November 4, 1969

?

An hon. Member:

A drugged government, moved by hallucination.

Topic:   ADDRESS DEBATE
Subtopic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
PC

Eldon Mattison Woolliams

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Woolliams:

What about Godfrey, 16, and Linda, 20? Time will not permit me to discuss the conditions which exist in most of the gaols of Canada, but I have been in many of the penitentiaries as a guest. Conditions have improved tremendously under several ministers of justice, not only Conservative ministers but Liberals. The fact remains that once a young person has been incarcerated in a penitentiary even for a short period while his application to a proper institution is being processed, he or she is forced to mix with the worst kind of adult criminals. No one can tell me that this is a program of reform or rehabilitation.

Topic:   ADDRESS DEBATE
Subtopic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Hear, hear.

November 4, 1969 COMMONS DEBATES 517

Topic:   ADDRESS DEBATE
Subtopic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
PC

Eldon Mattison Woolliams

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Woolliams:

I do not think anyone in this House of Commons or in the country really thinks that a lengthy service imposed on these young people will either rehabilitate them or act as a deterrent to other young people becoming involved in the use of all kinds of drugs. Young people have for months come to my house saying there is a heavy use of drugs. Some may exaggerate, but when there is a heavy use there will be people in possession; there will be young people buying drugs for others, and they are traffickers. I am well aware of the psychological, emotional and physical disturbances of mind and body of those engaged in the misuse of drugs. I have told hon. members what section 622 of the criminal Code calls for. It states that an accused person convicted of an offence punishable with imprisonment for more than five years may not be fined in lieu of any other punishment that is authorized. The new Bill C-157, chapter 38, of the 1968-69 Statutes relieves the situation by empowering our judiciary to suspend sentences under certain conditions.

I recommend that we should cause a study to be made and that on the basis of the best knowledge available today, scientific, medical and psychological, begin now in all the high schools and universities a compulsory course so that youth may be aware not only of the dangers of the use and misuse of drugs but also of the most horrible and terrible penalties which are presently prescribed by the law.

How many of them know what the penalties are? How many of you believe that a girl of 16, convicted and sent to prison for three years or five years, a girl who could be the daughter of any one of you, will be rehabilitated in an institution of that kind, or that her sentence will really serve as a deterrent to others? I cannot accept this. I do not believe it. Critics of my position might change their opinions if they understood what happens to these young people who serve terms in goal. There is the question of the confinement, the environment, the human atmosphere of which they will be part, which will in itself destroy our youth psychologically, emotionally and physically as effectively as the problem which put them there. In a psychological sense, high school and university students who have not suffered incarceration will find their own moral fibre destroyed.

Tonight, in the city of Edmonton, 200 law students are petitioning this so-called reform government. One student said to me: I am not 21362-34

The Address-Mr. Woolliams taking part because I want to be articled with a big law firm and they are part of the establishment. But others have said: We are petitioning because we think the law is wrong. What happened to these youths in Calgary was wrong, and that is why I rise to speak tonight.

Someone must speak for the youth. I know there are hundreds of Canadians who would speak as I am speaking tonight, and that other members of parliament who are sympathetic to this situation. I must be fair to the minister and admit that my words in one or two of the questions addressed to him might have been more explanatory. But what does it matter whether marijuana, hashish or another similar drug is involved? Canadian boys and girls are on drugs. If the minister thinks harsh sentences will serve as a deterrent, I ask him to cast his mind back to the days of the bootleggers. What happened then? The political scientists tell us that we can legislate certain things but that we cannot legislate morals. Prohibition failed. And some of the people who peddled liquor across the border are sitting in high places today, Mr. Speaker. They belong to another generation. We who throw stones had better not live in glass houses. As Emerson said: We are part of all we have met. Each is needed by each one and nothing is good alone.

In the context of modern society, I say to hon. members: This is your problem. I did not come here to fight with the minister but I admit I was hurt that he should confuse the issue and do a snow job on me. My wife said: You must feel almost like a No. 1 criminal because of what he has said. Well, I am happy that I have enough integrity to stand in this House and defend the youth of this country.

Topic:   ADDRESS DEBATE
Subtopic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Hear, hear.

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

Topic:   ADDRESS DEBATE
Subtopic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
LIB

James Hugh Faulkner (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.

Topic:   ADDRESS DEBATE
Subtopic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Continue.

Topic:   ADDRESS DEBATE
Subtopic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
LIB

James Hugh Faulkner (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

Does the House give unanimous consent?

Topic:   ADDRESS DEBATE
Subtopic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Agreed.

Topic:   ADDRESS DEBATE
Subtopic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
PC

Eldon Mattison Woolliams

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Woolliams:

I end on this comment, Mr. Speaker. One of the main reasons I am proud of my leader is that he thinks of our youth.

November 4, 1969

The Address-Mr. Saltsman He has the same feelings I have. I have not discussed with him my comments tonight but I have confidence that he will stand with me to reform the law. We need an educational program for our youth so that we can save the best asset we have-the young people of Canada.

Topic:   ADDRESS DEBATE
Subtopic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
NDP

Max Saltsman

New Democratic Party

Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):

Mr. Speaker, before returning from Winnipeg I searched the newspapers during the course of last week for some news of the Throne Speech debate. It was quite remarkable what little coverage there was. I can conclude only that the dullness of the Speech from the Throne and its low profile militated against those good members who by their intervention deserved to be noticed. I have had the chance of reading Hansard and I should like to congratulate members on this side for their participation. May I also congratulate the mover and seconder of the Address on the other side of the House on their contributions, which were excellent; indeed, they were much better than the Throne Speech itself.

I listened to the speaker who preceded me generate some fire and express some concern about the future of this nation, a concern that was lacking in the Throne Speech. Looking at the Throne Speech one would think there are no problems facing this country; that this is the best of all possible worlds. Any historian who in the future looks back to this document and examines the situation in which this country finds itself will be shocked at the serious nature of our conditions. To read the Throne Speech is to be unaware that this country is in danger of cultural extinction; that there is more foreign ownership of industry in this country than in any other country in the world. And it is not only a question of foreign ownership; our culture is dominated by the mores and values of others, values that might have relevance to another civilization but not to ours.

For years some lip service at least was paid to the notion of establishing a Canada Development Corporation; yet there is not a word about this in the Throne Speech. Even that small concession to Canadian nationalism has been dropped. It is not as though we were winning our fight for existence. We are losing that fight owing to lack of policies on the part of the government.

To look at the Throne Speech is to be oblivious of the fact that two cultures, two peoples who need each other desperately, are reaching the point where they can hardly

communicate with each other. The Throne Speech has nothing to remedy that situation. It has no solutions to offer to a serious crisis of our time. To look at the Throne Speech is to be blind to the fact that there is an outside world that needs our help, a world that should expect more from Canada than it has been getting. We in this country are in a position to make a significant contribution to underdeveloped nations of the world, but we are not doing so.

One is hurt by this kind of Throne Speech. One might have forgiven such a speech last year on the ground that a new government was feeling its way and should be given a chance. But that cannot be said this year. The government is showing a lack of idealism and a lack of concern for the future of this country. I and people like me are concerned about this attitude because we remember during the last election the hopes that were aroused among the young people of this country. I remember going into a polling booth, seeing a young girl clutching her check-off sheet and praying that the Liberals would win. She was praying that Mr. Trudeau would win because he was going to save this country.

Topic:   ADDRESS DEBATE
Subtopic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Hear, hear.

Topic:   ADDRESS DEBATE
Subtopic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
NDP

Max Saltsman

New Democratic Party

Mr. Saltsman:

But he has not done this. Why do hon. members applaud?

Topic:   ADDRESS DEBATE
Subtopic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
NDP

David Lewis (Parliamentary Leader of the N.D.P.)

New Democratic Party

Mr. Lewis:

They are applauding you.

Topic:   ADDRESS DEBATE
Subtopic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
NDP

Max Saltsman

New Democratic Party

Mr. Saltsman:

I happened to meet some of these people this summer. They came to me adopting a very defensive attitude inasmuch as they had worked very hard against me in the campaign. There was nothing personal; it was simply the way they felt. They said to me, "Tell me, Mr. Saltsman, what do you think of our Prime Minister? What do you think about what he is doing?" I replied, "Please don't ask me, because I do not want young people to hear the kind of language that I might have to use". I wanted to be kind to them. I did not want to tell them that their faith and trust has been betrayed.

Topic:   ADDRESS DEBATE
Subtopic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Oh, oh.

Topic:   ADDRESS DEBATE
Subtopic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
NDP

Max Saltsman

New Democratic Party

Mr. Saltsman:

There is no cause for complacency or self-satisfaction. Hon. members opposite seem to think that this is a big joke. It is the government's Throne Speech that is the big joke, though it is no joke to the people of Canada. There are many jokers on the other side of the House. Some of them are smiling jokers, and some serious-faced jokers. One of the ministers of the government

November 4, 1969

The Address-Mr. Saltsman

smiles beautifully. I refer to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin). He charms all the ladies. One can only say with great regret that it is too bad that all the wheat buyers of the world are not ladies. However, the government has caught up with him now and have transferred the role of wheat salesman to somebody else.

The minister goes around the country giving lectures to people in industry. He tells them to pull up their socks, that we in this country have to be productive, that we have to export our products. But what kind of policy framework has he created for these industries? What kind of assistance does he suggest? He has no answers. He is a lecturer. Toujours le professeur. He gives beautiful lectures but has no answers. The reason he has no answers is that he has no commitment to Canadian nationalism.

A long time ago the minister made up his mind that the economy of Canada was going to be integrated with that of the United States, so why should he bother about policies. Policies would only get in the way of this kind of integration. So this very competent man-and I do not underestimate his competence-has simply given up on the job.

Topic:   ADDRESS DEBATE
Subtopic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
LIB

Joseph-Phillippe Guay

Liberal

Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):

Would the hon. member permit a question?

Topic:   ADDRESS DEBATE
Subtopic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
LIB

James Hugh Faulkner (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

Is the hon. member for St. Boniface rising to a point of order?

Topic:   ADDRESS DEBATE
Subtopic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
LIB

Joseph-Phillippe Guay

Liberal

Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):

Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. member a question, if I may.

Topic:   ADDRESS DEBATE
Subtopic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink

November 4, 1969