October 18, 1976

LIB

Hugh Alan Anderson

Liberal

Mr. Anderson:

Yes, the letter is signed.

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

Leslie Gordon Benjamin

New Democratic Party

Mr. Benjamin:

Might we have the name? The writer deserves to have it made public.

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

Hugh Alan Anderson

Liberal

Mr. Anderson:

The hon. member who spoke before me made reference to the DREE situation in British Columbia. I should like to point out to him that the province of British Columbia

has designated certain parts of the province to come under the DREE program. As the member of parliament for Comox-Alberni I must say I would welcome DREE funds into my riding even though, in all honesty, I have to tell the House that Port Alberni, for example, enjoys the third or fourth highest per capita income in all of Canada. However, there are parts of the riding which could use these funds, areas where the natural resources in the way of lumber, minerals and so on, are limited.

It is not people like myself who designate where the DREE money is to go. It is British Columbia in agreement with the federal government, and the federal government has undertaken to go into North Vancouver Island by arrangement with the province. This was not forthcoming under the previous provincial government but we are hoping that under the new government, elected in December, 1975, some recognition will be given to the difficulties of the northern part of Vancouver Island.

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

Some hon. Members:

Six o'clock.

At six o'clock the House took recess.

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

AFTER RECESS The House resumed at 8 p.m.


LIB

Hugh Alan Anderson

Liberal

Mr. Anderson:

Mr. Speaker, at six o'clock I was going to mention a third point that the hon. member from the Koote-nays did not mention in regard to DREE funding in the province of British Columbia. One problem is that in setting up new industries in British Columbia we find our labour rates are such that they tend to make these companies non-competitive not only in Canadian markets but also in world markets. If we are properly to utilize DREE money within the province, I think we should utilize it in a more progressive manner by funding small communities where, due to their size, there is not the capacity for putting in water or sewage treatment plants. DREE money could be used within the province in this way, not perhaps in the industrial sense but in the community sense.

I should like to refer to two examples of where this money may be used, namely, in the Tofino-Ucluelet area of Vancouver Island. These two communities are adjacent to Pacific Rim National Park. As the result of the establishment of Pacific Rim National Park the two communities of Tofino and Uclue-let have the very onerous responsibility placed upon them, not of their own choice, of providing sewage and water facilities for over 300,000 tourists per year who visit the Tofino-Ucluelet area and nearby Pacific Rim National Park.

So far as the Speech from the Throne is concerned, I applaud the government's initiative in attempting to improve labour-management relations as an essential pre-condition to economic stability. As a member of parliament from British Columbia it has become more and more apparent that better mechanisms for settling disputes are required. It is in the

October 18, 1976

interests of both labour and management to settle disputes not in an adversary manner but in a spirit of co-operation.

It is a very sad fact-I trust the official opposition are aware of this-that in 1975 Canada had the worst record for lost productivity due to strikes of any western industrialized nation. In 1974 Italy had a worse record than Canada; however, we now have the most dubious distinction of having a worse record than Italy.

Greater participation by workers in decision making, a collective bargaining information centre, a national institution to improve the quality of life in the work place, are a small beginning. From a personal point of view I believe that profit sharing by employees is an invaluable tool to demonstrate that a company making a profit is in the best interests of the employee.

I should like to comment on the word "profit" for a minute because I know that in some parts of the House that word is a very dirty and misleading one. I submit that without profit there is not the money to generate new plants or provide for modernization of equipment. I would hope that responsible members of the House would not direct attacks on companies which generate profits because without those profits there will not be jobs for our children and the children who follow.

The government is aware of the need for careful conservation of vital energy resources to protect the public interest. New sources of energy, both renewable and non-renewable, must be explored, and further emphasis must be placed on research and development. Canada is richly blessed in coal resources. We are aware that during World War II the Third Reich perfected the extraction of petroleum products from coal. To my knowledge we have ignored massive research funds to utilize our coal resources in Canada. I believe it is the responsibility of the Government of Canada and of the provincial governments, as well as of industry, to direct their expertise in this direction.

We are self-sufficient in coal. We know the vast potential of the resource. Now is the time to ensure that the full potential of this resource is utilized for the benefit of all Canadians. As time goes on perhaps we should consider not only building a pipeline from the McKenzie Delta but also a pipeline for the movement of coal from one part of Canada to another. I consider that basically we have not utilized, or put sufficient money into research in respect of these resources. Canada is one of the richest countries in the world in respect of coal resources. I hope the minister will take cognizance of this fact. I trust that as we review the estimates of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce additional funds will be made available for the study of our coal resources and their potential use for Canada.

I approve also of the government's decision to conserve the food resources of the sea with a proclamation on January 1 regarding Canadian jurisdiction over waters within 200 miles of our coastline. This is the first step to aquaculture, the farming of the resources of the sea. We know that the ocean is

The Address-Mr. Anderson

the last frontier for future protein. We know that arable land is reaching the point of maximum utilization. We know that world population will double in the next 50 years. We also must know that management of the sea resources must be achieved if we are to exist.

With the 200-mile limit Canada is taking the first step to manage the resources of the sea. Responsibility for this vast new area also causes obligations. The Government of Canada must immediately state its priorities for search and rescue. Too long have we divided this responsibility among various government departments, with the result that no clear authority rests with a single administration. Ships capable of patrolling large areas of the ocean for extended periods of time must be constructed immediately. These ships must have helicopter capability. A coast guard academy should be established on the west coast to train sailors for west coast conditions. The Canadian coast guard, through the Department of National Defence, or independently, should be charged with enforcing, control of smuggling, excise, search and rescue, as well as water surveillance of our 200-mile economic zone. Failure to do this will doom any advantages in obtaining the 200-mile limit.

The Department of Fisheries must, in addition to salmon enhancement, be prepared to increase substantially its research programs in ocean biology. Sovereignty must be accompanied by utilization of the living resources of the Canadian coastline. We are not in a position to do this on January 1. Utilization of stocks not used at the present time must occur in the future. New markets must be sought and processing must take place in Canada. These are some responsibilities facing the Government of Canada.

During the first session of this parliament two bills reached committee stage and were due for third reading, Bill C-61, the Maritime Code Act, and Bill C-83, the peace and security legislation. I trust the two ministers involved will re-introduce their legislation as soon as possible. Bill C-61 makes the first tentative step to assert Canadian sovereignty over marine activity on Canada's coasts. Canadian coastal shipping must be encouraged if we are to develop a Canadian merchant marine.

Bill C-83, the peace and security legislation, has many important clauses to ensure added protection for the law-abiding Canadian citizen. The changes regarding habitual and dangerous offenders, earned remissions for prisoners, wiretapping, organized crime, and gun controls are all attempts to provide security for Canadian citizens. I believe Canadian citizens view with apprehension kidnapping, rape, hijackings, armed robberies, and all crimes of violence. Those who transgress the laws, especially in a violent manner, must do so with the knowledge that the law will be administered harshly.

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

An hon. Member:

What about capital punishment?

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

Hugh Alan Anderson

Liberal

Mr. Anderson:

A deterrent is required, and where the deterrent is not successful, dangerous offenders must remain incarcerated until such time as no reasonable doubt remains as to their danger in inflicting future violence on society.

October 18, 1976

The Address-Mr. MacLean

An hon. member across the aisle asked "What about capital punishment?" The hon. member is aware that I voted for the retention of capital punishment. I also supported Bill C-83 for the same reason, that is, that it contains deterrents. There are increased terms for those who use guns during the commission of a crime. I think it follows that one who believes there is a deterrent in capital punishment would also believe there are deterrents under Bill C-83.

One area of grave concern to me is not that we have too few safeguards to the law-abiding citizens but that the laws we have on the books are not being enforced. We in this House are aware that on October 14 many trade unionists ignored legal contracts and ignored provincial laws. Some members of the House, if not actively encouraging this action, expressed total and complete compliance with these illegal acts. Most Canadians are law abiding but I sense a feeling of frustration when certain groups in our society deliberately flout the laws of our country with impunity.

Are we not encouraging non-compliance with the law if we do nothing when illegal acts take place? If a pressure group has a grievance, real or otherwise, does the breaking of laws duly passed make them assume legality? Are we encouraging people to take the law into their own hands? If so, I believe we are doing the country a disfavour. Whether the law is federal or provincial I believe governments must ensure that those who take the law into their own hands must accept the responsibility for their actions. No; you cannot barricade public roads; you cannot condone illegal strikes, nor can you allow incarcerated prisoners to dictate to custodians how prisons will be managed. Dangerous precedents are being set if Canadians perceive that laws can be broken with impunity, without retribution.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, there are many positive aspects of the Speech from the Throne. One which I have supported is an amendment to the Canada Pension Plan which would further recognize the value of the contribution made to the family and Canadian life in general, by both marriage partners, while one remains at home to raise children when the other works. Recent judicial decisions have emphasized the contribution the wife makes to the financial success of a marriage and I would trust priority would be given to changes in the Canada Pension Plan by this government. Why not?

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

John Angus MacLean

Progressive Conservative

Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):

Mr. Speaker-

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

Some hon. Members:

Hear, hear!

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

John Angus MacLean

Progressive Conservative

Mr. MacLean:

-it is obvious that this occasion is non-partisan. Therefore in my remarks I will try to follow the trend that has been set.

My first words are to express my appreciation to colleagues in my party who have stood aside to give me the opportunity to speak on this occasion. I must tell you, Mr. Speaker, that it must be obvious to anyone that when our whip asks someone to step aside, that person has no other choice but to do so. Since I

was given that privilege, I discovered by accident that it was 25 years ago, to the day, that I made my maiden speech in the House of Commons.

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

Some hon. Members:

Hear, hear!

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

John Angus MacLean

Progressive Conservative

Mr. MacLean:

It is a heartwarming coincidence for me that I made my first speech on October 18, 1951, having been first elected to this august Chamber on June 25 of that year, together with my desk mate, the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale).

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

Some hon. Members:

Hear, hear!

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

John Angus MacLean

Progressive Conservative

Mr. MacLean:

I have seen many changes since then. The most immediate one, of course, is the change in the membership of the House of Commons. The only members who have been returned in successive elections since my deskmate and I were first elected in 1951 are ourselves and my former desk-mate, the Right Hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker).

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

Some hon. Members:

Hear, hear!

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

John Angus MacLean

Progressive Conservative

Mr. MacLean:

There are others, of course, such as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) and, I think, maybe the leader of the Creditiste party, who perhaps have served longer terms in the House of Commons than I have, but not continuously.

I would like to speak now of other changes than those among my immediate circle of friends, and I speak to you all as friends because in this institution we make friendships that are life long, across party lines as well as within them.

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

Some hon. Members:

Hear, hear!

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

John Angus MacLean

Progressive Conservative

Mr. MacLean:

I want to speak now for a few moments of other changes I have seen, some of which I am happy with, and some of which make me less happy.

One of the changes that I have seen over the last 25 years is the rapid urbanization of our country. I realize that this urbanization is not necessarily due to the vital growth of urban centres but also represents, on the other side of the scale, a hemorrhage of the life's blood of the small towns in rural Canada.

I regret that our development as a country has been so uneven. Over the last 25 years there has been a lusty but sometimes malignant growth of our urban centres, especially of areas based on the rapid exploitation of non-renewable resources. It is obvious, of course, that a civilization, a culture, or an economy based on non-renewable resources is, by definition, non-renewable itself. I regret the prodigal squandering of our natural resources which should be the precious capital of a civilization as long as it lasts, for a continuing civilization and culture must be based on renewable resources to be renewable themselves.

Of course I am probably biased in this matter because by birth and a long life of experience I am a country man, vividly

October 18, 1976

aware of the fact that we as humans are part of the web of life and that, if we forget that fact, we forget it at our peril.

I believe that this uneven development of our country is not entirely unavoidable or inevitable. Much of it has been caused by bias, often unconscious bias, in the whole apparatus of government at every level, based on the false premise that was instilled perhaps 40 or 50 years ago but which is no longer valid, namely, that the good life can be obtained only in an urban setting. Experience has proved the opposite to be true.

There was a time some decades ago when modern conveniences, modern communications and so on, were the prerogatives of the urban area, but that is no longer true. Technology has advanced to the point where those who live in rural Canada can enjoy all the modern conveniences, if they can afford them, that the urban dweller can, and have the joy and benefit and recreational facilities-and I mean recreational in the best sense of the word-and the experience, of living in the country. I believe that the highest and best quality of life is achievable more easily in rural Canada and in the small towns than it is in the large urban centres.

I do not think it is inevitable that modern technology forces us to the large urban conglomeration of society. This has come about, I think, because of a worship of giantism and an over selling of the benefits of large scale. In the process the human element has been lost, and I do not think it is good that that should be the case. I have from time to time been talking along this line over 25 years and, as far as I can tell, nobody has been listening, but as I said, I found by accident that I made my maiden speech in this Chamber exactly 25 years ago today.

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

Some hon. Members:

Hear, hear!

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

October 18, 1976