Hamilton West, one of four in the city that escaped Trudeaumania, much to the disbelief and bewilderment of the Grits. In any event, I find it necessary to speak about some of the important points of Hamilton because, as I understand it, a member is likely not to have another opportunity.

I would like to commence by pointing out to you, Mr. Speaker, and hon. members that Hamilton had another first in the person of Hon. Ellen Fairclough, Canada's first woman cabinet member, who no doubt is warmly remembered by many hon. members because of her outstanding contribution to this house.

Hear, hear.

Mr. Alexander:

To her I owe much, and I shall continue to rely on her wisdom and experience.

This city of almost 300,000 in population is the steel centre of Canada, producing more than one half of Canada's steel. It is interesting to note that iron and steel industry sales all across Canada make up approximately 2.7 per cent of the gross national product, therefore being even greater than wheat which is 1.7 per cent.

[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)

Because of the importance of this industry to our economy, Canada's principal basic steel producers, among which the Hamilton steel industry plays an important role, are of course very interested in the new anti-dumping code agreed to by Canada in the recent General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade. Mr. Speaker, you will recall that something was said on this subject this morning. Industry regards dumping as a serious problem and is justifiably concerned about the potential loss of domestic markets to foreign competition at

The Address-Mr. Alexander dump prices arising from Canada's acceptance of article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

Industry recognizes that competition on a fair trade basis is customary and of course challenging. However, competition at less than fair market value is disturbing and cannot be considered fair. In fact it may result in irreparable damage to the domestic industry and to the economy. It is suggested that the onus of preventing undue disruption from dumping into the domestic market rests completely on the importing country. Therefore I strongly urge that the government be very aware of the dangers of dumping, and in enacting any laws to bring the anti-dumping agreement into effect deep consideration and attention should be given to the scope of the legislation and the form of administration of the law because Hamilton, and indeed Canada, neither want nor can afford harmful effects on the economy.

Although steel plays a great role in the life of Hamilton, the manufacturing of machinery, electrical goods, rubber, chemicals and textiles also mean a livelihood for many Hamiltonians. Hamilton can further boast of the port of Hamilton which has a 10-mile waterfront providing three miles of berthing space. It is a port of call for 50 shipping lines and it has agencies with services to and from 100 world ports. Present trends suggest that the port will become an increasingly important seaport gateway through which an ever-growing volume of exports and imports will be shipped, thereby allowing it to continue to break records in terms of tonnage moved. In this connection may I remind the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) that notwithstanding the fact that in a democracy one can expect strikes, Hamilton would take issue with him in the event there was a prolonged strike in this area.

One cannot speak of Hamilton without reference to McMaster University, my alma mater, which has attracted and continues to attract students from all over the world who seek excellence in graduate and post-graduate studies. It is worth while mentioning that Hamilton's rock garden because of its floral display has received international acclaim. May I also point out, if anyone is in doubt, that Hamilton still has faith in the Hamilton Tiger Cats football team.

The city of Hamilton is progressing with an urban renewal program including a civic square, and Hamiltonians continue to expect, and in fact deserve, immediate, decisive and

290 COMMONS

The Address-Mr. Alexander continued government leadership in that regard.

Of some concern to Hamilton at the present time are its plans for a cultural centre-the Hamilton theatre auditorium. Toward this end may I say that the people of Hamilton have made and met their financial commitments; the province of Ontario has made and is prepared to honour its commitment, and we now look to this government to become involved pursuant to the many requests made upon it so that a firm and early commitment may be expected. It is hoped that the government is as enthusiastic about receiving briefs and submissions on this project as are the Hamiltonians in presenting them.

Hamilton is no different from any other large city. Of course it has its urban problems. Hamiltonians also are very concerned about housing, unemployment, inflation, air and water pollution, lack of mortgage moneys, high interest rates, and lack of serviced land. These are the areas to which priority should be directed.

Hamiltonians, and indeed all Canadians, believed that the Speech from the Throne would indicate solutions to these problems with greater clarity as related to the just society, a phrase without definition and an election slogan that has frustrated and confused many. Canadians want solutions to the many social and economic problems which burden this nation. They want them now, and they will not be satisfied with tokenism and expression of intentions for the future.

It is not unreasonable to conclude that because the Prime Minister spoke of the just society on the hustings and said, "follow me, give me a majority", Canadians had the right to expect and believe that this government would present to them a dynamic, inspiring and moving political manifesto in the speech from the throne. I can remember the arrival of the Prime Minister in Hamilton and I can remember reading about him and his smile when he said "follow me" and they walked. Then he became famous for that which many of us younger ones would want to be famous and for which we feel some jealousy. The women said, "where do we go?" He said, "follow me", and they walked.

Now it is implied that the government did not have to give this country leadership or direction in the speech from the throne. Apparently, in the mind of the government, this conclusion was unreasonable on the part of the people and reached without justification, much to the dismay and disappointment of

DEBATES September 20, 1968

many Canadians. I too am disappointed and in total disagreement with the utterances of many political experts who believe that it is inevitable that the speech from the throne should be dull, uninspiring and empty. Such speeches are not and never will be accepted. This is 1968, the jet propelled age and not the days of the horse and buggy.

As a result of their disappointment, Canadians have changed. I say that sincerely. They are no longer uninformed, naive and gullible. At this time an expression comes to my mind which was continually referred to by the late Dr. Martin Luther King in speeches in which he quoted the ungrammatical truths of an old preacher among which was the following; "We ain't what we oughta be, we ain't what we could be, we ain't what we should be, but thank God we ain't what we was." I say to the government: take heed and wake up before it is too late.

Mr. Speaker, since coming to this house I have become more and more aware of the tremendous responsibilities of a member of parliament. He must grapple conscientiously and diligently with the many problems which face this nation. He must find with expediency the solutions to them. He must be concerned about the quality of life being experienced by all Canadians. He must create with enthusiasm and confidence a climate of proper direction to ensure the realization of our ultimate goal, that of a greater Canada in which we can all pray, live, work and play harmoniously while enjoying the fruits of full economic development. To these ends I dedicate my strength and my abilities and in this dedication my thoughts are directed toward many people in Canada about whom I and my constituents in Hamilton West are concerned.

We are concerned about the fact that four million people live in poverty. We are concerned about the fact that the dream of owning one's home has apparently become an impossible dream under this administration. We are concerned about the fact that unemployment is at the unwarranted high level of more than 400,000. We are concerned about the reliance on welfare by many. We are concerned about the fact that because of inflation the pensioners, the aged, the disabled and those on fixed incomes have very little purchasing power.

[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)

Does this government have the solutions to these basic problems that face this nation? If

September 20, 1968

they have let them kindly advise the country, because the country is waiting for the answers. I say to this government, this is the time to show greater evidence of its concern. This is unquestionably a time for reassessment, a time for awakening. This is a time for reflection on the past only to better enable us to determine the guide lines and direction that positive action for the immediate future must take, particularly in relation to economic development, research and technology. We would then be in a more favourable position to solve these problems.

It seems to me that in a just society it should be the continuing responsibility of this government to be constantly aware of and concerned about the degree of the quality of life that each and every Canadian is experiencing. If there is any disparity, no matter how little, then the government should immediately set itself to reducing it, thereby assuring that each and every individual can live a full productive life and become in fact an essential part of the mainstream of Canadian life for the betterment of all Canadians.

I should like to move now, Mr. Speaker, to another topic. I am the first black man elected to the House of Commons. This results from the fact that many Hamiltonians have accepted as a way of life a simple truism expressed by Adele Florence Corey long ago. She said that men should be judged not by the colour of their skin nor by the way they fight, love or sin, nor by the gods they serve or vintage they drink, but by the quality of thoughts they think. How simple that statement is, but how unacceptable to many. Yet, if this way of life is not accepted, speak not to me of the Bill of Rights; speak not to me of democracy; speak not to me of the brotherhood of man or the fatherhood of God, because this then becomes hypocrisy. The black man also desires a place in the mainstream of life and because of this we read of his struggle, and struggle he must.

Listen to what Frederick Douglas, that great abolitionist, said back in 1857 about struggle. He said;

The whole history of the progress of human liberty shows that all concessions yet made to her august claims have been born of earnest struggle. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess freedom yet deprecate struggle are men who want crops without ploughing up the ground; they want rain without thunder and lightning. Power concedes nothing without a demand.

The Address-Mr. Haidasz

I look at the government.

It never did and it never will. Men may not get all they pay for in this world, but they must certainly pay for all they get.

The negro has to struggle. Some say I have it made. Let me, standing here, be no indication that all negroes in Canada have it made. Let me say this: the negro has awakened with a new soul. He knows he is somebody. He is Thurgoode Marshall, Supreme Court Justice; he is Dr. Ralph Bunche, diplomat extraordinaire. He is Carl Stokes, mayor of Cleveland. He is Dr. Martin Luther King, whose passive resistance movement has changed the nature of the thinking of the whole free world. He is Leonard Braithwaite who, even though a Liberal, sits at Queens Park in Toronto. He is the high commissioners and ambassadors we see here in Ottawa.

This is an impressive list, I know, but I wonder how many men of such calibre we have lost because of the deliberate rejection of people because of colour? I am not the spokesman for the negro; that honour has not been given to me. Do not let me ever give anyone that impression. However, I want the record to show that I accept the responsibility for speaking for him and all others in this great nation who feel that they are the subjects of discrimination because of race, creed or colour.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would say that our role in the building of the "just society", if it is to become a reality, is that we as parliamentarians must be involved with the hopes, the fears, the disappointments, legitimate aspirations and despair of each and every Canadian, ever mindful that involvement demands commitment in terms of actions and deeds, rather than words only.

Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):

Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in the debate on the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne of the first session of this parliament, I am eager to congratulate you on your re-election as Speaker of the house and to wish you every success in the performance of your heavy duties.

I also wish to congratulate the Deputy Speaker and the Deputy Chairman of committees (Messrs. Faulkner and Bechard) on their appointment.

I wish to add as well my congratulations to those that have already been made to the hon.

September 20, 1968

The Address-Mr. Haidasz member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin), who has been chosen to move the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. The depth of his thoughts and the enthusiasm with which he expressed them assure us that he will bring a worthy contribution to the house proceedings.

I also want to congratulate the member for Kamloops-Caribou (Mr. Marchand), the first member of Indian origin to sit in this house and the mover of the address in reply. I salute his arrival in the house, as I salute that of the member who has just finished his speech. His presence in this house, as well as his special knowledge, will no doubt help us to better understand the problems of the minorities of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I take great pleasure in joining my colleagues and my electors in congratulating the right honourable Prime Minister on his victory and that of the Liberal party in the general election of June 25. His wish for a just society, as well as the devotion and the courage with which he pursues that goal, is welcomed with great satisfaction and enthusiasm by my electors and, doubtless by all the citizens of Canada. I am particularly pleased to hear his statements and especially to read in the Speech from the Throne that constitutional reforms are the best guarantee of Canadian unity.

Our most important duty during this parliament is to strengthen national unity. Moreover, the Canadian charter of human rights must ensure to all our citizens the protection of fundamental liberties.

I wish also to thank the right hon. Prime Minister for the honour he extended to me by calling me to the office of Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford). I shall endeavour to fulfil my duties to the best of my abilities and I may add that I am very pleased to try and help the ministers, all the members and the Canadian people at this critical hour.

With the experience he has, the minister quite obviously understands the daily problems of Canadians and judging by the manner I have seen this department work since it has been his responsibility, I am convinced that the Canadian consumers are already being helped and will be helped further in the future.

Mr. Speaker, in the discharge of my duties, I want also to express my gratitude to the electors of Parkdale for having elected me as

their representative in this house. I hope that I will, at all times, serve loyally and devotedly my constituents and my fellow-citizens.

Parkdale constituency, which is situated in the southwest area of Toronto, is almost a miniature replica of a cosmopolitan centre. Besides the Anglo-Saxon and French-Canadi-an groups, almost all other ethnic groups live there. As was the case for many of our ancestors, many of my constituents immigrated here to start a new life. Some came with a spirit of adventure; others were in quest of freedom. Coming to Canada in large numbers, thanks to a judicious immigration policy of the Liberal party, they have found freedom and a better life in this country. They are proud of the traditions of our country and anxious to participate in its development. A great many of them have contributed to a large extent to our economy as labourers, teachers, doctors, lawyers, engineers, missionaries, artists, etc.

During May last, the right honourable Prime Minister honoured us by presiding at a ceremony and unveiling a monument, in Toronto, commemorating Sir Casimir Stanislas Gzowski, one of the first Polish immigrants that settled in Toronto. On account of his services to Canada as an engineer and a statesman, he was knighted by Queen Victoria, in 1890.

Mr. Speaker, the immigrants constitute an invaluable asset for the future of Canada. The great amount of respect shown by my constituents toward our free and democratic way of life is very enlightening. They are firmly decided not to lose the freedom they have found in this country. Hence, they have an uncompromising desire to help those nations that have lost their freedom.

[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)

Among my constituents who, especially at this time, have demonstrated, and rightly so, a grave concern for freedom and basic human rights, a concern shared, I hope, by all Canadians, are those of Czech and Slovak origins. The aborting of the long awaited liberalization process in Czechoslovakia by the Soviet led invasion of that unfortunate country on August 20 shocked our citizens and indeed the people of the free world as well as many citizens in countries behind the iron curtain. This blow to freedom has marred the world's celebration of human rights year. The General Assembly of the United Nations

September 20, 1968

declared 1968 human rights year to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the declaration of human rights. I am sure we would all like to express the hope, Mr. Speaker, that before the end of this unfortunate year basic freedoms and human rights will be returned to the people of Czechoslovakia.

While attending the international congress of gastroenterology held in Prague in mid-July of this year I had the opportunity of not only visiting and admiring the 1,000 year old historical evidence of Christianity and western civilization, but also the privilege of meeting and speaking with people from all walks of life in that geographically small but rich and beautiful country of Czechoslovakia.

It was evident that Czechs and Slovaks awaited with a curious and patient expectation the beginnings of basic freedoms and human rights, and yearned for an economic growth that would benefit the common working man. But their hopes were short lived. On August 20 the cold harshness of the imperialistic designs of a totalitarian state extinguished the fire of freedom in Czechoslovakia. I believe, however, that the intense desire of the defiant people of that country to be free to determine their own destiny will never be extinguished.

The Canadian government, both at home and abroad, protested against the invasion of Czechoslovakia. At the United Nations Security Council emergency session the distinguished and able Canadian representative immediately voiced Canada's protest by cosponsoring a resolution condemning the Soviet intervention, and then initiated a second resolution which sought to ensure the release and safety of the leaders of Czechoslovakia. In Ottawa, following an emergency session of cabinet, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) stated unequivocally Canada's protest and voiced our indignation.

In Toronto at a public protest rally, I read on behalf of the Secretary of State for External Affairs a special message which condemned the Soviet led invasion of Czechoslovakia. The message also stated that the Canadian government had unequivocally condemned this use of force and called for the immediate end of the Soviet occupation.

By its actions the U.S.S.R. had chosen brutally to ignore the most basic principle of international law and two of the cardinal principles of the United Nations charter; that of the sovereign equality of states, and the obligation that states must refrain in their international relations from the use of force

The Address-Mr. Haidasz against the territorial integrity or political independence of another state. The Canadian government has been in the forefront of the efforts at the United Nations to aid the people of Czechoslovakia. Canada does not condone the occupation of Czechoslovakia nor the illegal and unjustified intervention of the U.S.S.R.

The special message of the Secretary of State for External Affairs also stated that an agreement reached under duress resulting from military occupation and this mode of resolving difficulties between states is completely repugnant to the Canadian government. In addition, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government showed its compassion in dealing with the consequences of the Czechoslovak tragedy. Already Canada has offered a new home and emergency financial assistance to the nearly 500 refugees from Czechoslovakia. This is an enviable record which I do not think has been surpassed to this date by any other government outside Vienna. It is to the credit of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. MacEachen), with the co-operation of his cabinet colleagues and the efficient work of his officials, that Canada has provided such humanitarian treatment to these refugees.

May I encourage the minister to continue his efforts and also suggest to him that he add to the special Canadian team recently sent to Vienna more departmental officials and also representatives from Czech and Slovak national organizations in Canada. Such a move, I believe, is desirable in view of yesterday's Reuters press report from Munich that according to the international rescue committee there are more than 30,000 refugees from Czechoslovakia homeless in various parts of western Europe.

I believe many Canadians are impatiently awaiting the forthcoming session of the general assembly of the United Nations. Perhaps many people are hoping for too much, but, Mr. Speaker, despite its weaknesses, the United Nations is still the best instrument for peace and justice that the world today possesses. In the meantime, Canada should work toward the establishment of an impartial and effective international control agency. Such a body should be empowered to preserve peace and justice by controlling the proliferation of nuclear weapons, negotiating peaceful disputes, advancing human rights and supporting economic development.

294 COMMONS

The Address-Mr. Haidasz [DOT] (3:40 p.m.)

As the representative of Parkdale I also have deep concern for my constituents who, at the same time, are citizens of the great municipality of metropolitan Toronto. This great city was the first community in the western hemisphere to give political recognition to the metropolitan form of government, which was created by the demands of modern, industrial society. Metropolitan Toronto was legally established in April, 1953, by an act of the Ontario Legislature.

Toronto plays an important role in the development of our entire country, and not just in the development of Ontario. This great municipality, with a population of 1,900,000 persons-the population increases by about

60,000 persons each year-soon will contain nearly 10 per cent of all Canada. A great industrial and educational centre, Toronto is also a major port in the St. Lawrence seaway system; through the port are forwarded domestic and foreign cargoes to almost all parts of the North American continent as well as to many overseas countries.

During this long, hot summer I, with several Liberal colleagues of this house, attended meetings of the city of Toronto redevelopment advisory council, as well as meetings of other public agencies and officials concerning the great redevelopment plan of Toronto's downtown core, the Toronto harbour and the new 50 mile long waterfront, including a new and bold concept for the Canadian National Exhibition grounds. On September 10 the Toronto planning board approved an official and complete 15 year development plan, during which time metropolitan Toronto's population is expected to grow to 3 million people.

Toronto's redevelopment plan includes matters under federal jurisdiction such as transportation, new airports, extended harbour facilities, a post office in central downtown, a radio and television broadcasting centre, a new waterfront and, as I mentioned before, large grounds for the Canadian National Exhibition.

I am happy to see the Postmaster General (Mr. Kierans) in his seat this afternoon, and I extend to him an invitation to visit Toronto as soon as possible, to see the operations of the central post office. He might also wish to learn of the plan the Toronto planning board has for the relocation of the central post office. At the same time I extend a similar invitation to all other cabinet ministers whose departments have a bearing on this redevelopment plan. It is definitely in the national

DEBATES September 20, 1968

interest to utilize all our technical know-how and financial resources in order to carry out these redevelopment plans. The people of Toronto need and demand swift action. Federal and provincial co-operation with Toronto officials on these matters will stimulate a great sector of the Canadian economy, provide thousands of new jobs and eventually increase our national revenue.

I submit that further provincial and federal initiatives are indispensible to the improvement of the quality of life in our sprawling urban centres. The problems of slums, poverty, disease, delinquency, crime, inadequate housing, air pollution, contaminated water and traffic congestion will choke our cities and paralyze the entire Canadian economy unless all levels of government plan and act more quickly. All our urban problems which have national implications must be examined thoroughly. The influence of modern environment on Canadian citizens is a major and urgent national issue. In order to cope with these and other environmental problems I suggest to the federal government that we establish a special department of urban and environmental affairs.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that the government's legislative program has an underlying basic philosophy and an appreciation of the right priorities. It will satisfy many needs and provide better living conditions in our present, complex, modem society. I support and have confidence in this legislative program which, I submit, merits favourable consideration by members on both sides of the house.

Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Souih Shore):

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to participate in this debate. My first words will be to congratulate you, sir, on your elevation to the position of Speaker of this house, a position which I know from experience you will fill with dignity and fairness to all members in all parts of this house. I also wish at this time to congratulate a fellow Nova Scotian on his promotion to the position of Clerk of the House. This is an important post and I hope that the trend in this house toward higher positions for Nova Scotians will continue in future.

Following a time honoured custom, I wish to congratulate the mover, the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin), and the seconder, the hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo (Mr. Marchand) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. They

September 20, 1968

expressed their views with clarity and sincerity in a manner which honours the constituencies that elected them to this house.

Time will not permit me to extend individual congratulations to the Prime Minister, the Deputy Speaker, the Deputy Chairman of Committees and all members of the new cabinet, among whom are some old friends. I wish them all good health in the carrying out of their important and heavy responsibilities to the Canadian people.

This morning I listened with interest to the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Jamieson). I regret that he cannot be in his seat this afternoon. In his remarks he did his best to explain away the removal of the salt fish subsidy to our fishing industry as well as the removal of the winter works program and other programs. In the minister's words, these were only "band aids" which were being removed to let the government take a closer look at the depth of the wound. Without being partisan or political, Mr. Speaker, I have a tendency to agree with the views expressed by the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan) who asked the minister this morning why these programs are being removed before something better is put in their place. To put the matter in the words of a member representing an Atlantic region, "We don't like to take away a man's lifebuoy before we have him safely in the lifeboat."

Though this is not the first time I have spoken in this chamber I feel honoured to speak as the first federal representative of the new federal constituency in Nova Scotia known as South Shore. It is a large riding which covers an area from West Dover in Halifax county, through Lunenburg, Queens and Shelburne counties to Clyde River. It contains such famous beauty spots as Peggy's Cove, St. Margaret's Bay, Chester and Ma-hone Bay-which is famous for the legend of the ghost ship Teaser and the island in which Captain Kidd reputedly put his buried treasure-the beautiful town of Lunenburg, home of the deep sea fishing fleet and of the Blue-nose whose famous skipper, Captain Angus Walters, last month departed on his last voyage. Lunenburg also is the home of the replica of the Bounty, and contains the floating museum, the LaHave River which was first settled by the French, the beautiful town of Bridgewater, the privateer town of Liverpool which is the home of Thomas Raddall, the writer, the fishing towns of Lockeport and 29180-201

The Address-Mr. Crouse Shelburne, home of the Empire Loyalists, a section of Kejimkujik national park, and many picturesque fishing villages too numerous to mention. Truly, the South Shore is one of the most storied and picturesque ridings in all of Canada.

The people in the riding are strongly independent and derive their living from many sources. Some are engaged in the development of our primary industries such as fishing, farming and lumbering; others are employed in ancillary industries such as shipbuilding, ship repairing, foundries, the manufacture of fishing nets, fish processing plants, tree farming and the manufacture of hard-board and newsprint, to name but a few.

[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)

These industries are today, for the most part, facing the same problems as those which trouble other industries throughout Canada, namely, their costs of production are excessive and there are insufficient markets where their products can be sold at a profit. This applies to our newsprint industry, our agricultural industry and our fishing industry. As a result of our inability to compete in foreign markets we find unemployment levels increasing, and many of our people are gravely concerned about their future.

It was for these reasons that the people in my riding and throughout Nova Scotia looked forward to the reading of the speech from the throne, which they hoped would contain details of the promise made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) when he spoke in Yarmouth, Nova Scotia. According to the headlines appearing in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald of May 31 the right hon. gentleman, who is now Prime Minister, stated that a new multi-million dollar ferry service would be established across the bay of Fundy between Digby and Saint John. The new vessel is to cost $7 million, and docking and other facilities another $10 million; the new freight, auto and passenger service, he said, would handle all the freight demands of southwestern Nova Scotia and the Annapolis valley. Why was this promise not mentioned in the speech from the throne? When can we expect assistance toward the provision of a second ferry between Nova Scotia and New England to aid our tourist industry?

On the same occasion, in Yarmouth, the Prime Minister spoke of economic disparities, describing them as a greater danger to Canadian unity than cultural or linguistic differences; it was too much to expect Canadians to be united unless they all got a

September 20, 1968

The Address-Mr. Crouse just share. Speaking in Halifax, the right hon. gentleman said the threat to Canada's national unity did not arise so much from French-English problems as from economic disparity, and in view of this he intended to give regional development top priority.

With these statements I agree, and I was amazed therefore to read in the speech from the throne that the government regarded its first responsibility, and the first responsibility of this parliament, that of clearing away the accumulation of essential legislative adjustments left over from the last parliament. Unless these were cleared up promptly, we were told, efficient public administration and the effective operation of the Canadian economy would be hampered. What arrogance; what gall! When we on this side asked the government to make arrangements for parliament to sit as soon as possible after the results of the election were known, we were told this was not necessary and that some time in the fall, some time in September, would do. Now the election is over, what does the government list as business of the highest priority? Not regional development as stated by the Prime Minister in Halifax, but parliamentary reform.

And when this is out of the way, what is parliament to consider? Are we to deal with economic disparities, which the Prime Minister described in Yarmouth as presenting a greater danger to Canadian unity than cultural or linguistic differences? Oh, no; according to the speech from the throne we shall next be asked to enact a totally new official languages act based on a recommendation of the royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism.

Mr. Speaker, I do not question the importance of these matters, but there are serious doubts in my mind about the government's sense of priorities. Many Canadians are living in poverty; they are calling out for assistance. They have not yet won their war on poverty, as have the defeated Liberal candidates. They are in the position of a drowing man who needs help immediately. But what are the members of this government doing? They are ignoring the drowning man's call. They say: We will help you, but first we must swab the deck, pump out the bilge and clean up the mess in the galley left by the former captain and crew; later on we will think about throwing you a lifeline. Mr. Speaker, by that time it will be too late.

I realize that the fo'c's'le and the captain's cabin of our ship of state must be in a terrible condition after the departure of the former captain and the exodus of his sloppy officers and crew. The present Prime Minister might simply have said in the speech from the throne that the ship of state needed to undergo a refit. In fairness to the right hon. gentleman the mess is not entirely of his making, since he has only been a Liberal since 1965. But he had lots of help from Judy and Jack, Gordon and Winters, as well as Robichaud and Martin, who fouled up our international fishing nets in a 12 mile limit and a fisheries policy which defied implementation or explanation by either one of them, a fact which may account for their departure to the other place.

If members of the government would take time to read the fifth annual review of the Economic Council of Canada I feel certain they would have a better idea of some of the problems facing Canadians. Reading this review it is evident that those of us who live in the Atlantic provinces have no priority when it comes to poverty in this nation. But we in the Atlantic provinces are especially concerned about statistics which show that our per capita incomes are as much as one-third lower than those enjoyed by the rest of the nation while our unemployment rate is double the national average, resulting in poorer standards of living and substandard housing. The council's report adds up to an admission of a continuing economic crisis in the Atlantic provinces, a crisis which Ottawa has not faced. The Atlantic provinces need a development policy geared to the needs of the region-a policy which will provide for the massive investment of federal and private funds which would enable us to process our plentiful raw materials within our own area.

Take shipyards, for example. The Liberal government's present policy of curtailing and reducing subsidies for ship construction has brought about a situation in which shipyard workers in my constituency face massive unemployment. Yesterday the leaders of the industry met with representatives of the government and I am sure they underlined the serious situation which exists within the industry. To the best of my knowledge, none of the shipyards in Mahone Bay, Lunenburg, Dayspring, Liverpool or Shelburne have any ships to build; the shutting down of these plants affects not only direct employment in the yards, but has a disastrous effect upon employment in our foundries and machine

September 20, 1968

shops. I noted with interest during the election campaign that the shortage of work in Quebec shipyards was a matter of concern to the then minister responsible for manpower and immigration, now Minister of Forestry and Rural Development (Mr. Marchand), who is reported in the Halifax Herald of June 17 as saying in Quebec that Canada made a mistake in selling its merchant marine after the second world war and that he would do everything in his power to restore it.

The speech from the throne is strangely silent about the major problems of our shipyards and of the deep sea fishing industry which is so closely allied with shipbuilding, but with the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development supporting my plea, I trust that our now silent shipyards will be reactivated. I realize, to use a popular phrase, that the bloom may be off the rose and that a large number of ships may not be required in the next few years. But some ships will be needed. In the fishing industry, Europeans are rapidly replacing their fishing fleets with new, modern, efficient vessels. In this they are encouraged by liberal loans, investment allowances, subsidies and special depreciation provisions. These large factory ships are producing frozen and packaged fish and unfortunately some of the fish they catch are marketed on this side of the ocean, creating problems for our Canadian fishing industry. As a matter of fact, the Canadian government reduced the subsidies on steel hulled vessels from 50 to 35 per cent at a time when we must compete with countries whose shipbuilding and fishing industries are state supported, and with whom expense is therefore no object.

Incidentally, no subsidies have been paid at the present rate in Nova Scotia since last November and when the hon. member from South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau) asked the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) yesterday when we could hope to see the restoration of those subsidies the answer he received was a model of brevity; it was simply a flat no.

[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)

One aspect of ship construction assistance has always puzzled me. I have in mind the reasoning behind the government's action in making subsidies for steel ships under the statute, while the subsidies for wooden ships come under the estimates. Why does the government not put steel and wooden shipbuilding on the same footing and in the same amount? Since the present government apparently does not approve of ship subsidies and

The Address-Mr. Crouse since its lack of action has brought shipbuilding to a halt, I would propose that the government give consideration to implementing a system of investment allowances as a form of tax remission which would benefit the Canadian shipbuilding industry, the fishing industry and commercial shipping.

The Prime Minister often speaks of total involvement by Canadians. I believe investment allowances would bring about better involvement of Canadians in the building of ships. The investment allowances principle is not new. It has been used in the United Kingdom. I should like briefly to illustrate the principle of this system. If a ship cost $100 built in Canada it would be set up on the books as $175 for depreciation purposes. This additional amount would compensate for the difference in cost between construction in Canada and European countries. Under the investment allowance system the entire amount could be written off in a four year period if company earnings warranted this. The figure I have used is an arbitrary one. When the costs are compared with the costs of European builders it may be necessary to increase this amount. However, I wish to give the government something to think about.

I would also suggest that these allowances be extended to existing vessels, especially existing fishing boats, provided the allowance is used for the construction of new ships. I say this because the accumulated depreciation on existing vessels is only a fraction of what a new ship would cost and, consequently, such ships are difficult to finance. Under this system the builders of ships would be obliged to use their own profits, but I believe investment allowances would be a double barrelled approach to our shipyard and ship construction problems. In addition this would encourage thrift, reward ambition, promote enterprise and create employment which is seriously needed in many parts of Canada.

At the present time the fishing industry is facing many serious problems brought about by ever changing social and economic conditions which are prevalent throughout the world. In order for the fishing industry to expand into the key role of feeding countless millions, for which it has the potential, it must solve the problem of recruiting and training young men for the industry and must develop better deep sea trawlers with modern detecting, handling and processing aids. Fishing must be made acceptable as a vocation for our young men. We should no longer look upon the fishing industry as a second class

298 COMMONS

The Address-Mr. Crouse industry or look upon fishermen as second class citizens.

On October 24 and 25, 1967, a conference on fish protein concentrate was held in Ottawa. I attended that conference, and I was impressed with the possibilities of fish protein concentrate. I believe measures must be taken to curb the tremendous waste of unwanted species of fish now taken by our trawlers which, it used and turned into fish protein concentrate, could further stabilize the economy of the fishing industry and supply an additional quantity of food to the starving masses of humanity.

I would also suggest to our new Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis) that Canada, as one of the world's great fishing nations, should take the lead in fostering international co-operation for the conservation and use of available stocks in the world fisheries. One of the major difficulties at present affecting the industry is the depressed prices in our markets arising from increased groundfish production in Britain, Norway, Iceland and Denmark, plus the effects of the devalued pound. This overproduction, coupled with a market softness brought about by one of the rulings of the Pope-there were two-which relaxed the laws of the church concerning fish, has seriously lowered the consumption of groundfish.

Some progress was made in the Kennedy round talks, which is beneficial to our fish exports. But we still have a trade imbalance with the United States. It is evident that we need greater access to United States markets under more favourable tariffs, not in 1971 or 1972 but now. In the Kennedy round the United States made no change in the access for groundfish cooked fillets which are still subject to tariff quota revisions. Any change along this line would be most helpful to our fish processing and cooked fish industry.

Some species, however, are still in great demand. Here I refer to the lobster which is now live frozen and shipped to markets in the United States, Britain and France. Although the demand for lobsters is increasing the supply is diminishing. Landings at 35 million pounds in the Atlantic provinces were down about 6 per cent last year. This has resulted in new measures for registering lobster fishing boats and a trap limit in all provinces on the east coast, except Newfoundland.

These measures have been taken in an effort to control the industry so that our inshore fishermen may have a chance for economic survival. With the decline in lobster

fMr. Crouse. I

DEBATES September 20, 1968

catches in some areas, some fishermen have found it necessary to go on the larger trawlers or seek employment elsewhere. Many of our fishermen, however, are too old to engage in offshore fishing or to be retrained. They are looking hopefully to the government's conservation measures as protection for their industry.

In view of the importance of the lobster industry, which was worth some $23J million to our inshore fishermen last year, I would suggest a change in the lobster pound regulations. At the present time the holder of a $1,000 lobster pound licence is permitted to scrub female lobsters that have become berried-that is, that have acquired eggs after impoundment-and put them on the market.

The law does not prohibit fishermen from taking female lobsters. Only female lobsters carrying eggs on their tail may not be retained. It is impossible for a fisherman to ascertain whether or not a female lobster is carrying spawn until the condition develops. This usually occurs during the period when the female lobster is impounded. I believe, in the interests of conservation, that it would be a better practice for fishing inspectors to be empowered to act for the government by buying back seed carrying female lobsters and returning them to the sea, rather than have the eggs destroyed. In this way, the natural reproduction of the species would assist in maintaining the various stocks which at the present time are seriously depleted in some areas. When we hear that a one pound lobster is capable of carrying 20 thousand to 35 thousand seeds on its tail and that if these could be returned to the ocean the chance of survival runs anywhere from 3 to 5 per cent of the 25,000 or 35,000 eggs-and, in addition, last year one pound is reported to have scrubbed something like 1,500 lobsters-we get some idea of what the conservation measure would mean to our economy.

This type of policy, if put into effect over the next five years, should go a long way toward rebuilding our inshore fishery resources. The cost of this conservation program would not be excessive. If the government cannot find the money for this project I suggest that it cut down upon the expenditures of the Company of Young Canadians, the royal commission on the status of women, or the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation which last year cost the Canadian taxpayers something like $145 million.

I should like to turn for a few moments briefly to the subject of external affairs and

September 20, 1968

the somewhat pathetic action of the government in respect of the Territorial Seas and Fishing Zones Act of 1964. In its brief to the Canadian government on Monday, January 28, 1963, the Fisheries Council of Canada, which represents some 400 fishing companies which process 90 per cent of Canadian fishing products, outlined the fishermen's proposals in these words.

Spokesmen for the fishing industry today urged the federal government to declare a 12-mile fishing limit, shielding Canada's coastal fisheries from damaging exploitation by foreign fleets. They said the need is urgent.

Executives of the Fisheries Council of Canada met with a cabinet committee to present a 2,500 word brief which warned that unless such action is taken important fish stocks will become depleted.

Foreign fishing fleets now may operate to within three miles of the shore.

The brief proposed unilateral adoption of a plan which Canada and the United States jointly sponsored at the second United Nations conference on the law of the sea, held in 1960. This called for a six mile territorial sea and an additional six mile exclusive fishing zone. It was supported by 54 nations but fell one vote short of approval.

"The rapid increase in world fishing effort and efficiency has focused attention on the fact that, unless adequate safeguards are taken, the marine resources that have played such a vital role in the development of the Canadian economy will be harvested by foreign fishing fleets," the brief said.

It cited the recent expansion of Russian and Japanese activity.

Calling for adoption of the twelve mile limit, the brief declares that "unilateral declaration of the government's policy must be followed immediately by active enforcement... and the policing of foreign fishing fleets."

"In the council's opinion, enforcement is absolutely essential if Canada is to maintain her position in world fisheries."

... Its brief suggested that declaration of the new zone take into special consideration the historic rights of France and the U.S. in Canadian national waters. As a first step, negotiations should begin with those two nations to reach a mutual understanding about their rights in an enlarged zone.

In keeping with the terms of the 1960 proposal, any nation whose vessels had made a practice of fishing in the outer six miles of the proposed twelve mile zone for at least five years would have the right to continue fishing that area for another ten years.

But, apart from those special circumstances, foreign fleets would be barred from the exclusive zone. This would permit for the first time an effective program of fisheries management and conservation to preserve the Canadian fishing industry.

An act was passed in 1964 embodying some of the council's proposals, but since that date successive fisheries council presidents have only been able to deplore the lack of action on this important matter by our government.

The Address-Mr. Crouse

That council met on December 5, 1968 and Mrs. Marie S. Penny of Newfoundland had this to say about the government:

We are not happy about progress on implementing straight base lines, and defining certain bodies of water as Canadian waters or, at the very least, exclusive Canadian fishing zones. We know there are difficulties-but if action is not forthcoming fast many nations which up to now have not had historic rights in many of our waters will have acquired such rights. There is, also, the inevitable danger of this foreign fishing seriously depleting our fish stocks. We need a stiffer government attitude on this question-and we need it nowl

Nothing could be clearer than this, Mr. Speaker. In all fairness to this government I must say they made a start in 1967 on geographic co-ordinates and base lines which were drawn from Cape Chidley, Labrador to Cape Kay, and here they stopped. No action has been taken to seal off the gulf of St. Lawrence or the bay of Fundy, two areas where conservation measures could be carried out which would be extremely beneficial to our east cost fishing industry, whose stocks are rapidly being depleted.

I cannot urge too strongly upon the government the necessity of facing up to its responsibilities in this matter, and if this is to be a housekeeping session let us see some action from the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) and the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis). This is a very thorny problem. Let us not only get the broom out, let us get the vacuum cleaner out as well. Let us sweep the cobwebs from this department and get to work in an attempt to establish geographic co-ordinates and base lines. Let us set up areas where conservation measures can be carried out which will be helpful to our Canadian fishing industry.

Finally, if I have a little time left I should like to refer briefly to the speech from the throne and to the Prime Minister's statement regarding NATO and the action he proposes to take.