1974-03-05

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to the House a petition pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 67, which in brief prays that approximately 170 acres situated in the municipality of Burnaby be returned to that municipality from the federal government for the original purchase price. I might say that a petition similar in form has been signed by some 9,000 residents of that municipality. If the petition is found to be in order, Mr. Speaker, I hope it will be referred to an appropriate committee of the House for action.


PROPOSED SALE OF LOCOMOTIVES TO CUBA-APPLICATION OF CANADIAN RATHER THAN U.S. LAW-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity dealing with the extraterritorial constraints which are holding up the sale of some $25 million worth of locomotives to Cuba. Inasmuch as some $50 million in Canadian public financing has been assigned to the benefit of the Canadian subsidiary involved through the Export Development Corporation, this subservience to foreign laws is intolerable. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saint John-Lan-caster (Mr. Bell):
That the government be instructed by the House to immediately ensure that any company receiving assistance of public funds conduct its operations in Canada solely by rule of Canadian law.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: This motion, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity. The motion cannot be put.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to seek the consent of the House to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity which is not plagiarized from anybody but relates to the continuing refusal on the part of Canadian National Railways to treat fairly northern British Columbians engaged in the lumber industry. I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett):
That the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications be authorized to conduct an immediate inquiry into the reasons for there being a continuing shortage of railway cars for lumber products and the reasons why the Canadian Railways in particular seem to be placing lumber producers in north central British Columbia at a disadvantage by not supplying sufficient railway cars, and that the said committee be further authorized to examine the need for the appointment of a railway car co-ordinator to ensure that railways in Canada serve the interests of Canadians on a priority basis.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion requires the unanimous consent of the House under Standing Order 43. Is there unanimity?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.



AGRICULTURE


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion, seconded by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner), of urgent and pressing necessity and of major concern to all cattle producers, namely in view of the unsettling and detrimental effect on cattle producers and the operators of feedlots caused by the tremendous importation of cattle from the United States into Canada recently, as indicated by the fact that in a most recent week 60 per cent of the kill on the Toronto market were cattle imports, that the government should impose an import duty on cattle imported from the United States of one and one-half cents per pound on the

March 5, 1974
Trade with Cuba
first 12,000 head, two and one-half cents per pound on imports from 12,000 to 18,000 head, and on imports over
18,000	head, of five cents per pound.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion proposed by the right hon. member for Prince Albert under the terms of Standing Order 43. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a question of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the planned four cent increase in the price of a loaf of bread announced yesterday by certain bakeries, especially in light of the statement made in the House by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Gray) and the recommendation of the Food Prices Review Board that only a two cent increase can be justified at this time, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Mus-koka (Mr. Darling):
That this matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimity?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity. The motion cannot be put.



GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION TO ENSURE SALE OF LOCOMOTIVES TO CUBA-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION

Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I too rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to propose a motion concerning the frustrations of the MLW-Worthington Company of Montreal in its attempt to sell locomotives to the government of Cuba. I welcome the Conservative Party to an awareness of this important issue. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn):
That this House instructs the government to act under the provisions of Article 4 of the Canadian Commercial Corporation Act to intervene directly to ensure that locomotives produced by MLW-Worthington of Montreal are sold to Cuba.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion also requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimity?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity relating to the work of this parliament and, in particular, with respect to ongoing projects and reports undertaken at the request of this House during its first session relating to the law of the sea, to a revision of the rules governing the question period, and to problems connected with security in the penitentiaries. None of these studies or reports is yet completed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would invite the hon. member to indicate as soon as possible what his motion is. I am sorry if I interrupted the hon. member at the moment when he was about to put his motion, but he will understand that in taking this opportunity I am not directly reflecting on his own motion but on all motions proposed under Standing Order 43. They should be put as quickly as possible and contain the essential motion rather than an explanatory introduction. I apologize to the hon. member if I interrupted him too quickly.


Donald W. Munro: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I therefore request unanimous consent of the House to the ft Rowing motion, seconded by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil):
That these three committees at least be ordered to continue the work already specified and report back to this House at the earliest possible opportunity.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. Terry Grier (Toronto-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same matter of pressing necessity as did the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath). With your permission I wish to move the following motion under the

terms of Standing Order 43, seconded by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom):
That this House instruct the government to take immediate steps to force a bread price roll-back to the limits recommended by the Food Prices Review Board, and to the extent that new legislation is required to empower the government to so act, to introduce such legislation immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs arising out of his statement yesterday about the message from the Bakery Council of Canada indicating that general restraint would be exercised for the month of March. In view of the opposition of the Food Prices Review Board that an increase in the price of bread of more than two or three cents would be excessive, and the reports that some bakeries at least have put their prices up by four cents, would the minister tell the House what action, if any, he proposes to take?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that most, if not all, of the bakeries, with one possible exception, which are the subject of these press reports are not members of the Bakery Council. I am taking steps to contact them today, and I hope to have further information to report to the House tomorrow.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I think the minister conceded with respect to the position of those outside the council or association that there was at least one bakery to his knowledge that had gone above the two or three cent level indicated as the maximum appropriate. What action, if any, does the minister intend to take with respect to any such bakery?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, first we want to contact this bakery directly and find out exactly what it is doing so that we will have exact knowledge rather than relying on press reports. In addition, as I said yesterday, my request to the members of the Bakery Council through the council itself was for voluntary action, and as soon as we get an assessment of how this restraint is operating, which we want on an urgent basis, we will have to consider what further action would be appropriate.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister what action he really proposes to take to confront the problem
Oral Questions
of the increase in the price of bread in view of the impression he has been giving in recent days that he is simply using evasive tactics to permit delays on his part?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the action I have been taking is within the framework of the statement made by the Prime Minister last August, which involves a three-stage process. First of all, where unwarranted price increases are identified it is expected that they will be made public by the Food Prices Review Board and given widespread publicity; second, the principals of the enterprise involved can expect to be called before that board and, third, in the event that the board reports significant instances of profiteering, in cases where the parties concerned are not willing to correct this voluntarily then, as the Prime Minister stated, the government would be prepared to seek parliamentary authority to undertake corrective action.


INTENTION OF GOVERNMENT RESPECTING INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION TO CONTROL PRICE OF BREAD
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact certain bakeries have already announced that they will proceed with a four cent increase, thereby ignoring the recommendation of the Food Prices Review Board, and the statement by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in the House yesterday, and in view of the undertaking given by the Prime Minister of September 4 last year that the government would take action in a legislative way if the industry did not comply voluntarily, is the government now prepared, in light of the recommendation of the Food Prices Review Board, to proceed with legislation to halt this unwarranted increase in the price of bread?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, my answer has already been given in that regard.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, may I ask-
Mr Speaker: Order, please. I will return to the hon. member in a moment. I have already recognized the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore who has a supplementary. We will be continuing with this subject. The hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore.


INCREASES IN PRICE OF BREAD-REPRESENTATIONS AGAINST SUCH ACTION TO BAKERS NOT MEMBERS OF COUNCIL
Terrence Wyly Grier: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. If important bakeries in this country are not members of the Bakery Council, I should like to ask why the minister attempted to solve the problem of rising bread prices by working through the Bakery Council?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that this is argument. The hon. member may wish to ask the question

March 5, 1974
Oral Questions
in a different way; if not, I will recognize the hon. member for St. John's East who also has a supplementary.


Terrence Wyly Grier: Mr. Speaker, I shall try to approach the question in a manner that will be in order. In view of the fact that a number of the bakers who are responsible for the price increases are not members of the Bakery Council, what steps did the minister take to contact those bakers in pursuit of some assurance that they would not take this action?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, if I am not mistaken, it was the announcement of the Bakery Council on February 15 on behalf of its members that they were planning to make increases in their prices of three to four cents, with a minimum of four cents in Quebec, that led the Food Prices Review Board to intensify its studies of this matter and issue the two reports of which we are aware. The reports were in response, as I understand it, to the announcement of the Bakery Council. I thought that the most urgent thing to do was to be in touch with the Bakery Council with respect to the intention of its members, and now that we have additional information I am proceeding actively to deal with this other aspect of the situation as well.


Terrence Wyly Grier: Mr. Speaker, the minister could have anticipated the problem he has described. In view of the fact that Weston Bakeries announced yesterday it was increasing its price by four cents and it is a member of the Bakery Council and is taking this action in defiance of the council, the Food Prices Review Board, the government and the Canadian consumer, what steps is the government taking to empower itself to enforce a roll-back of that specific price increase which has been announced and confirmed by that bakery?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the approach outlined by the Prime Minister on behalf of the government contemplates decisions on action after there have been hearings by the board on its report and observation of whether there is voluntary action once these hearings have taken place. In the meantime I propose to contact Weston's directly to see exactly what they are doing and what they plan to do.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Has the hon. member for Portneuf a supplementary question?


Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I recognize the hon. member for Portneuf, and we then return to supplementary questions on this matter.


Roland Godin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General.

As the minister announced to us last December that the department was preparing an analysis of the contracts of rural mail carriers in order to adjust further the salaries of these workers to the cost of living, could we know how far this analysis has gone and what increase percentage can be expected by this category of postal workers?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, after many requests from members on this side of the House and some from the other side, we have reviewed all contracts for rural mail distribution to adjust them in accordance with the rise in the cost of living registered during the last few years, in brief, to make them more equitable.
We have also announced that, due to the price increase of a gallon of gas, an increase will be granted to all rural mail carriers.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the fact the Food Prices Review Board reported on February 18 that an increase of more than two cents on a 24 ounce loaf of bread could not be justified, and in view of the Prime Minister's statement to the country last September that he would take action if the bakeries failed to respond in a voluntary way and proceeded with any unwarranted increase, does the Prime Minister now propose to accept this challenge thrown to him by the bakeries and bring in legislation? Otherwise his statement is empty rhetoric and the Food Prices Review Board is a farce.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


POSITION OF GOVERNMENT RESPECTING FOUR CENT INCREASE IN PRICE OF BREAD
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary on the bread situation. In view of the fact there has been an announcement of a four cent increase in the price of bread, and in view of the fact the Food Prices Review Board has said it is unjustified, the minister has said it is unjustified and the Prime Minister has said it is unjustified, I put this question to the minister. Is he going to back down as he has in the past on this matter or does he still feel-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that such questions are not questions; they are debate. Would the hon. member resume his seat. He will be given an opportunity to rephrase his question if he wants to. After that we will go to the next question and I will recognize the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think we are entitled to ask the minister-


Some hon. Members:: Question!
March 5, 1974


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May we have order, please. The hon. member has the floor.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, we are entitled to ask the minister if it is still the government's view, as enunciated by him, that a four cent increase in the price of bread is unjustified today?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, all I said previously about the matter was that the government would view any increase in the price of bread in a most serious manner if it came about through increases in costs which were not justified. This is why I contacted the members of the Bakery Council through their association, to ask them not to make any increase beyond that considered acceptable by the Food Prices Review Board until they had a chance to meet with the board. Second, there was not only a report on February 15 saying that a two cent increase would be justified; there was another report just on February 28 saying that further studies indicated that a further one cent increase might be justified or would be justified under certain circumstances. Finally, I should like to say that we should note the interesting conversion, equal in importance to that of Saul on the road to Damascus, when it comes to the Food Prices Review Board on the part of the Conservative Party.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby.


REQUEST THAT DIRECTIVE BE ISSUED UNDER CANADIAN COMMERCIAL CORPORATION ACT TO ENSURE SALE OF LOCOMOTIVES TO CUBA
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that section 4 of the Canadian Commercial Corporation Act gives the minister or the cabinet specific authority to issue a "special direction" to ensure that the trade objectives of the government are carried out through the Canadian Commercial Corporation, will the minister assure the House that he or some other minister or the cabinet will issue such a directive to ensure that the discussed sale of locomotives to be produced in Montreal to the government of Cuba will be proceeded with?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, a very few minutes ago I was talking to the president of the Canadian company with respect to this transaction. I asked him what the status of the application for waiver was. He told me it had not yet been acted upon. I expressed the view to him that if the problem, essentially a United States problem involving United States law and United States citizens-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions


Alastair William Gillespie: Just a moment-could be resolved by the resignation of those directors, I would expect that resignation to take place forthwith.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the more specific aspect of the member's question, he has raised the possibility of the Canadian Commercial Corporation being used. I am not the minister responsible for the Canadian Commercial Corporation and I suggest that he direct his question to that minister.


GOVERNMENT POLICY RESPECTING OPERATIONS OF SUBSIDIARIES OF FOREIGN CORPORATIONS IN CANADA
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. In view of the answer just given to the House by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and its implications, I would ask the Prime Minister to make clear to the House what I understood to be the force of the answer. Is it now government policy that if any American or other foreign subsidiary located in Canada does not conduct trading policies that are in accord with the general wishes of the government, the government expects the directors, in this relevant case the American directors, of such corporations to resign?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member has indicated one course, resignation. We hope to obtain the same results by option, by a series of approaches to this matter. It may not be by resignation. It may be by moral suasion; it may be by talking to the American government. The important thing for the House and the Canadian public to know is that the Canadian government has means to make sure that this kind of deal which is to the profit of Canadian companies does go through. We have the means to do it and we will exercise those means.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PROPOSED SALE OF LOCOMOTIVES TO CUBA- REPRESENTATIONS BY EXTERNAL AFFAIRS MINISTER TO UNITED STATES TO SECURE REMOVAL OF RESTRICTIONS
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the minister been in touch with the Secretary of State of the United States in the past day or so to ensure the removal of any restrictions imposed by the United States government on the sale to Cuba of locomotives to be built in Canada by the MLW-Worthington Company, a subsidiary of a United States parent company, which has received $50 million in export development loans from the Canadian government?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: As the Prime Minister said, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government has a number of options. The most desirable one would be to get a waiver of this particular rule applied to MLW-Worthington. Representations along
166

March 5, 1974
Oral Questions
these lines have been made. As the hon. member knows, Dr. Kissinger has been out of the country, but the matter is now in his hands.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: Does the government-


Mr. Speaker:: Will the hon. member kindly resume his seat. I will recognize the hon. member for a supplementary. The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby will also be recognized for a supplementary. At the same time, I would remind hon. members we are only on the second or third subject. We are not making very much progress with all these supplementaries. As I said, the hon. member will be recognized, along with the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby, following which I will recognize the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.


POSSIBILITY OF LEGISLATION TO ENSURE THAT SUBSIDIARIES OF FOREIGN COMPANIES OPERATING IN CANADA NOT RESTRICTED
George Harris Hees: My supplementary is for the Prime Minister. Is it the intention of the government in the very near future to introduce legislation to ensure that subsidiaries of foreign companies operating in Canada cannot be denied the right to trade with countries with which this country has good trading relations?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, in stage one of the competition policy this is indeed the spelled-out policy of the government. I hope it has the support of the Conservative party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: It certainly does because that was our policy-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: We had the guts to carry out trade of this kind.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I hope you will support it this time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


REQUEST FOR DECLARATION THAT SUBSIDIARIES OF FOREIGN COMPANIES OPERATING IN CANADA EXPECTED TO GIVE PRIORITY TO CANADIAN INTERESTS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Considering the importance of avoiding specific confrontation on a number of items that are being negotiated for sale between Canada and Cuba by other companies and the desirability of avoiding the kind of ad hoc crisis we now have on a specific sale, will the Prime Minister follow the example of the president of Argentina and make a forthright, firm, non-inflammatory statement that

henceforth all companies located in Canada will be expected to trade in terms of Canadian priorities?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the hon. member urges me to make a non-inflammatory statement and talks about a crisis. There is no crisis. There is a difficulty and it is being solved by the government. I indicated to the House that we will make sure it is solved in the interests of the Canadian people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question in connection with foreign doctors emigrating to Canada. In the absence of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration I will direct it to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Can the minister inform the House whether the Department of Manpower and Immigration has taken any action on the brief presented by the Canadian Medical Association on foreign medical graduates coming to Canada?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Will the minister check to see whether the Department of Immigration is now properly advising potential physician immigrants of Canadian licensing and employment regulations?


Marc Lalonde: I will refer the matter to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, Mr. Speaker.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Is the minister considering asking the College of Physicians and Surgeons to change their ruling on foreign doctors having to write the education council for foreign medical graduates examination so as to allow foreign graduates to practice in remote areas of Canada where they are badly needed?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would think that is the kind of supplementary that could be placed on the order paper or considered at the time of adjournment.


GOVERNMENT PROPERTY
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. On December 8 last the Prime Minister officially turned over the Jericho lands, 37 acres in Vancouver, at cost price to the city of Vancouver.
March 5, 1974

The city of Victoria has a similar situation with the Barnard estate. Can the Prime Minister give any assurance that Victoria will receive the same treatment accorded Vancouver and thus reinforce his statement of December 8 that such transfers will remind people that the government at Ottawa is their government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the government cannot take a general stand on all questions. It has to look at each particular request on its merits. The hon. member knows that the federal government owns vast quantities of land across the country. I think it owns about one-third of Quebec city. We would not in advance want to give any blanket undertaking that anybody who asks can have such land back as a favour. We hope the federal presence can be recognized through federal ownership of these lands and that they do not necessarily have to be transferred to the province or municipality.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Has the minister received a report from Dr. Hermann on the health survey of European prisoners of war? If not, when does he expect to receive the report?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I just received the report and am now in the process of studying it. It will be typed in the two languages and made available to members of the House.


Thomas Gordon Towers: When?


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Will the minister at an early opportunity bring before the House the entire question of the government of Canada making funds available through CIDA to groups dedicated to violence on the African continent, and will he seek the approval of the House before any such policy is implemented?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, during the recess I made a statement, and I confirm it now, to the effect that no grants have been made for any such purpose or to any group of this kind. I also said, and I again confirm it, that no grants would be made for the purpose outlined in the Common-
Oral Questions
wealth Prime Minister's conference until the estimates of CIDA have been approved by the House.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Does the minister plan to subsidize domestic revolutionaries?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker, and we do not intend to subsidize foreign revolutionaries either.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


HOUSING
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs.
Following his meetings with his Quebec counterpart, the Hon. Victor Golbloom, concerning the amendments to the National Housing Act and more specifically the development of districts, could he tell the House whether the Quebec minister has given his views on the matter and also whether an agreement will soon be concluded?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, no agreement has yet been signed. I am optimistic that one will be. My colleague, the Quebec minister, has a draft agreement from me on which there has been discussion through my parliamentary secretary at a meeting in Quebec City. I understand the draft agreement will be returned to me shortly. I hope the two governments can soon execute it.


PRICE OF HOME HEATING OIL IN OTTAWA AREA
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the fact that about one-half of the heating oil used in the Ottawa area is western oil transported by the Toronto-Ottawa pipeline and that the major oil companies are charging eastern offshore prices for that oil, would the minister tell the House what he intends to do about this discriminatory pricing policy?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I asked previously that this be investigated by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and I have been discussing the matter with them. I think the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has a report to give the House at this time.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: We have been in discussion with particular refiners in light of what are anticipated to be lower
27398-12J

March 5, 1974
Oral Questions
costs for this home heating oil. Those discussions are continuing. There is some conflict as to the actual cost involved both in refurbishing the pipeline and of the product itself.


Walter David Baker: Are similar discussions being carried on in other areas of Ontario? Are similar assessments being conducted in other parts of Canada and, if so, where?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I think there is a unique situation here in view of the re-establishment of the pipeline link. There has been a far-reaching discussion with the industry concerning the impact on their over-all cost position of the ability to move western Canadian oil into the eastern market and the costs involved in this movement whether by pipeline or by ship.


OIL-METHOD AND CRITERIA TO BE USED IN ESTABLISHING ONE-PRICE SYSTEM FOR CANADIAN CRUDE
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact the minister speaks of a one-price system for Canadian crude, will he tell the House what mechanism the government is using to set this price? Is it to be set by the cabinet or is it to be set by the board? What criteria will be used in setting the price of Canadian crude in the future?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: This is one of the questions which is presently under discussion with certain of the interested provinces. It will be a matter with which parliament will be asked to deal later this month. At the moment it is a matter for discussion.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, the question I should like to direct is intended for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The other day I asked him about the relationship between the flour milling companies and their subsidiary companies which are engaged in the baking industry. I asked him whether or not those flour milling companies, because they control wholly-owned bakeries, are padding the price and thus inflating the cost of the end product, namely, bread. Can the minister tell us what he has discovered about this situation?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: When this question was asked the other day I said my authority in this area derived from the Combines Investigation Act and that I would be pleased to have the director look into any evidence which might indicate breaches of the act in this domain. As far as other forms of inquiry are concerned, I have not yet had an opportunity to carry them out, but I am prepared to see what further information can be obtained.


Frank Howard: Rather than ask a supplementary question, I shall raise a question of privilege. While I shall not level

the accusation directly now, the answer the minister just gave leads me to believe that he is either knowingly misleading the House or is misleading it out of ignorance. He has twice-both today and the other day-said he would refer this subject matter to the Director of Research and Investigation of the Combines Investigation Branch. I submit this is an attempt to mislead the House and the country into thinking that he and his department are going to do something-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will appreciate that is hardly a question of privilege. It is debate. He does not agree with the statement made by the minister. It is a long established rule of the House that a dispute as to facts cannot form the basis of a question of privilege. The hon. member is debating an issue. The question period is so short that I would hope hon. members would not use it for alleged questions of privilege.


Frank Howard: On the question of privilege, if Your Honour will permit me to speak to the point for just a moment, as I said, one could very easily level the accusation that the minister is deliberately misleading the House. If I do that, that is a question of privilege. Twice, now, the minister has told us he has referred this matter to the director of the combines investigation branch though, in fact, there is no director and there has been no director for over a year. That office is vacant.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member uses a strange argument. He says, "If I made the charge, that would be a question of privilege, but I am not making the charge and therefore I have a question of privilege." This is an argument between himself and the minister, and I would hope we could continue with the next question.


Frank Howard: Let me say, then, that the minister has deliberately misled the House in giving those answers to those particular questions.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows as well as I do that he cannot charge another member, whether he be a minister or not, with deliberately or wilfully misleading the House. That is entirely unparliamentary. The hon. member cannot make such a statement. I will hear the minister first because he has been impugned by the accusation or charge now being made by the hon. member for Skeena.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to lower myself to the hon. member's level-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: -but I do wish to put on the record that the position of director of the combines branch is being filled very capably on an acting basis by Mr. J. J. Quinlan.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Skeena cannot flout the rules. He has the same responsibility as
March 5, 1974

all other members to respect the rules. I think the hon. member owes it to the Chair to co-operate. The rules are difficult enough to administer and interpret without the position of the Chair being made more difficult, if not impossible. I call upon the hon. member to qualify the statement he has made.


Frank Howard: Now that the minister has admitted that there is no director-and there has been no director for the past year; that office has been left vacant-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Frank Howard: True, there are two acting directors but that does not give the minister licence to say there is a director.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: On a question of privilege, there are not two acting directors. The position is not vacant. It is being occupied by Mr. J. J. Quinlan and I feel the hon. member should not, either wittingly or unwittingly, attempt to mislead the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister is not helping the Chair. There are just a few minutes left before the end of the question period and I would not like them to be used in a battle over what the hon. member has said or not said. As I heard him, he made a comment which I gather from his introduction he is about ready to qualify.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I am one who is coming quickly to the conclusion that the minister cannot deliberately do anything, so I withdraw the word "deliberately". But he sure did it out of ignorance.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure that the hon. member has settled the situation completely. My understanding is that he has withdrawn the charge, the very serious charge, that another member has deliberately misled the House. I would hope hon. members could debate in this chamber without using language which is clearly unparliamentary and which they know, from their experience, to be unparliamentary. As a very humble member, I certainly cannot see what is achieved by using expressions of this kind and unparliamentary words.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


TRANSPORT
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancaster):: I have a question for the Minister of Transport, Mr. Speaker, and I express the hope that he is feeling better. Has the minister any information for the House concerning a lost nickel shipment on its way by rail to Winnipeg, possibly in Longlac area?
Oral Questions


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: I am not
aware of this. I will inquire and report to the hon. member.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. The minister in his remarks yesterday indicated that certain agricultural costs had increased by some 300 to 400 per cent, and since baler twine is one of the items affected I should like to ask the hon. gentleman whether he has taken any action in an effort to contain its price and, if so, what results he has achieved?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: As I am
sure the hon. member knows, this is an imported product. Most of the people who produced baler twine have gone out of business for the same reason that some farmers have gone out of business, because they could not make a buck. There is a real world shortage of supply and everybody is bidding for it. Perhaps the hon. member has a suggestion as to what more we can do. We have asked people to produce a synthetic type of baler twine made out of plastic. I believe some of this will be on the market. But I am sure there will still be a terrific problem just the same as there is a sugar problem which is a world problem.


AGRICULTURAL INPUT COSTS AS PART OF CONSUMER COSTS
Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, since the answer to my question is no, I should like to ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs whether agricultural costs are considered as part of consumer costs, and has he been able to obtain any satisfactory answers whatsoever in his office as Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that they are considered as inputs into consumer costs.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. B. Keith Penner (Thunder Bay):: Mr. Speaker, I have a very urgent question for the Minister of Labour.


Mr. Nielsen:: Phone him.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


B. Keith Penner: In view of the proposed runthrough of CNR trains through the home terminal of Nakina, Ontario, a proposal that has been agreed upon by the company and the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, despite strong local protest and resistance in Nakina and Hornepayne, I

March 5, 1974
Oral Questions
should like to know whether the Minister of Labour will agree to intervene directly in order to prevent the possibility of a very serious national disruption of our rail services?


Hon. John C. Munro (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, I can advise the hon. member that the director of mediation and conciliation for the Department of Labour is meeting with the chairman of the engineers' union this morning in an endeavour to resolve this matter.


CONCERN OF FARMERS OF SOUTHWESTERN ONTARIO ABOUT ROUTE OF PROPOSED OIL PIPELINE EXTENSION
Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the widespread concern among agricultural people in the southwestern Ontario region that an additional pipeline going through that area from Sarnia will cause havoc to a great deal of prime farmland, has he looked into every possible avenue for this pipeline and is it possible that some alternate route would serve the purpose?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the question of route was very extensively examined before the final decision was taken to put it in effect along the existing Trans-Canada right of way through that area.


TRANSPORT
Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact the government wants a subsidy on oil so we will have one price across the country, can the minister advise whether the government is taking any action to rescind the one-third in freight rates on steel going to western Canada?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I have sent a wire to the presidents of both railway companies, Mr. Sinclair and Mr. MacMillan, protesting against this increase. I was informed unofficially that the increase is to be phased in, but I am still opposed to it and I hope they are going to roll it back.


John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to note that the minister does not agree with the increase, but I should like to ask whether the government will immediately introduce legislation to make sure there are no increases on freight rates to western Canada?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, knowing the powers we have, I hope I will have the support of the House if ever we want to use them in the form of a legislative instrument.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Before the recess the minister indicated he was having discussions with the R. J. Reynolds people and the Macdonald Tobacco Company concerning a takeover which seemed to be occurring during the interim period between the passage of the Foreign Investment Review Act and its promulgation. Would he advise the House what success he has had preventing the industry from being dominated by a United States corporation?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I think I have indicated on a number of occasions that I very much regret the decision of those who sold control of this firm to the United States, it having taken place before the law could be promulgated. This particular transaction went through before we had an opportunity to screen it. As to the question of significant benefit to Canada, we have had and are still having useful discussions with both companies. They have I think, expressed a genuine interest in trying to meet the test of significant benefit to Canada but in my opinion they have not yet done so. We will be having further discussions on that point.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the very serious problems that plague the livestock industry, are he and his cabinet colleagues giving serious consideration to the institution of a system of reciprocal tariffs and proportionate quotas as proposed by the Canadian Cattlemen's Association in respect of the movement of beef between the United States and Canada, or is any consideration being given to the implementation of upper limits on beef imports into Canada from the United States in order that we may save the beef industry in this country?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I can say that all the suggestions made by the Cattlemen's Association and by other associations, including the beef improvement association, the stock growers and the feedlot operators, as to what should be done are all being considered. We are meeting with the Canadian Cattlemen's Association later this afternoon.
I should like to correct one thing that was stated earlier in the proceedings today to the effect that 60 per cent of the cattle coming into the Toronto market were coming from the United States. Last week the figure was 45 per cent, which is still very bad as far as I am concerned.
March 5, 1974


Mr. Horner (Crowfoot):: Can we expect a statement tomorrow?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Vegreville on a supplementary question, to be followed by the hon. member for New Westminster on a further supplementary, and then perhaps one or two last questions.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Can the Minister of Agriculture indicate to the House when he will be making an announcement to the House and the country regarding the measures the government will undertake to bring about some order, stability and confidence in the beef industry in Canada?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I think that the old answer will suit-soon.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, again my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and is supplementary to the one I asked previously. In view of the fact the government was successful in respect of the Home Oil and Denison Mines transactions but has not been successful in respect of the takeover of this very important Canadian industry, will he now advise the House whether he has indicated to the R. J. Reynolds people that the government will introduce retroactive legislation to cover this takeover?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, in the two cases the hon. member mentioned, Denison Mines and Home Oil, neither transaction had been completed. As to the question of retroactivity, the government does not intend to introduce retroactive legislation.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Is he aware that advertisements in newspapers in respect of the sale of new homes in Toronto indicate a fixed price for these homes, but when buyers go to purchase the homes they are told they cannot in fact buy the homes and that all they can buy is a reservation on a home under a contract which says that the sale price-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member resume his seat. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member for Mississauga, but I would request him to ask his ques-
Oral Questions
tion as we are running short of time. The hon. member knows he cannot read a contract but should ask his question directly.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: I apologize to you, Sir, but I had almost finished what I had to say. Let me go back so I can put the information to the minister in order to find out whether he is aware of this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should try to ask his question without conveying information. I am sure the hon. member can ask his question so that we can get on with the question period.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, is the minister aware that reservations are now being given to purchasers instead of clean, outright sales and that these reservations allow the builder or developer to change the price, mortgage terms and everything else unilaterally?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet seen these advertisements, and I thank my hon. friend for bringing this to my attention. I will see that they are looked into under the provisions of the misleading advertising section of the Combines Investigation Act.


REQUEST BY WHEAT BOARD THAT ADDITIONAL RAILWAY CARS BE PURCHASED FOR MOVEMENT OF PRODUCT
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. Mention was made in the throne speech of the importance of Canadian grain rail transportation capabilities. I should like to ask in this regard whether the government is now prepared to look at and deal with the request from the Canadian Wheat Board that additional hopper cars or rolling stock for grain movement be purchased?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, we are looking at this specific request along with many other measures to bring the transportation system forward to the point that we can assure the delivery of the grain which can be produced in the prairie region.


Jack Burnett Murta: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member may ask a supplementary, after which we will proceed with the business for today.


Jack Burnett Murta: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for permitting me to ask one short supplementary. Since the minister and his officials have been looking at these proposals for some time now, can he give any indication when there will be any positive word, one way or the other, on the purchase of additional rolling stock for grain transportation?


Otto Emil Lang: We have been dealing more urgently with the immediate situation. The purchase of additional hopper

March 5, 1974
The Address-Mr. J. P. Guay
cars would not accommodate or improve that situation. The fact is that the car order process is very fully booked for quite a period forward, so some decision in the near future is adequate. We will be making that decision before very long.


SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, March 4, consideration of the motion of Mr. Stollery for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Stanfield (p. 31).
Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, at ten o'clock last night I was in the midst of congratulating the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on having called the first Western Economic Opportunities Conference which was held at Calgary. I was also saying that many more such conferences will be needed. However, this first conference demonstrated to the citizens of western Canada that this government-I am not speaking, as I said, necessarily in partisan terms-is sensitive to the concerns of western Canadians. This initiative must continue. It must be followed by others. As a result of the conference a number of proposals were put forward. These will go a long way toward rectifying some of the problems faced by western Canadians. I refer particularly to transportation policies. Once these proposals are implemented they will be of benefit to consumers, businesses and farmers in western Canada.
We must help those in the grain business, those in the lumber trade and those in the fruit industry. While it is true that farmers in western Canada now receive the highest prices for their production, this does not necessarily mean that they are receiving the highest return on their production because they are now paying the highest prices ever for farm machinery, labour, maintenance, fertilizers and even twine and the like. Then there is the additional burden of having to finance these purchases.
There is also a curious factor involved which I must bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker. Farmers living in western Canada close to the oil industry are paying the fantastic increases in the prices of oil and gas. They are paying the same percentage increase that is paid by Canadians living elsewhere. Many people believe that western Canadians somehow are ripping off Canadians in other areas, but that is not true. There are western Canadians who feel they should pay less for gas and oil products because they are close to the source. They feel this way because for a long time they have had to pay more than Canadians elsewhere for manufactured products such as automobiles, television sets and the like.
It has been suggested that western Canadians wish to blackmail the rest of Canada by charging more to others for their oil and gas. If this is the case it must be because

they in turn have been exploited by others for too long in other areas. I do not believe it is blackmail. I believe western Canadians are trying to point out that they will agree to sell their natural resources at the same price to all Canadians only when the rest of Canada return the favour. That is not exploitation. When the people of the west are treated equally in regard to consumer products with Canadians living in eastern Canada, then they will reciprocate.

Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne referred to additional measures in favour of women. I am very glad about this initiative and I hope that there will be many more women in this House in the future. I am happy to see also that we shall be doing something to abolish certain practices which are contrary to the aspirations of half of our population.
I must admit that I may be a little old to speak about these issues, but I am aware of the deep changes which are occurring in our constantly developing society.
I think that it may be up to the next generation to understand the effects and objectives of this movement, but I am optimistic about the future. This is quite a challenge for those who will replace us. The recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women in Canada must continue to be studied seriously.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I should like to emphasize one point, that is that we shall have to operate without party considerations once more in western Canada. As for me, I am ready to work in co-operation with all hon. members to implement the initiatives mentioned in this Speech from the Throne.

Mr. Speaker, the Member of Parliament for St. Boniface wishes to assure all members that his position in favour of western Canada and his desire to promote western Canada are not intended to weaken Canada or to seek special advantages or privileges for this vast region of our country. Let me as a westerner by birth say sincerely that I have always been excited by the potential of western Canada. The people of the prairies and those from the Pacific coast want other Canadians to share in the great future of the west and the far west. We are not separatists; we are not un-Canadian; we are not blackmailers. We are concerned Canadians who have been forced to speak a little louder sometimes because others have not listened to us. My plea to all in this House is that they listen to the west. To listen is to learn. To learn is to understand, and to understand is to be prepared to act.
I believe I have said enough, Mr. Speaker. I hope we will receive the co-operation of the loyal opposition in implementing the policies in the throne speech.


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for recognizing me and allowing me to take part in this most significant debate. Before I continue may I extend my sincerest congratulations to the new Governor General and Her Excellency as they embark on fulfilling this very important and significant post in Canada.
March 5, 1974

I should also like to congratulate the mover and seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, the hon. members for Spadina (Mr. Stollery) and Sherbrooke (Mr. Pelletier). It was readily seen that a lot of work went into their deliberations and I should like to commend them for their ideas and the sincerity with which they presented them.
The Speech from the Throne may be impressive on paper in terms of dealing with inflation, setting up a national petroleum corporation, bringing about reasonable prices for farm and agricultural products, giving aid to small business, regional development and equality for women, the last I think of extreme importance. I have said on many occasions that within that particular group there is a skill bank from which there have not been sufficient withdrawals owing to discrimination and the lack of appreciation of what women can do, not primarily because they are women but because they have special skills and talents from which we can acquire a great deal. Perhaps in this area we as men have been lacking.
I point out that the Speech from the Throne is couched in generalities. It is calculated to impress the electorate but is meaningless until the fine print is disclosed. By this, I mean the legislation to follow the letter of intent, if I may put it in that way, which is the Speech from the Throne.
The legislation that is proposed may or may not be brought in. Even if it is brought in, it may then be allowed to die on the order paper. If my memory serves me well, last session the government introduced Bill C-125 which, for a number of reasons, was not allowed to be proceeded with. In this regard we lost what I believe was a very significant opportunity to delve into the Unemployment Insurance Act as well as to see to it that the people of Canada would be saved $100 million.
A significant part of the speech is directed to the Unemployment Insurance Commission. Let me quote this extract:
Amendments will be introduced to the Unemployment Insurance Act as a part of a comprehensive review of the plan undertaken in the light of the experience of the last few years.
As a result of the experience of the last few years my leader, the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), has called unequivocally for an independent inquiry into the workings of the Unemployment Insurance Commission. You will readily see why, Mr. Speaker, after I have reviewed some of the history that followed the introduction of the Unemployment Insurance Act in 1961.
I bring to the attention of hon. members the pamphlet that was distributed by the then minister of labour responsible for the birth of the UIC. In that pamphlet is this paragraph:
We feel strongly that for our society today the proposed plan is a good one. This scheme, like all social programs, will have a certain life span.
It has been a well planned and scrutinized creation in a series of social development programs. It will allow all Canadians to experience the growing opportunities and rewards of our advancing society.
May I direct my colleagues to two portions of that quotation which are significant, namely, that "It has been a well planned and scrutinized creation", and "the proposed plan is a good one". Let me underline once again
The Address-Mr. Alexander
that in its present form this plan is not only one of the most expensive plans in the world but it is readily seen to have been neither well planned nor scrutinized. Two years of history have placed on record the prognostications and errors regarding the cost of the plan and the rate of unemployment. The 1971 revisions to Canada's unemployment insurance program were intended to alleviate some of the suffering brought about by high levels of unemployment. The Trudeau government's policies of economic slowdown were responsible for the drastic rise in unemployment which began in 1970 and has proceeded ever since. The former minister of labour is the latest Liberal cabinet minister to admit this.
Since taking these deliberate actions which resulted in high unemployment, the government has been consistently wrong in its forecasting both in regard to the level of unemployment in the country and the cost of paying unemployment insurance benefits. The unemployment insurance scheme as originally proposed by the then minister was to be a self-financing insurance scheme funded by employer and employee contributions when unemployment was below 4 per cent; above the 4 per cent level the government agreed to put up public money on the assumption that it is the government's fiscal and monetary policy that creates the level of unemployment in this country. I remind the House that the former minister of labour said when the bill introducing the scheme was first debated that this was the basis upon which the federal government would then supply the additional moneys, because he felt that unemployment was the creation of the government.
My party argued at that time that although we were in favour in principle of such a scheme-meaning a revamped unemployment insurance plan-it could turn all too easily into welfare that removed from Canadians the incentive to work. Of course, the Trudeau government argued that the 4 per cent level meant that the government had a vested interest in getting the unemployment figures down, a stance not borne out by the economic policies of the government, policies that have kept unemployment, seasonally adjusted, near or above 6 per cent for two years.
My main concern in this whole issue is twofold: first, the incredible cost of the system-$2 billion for benefits plus administrative costs amounting to $145 million; second, the much needed reduction in unemployment in Canada. It is for this reason that my party has proposed a two-edged policy to get Canada's economy moving again and to get Canadians back to work. This proposal would, among other things, eliminate the sales tax on all clothing, not just children's clothing, and eliminate the sales tax on building materials.
In addition, much of our party's policy has been directed to what we call the incentive society. All of our economic thrust has been to get Canada back to work, to increase productivity, and to increase substantially investment capital for small business through an incentive scheme. By working unemployment down to something like 4 per cent and then seeing if it can be lowered from there, tremendous amounts of government money now expended on unemployment insurance benefits could be freed for other social uses such as lowering the age for the old age pension. In addition, the billion dollar drag on Canada's

March 5, 1974
The Address-Mr. Alexander
economy, a drag caused by the Trudeau government's policies going back as far as 1969 and 1970, would be substantially reduced as unemployment dropped.
The other proposal to be brought into effect at the same time would freeze all incomes and prices, except the price of food at the farm gate, for 90 days. During this freeze period consultations with labour, business, consumer groups, farmers and the provinces would be conducted, with a view to establishing a longer term-say 18 months to two years-economic stabilization program that would restore order to our economy.
Inflation continues to accelerate, Mr. Speaker. It is at a stage where it feeds upon itself through an induced inflationary psychosis, and it will continue to accelerate unless the government takes some action and gives some leadership to suppress current expectations. The government can do this in only two ways, The first is by using fiscal and monetary policies alone and putting many thousands out of work; the second is by using fiscal and monetary policies and an incomes policy. There is no other choice, for the economy will not long survive constantly accelerating price increases.
I do not have to repeat the serious handicaps which those on fixed income and those in the middle income groups face in terms of shelter, food and clothing. The guy in the middle seems to be squeezed, and the government just says that because it believes inflation is induced by offshore factors it can do nothing about it. As my leader has often said, and as we continue to say, Mr. Speaker, we do not accept that. Thus, my party's position on unemployment insurance must be seen in the total perspective of our economic package proposals to cut unemployment and combat inflation.
Certainly cheaters of the Unemployment Insurance Fund must go. Canadians should not be allowed to collect benefits if they are not actually seeking work, and those who voluntarily quit work for no justifiable reason, or refuse work for which they are qualified, or work which is reasonable, should not receive unemployment insurance benefits.
Although the unemployment insurance plan has been in operation for only two years many problems have arisen in connection with it. Three of the most significant are as follows: (1) the need to increase premiums dramatically, something which we experienced just in the past couple of months; (2) administration of the fund in terms, of high benefit costs and, (3), the minister's credibility. I want to touch on all three of these matters.
As I have noted, one significant problem has been the need to increase premiums rather dramatically. I would like to put on the record the experience of the fund in the years 1972 and 1973.
In 1972 employer-employee contributions totalled about $691 million. In 1973 we understand that they were approximately $1,269 million. In 1972 there was a deficit of approximately $174 million, whereas in 1973 there was a deficit of about $509 million.
What is even more astounding, keeping in mind what was told us in debate on the initial stages of the bill

setting up the fund, is what has happened to the premiums. I would like to put these figures on the record for the years 1972, 1973 and 1974.
The basic rate in 1972 for the employee was $0.90, and for the employer $1.26. In 1973 the employee rate was $1 and the employer rate $1.40. We understand that as of January 1, 1974, the premium rate for the employee is $1.40 and $1.96 for the employer. In other words, what we are talking about is a 40 per cent increase in the premium rate in order to sustain the unemployment insurance fund. You can understand my apprehension about this whole matter since we were told that premiums would be nowhere near the level that the minister has just authorized.
What about the administrative costs for which the employee and the employer are responsible? Let us look at the costs projected in the white paper and at the actual costs. The projected administrative costs for 1972 were $71 million, but the actual administrative costs in that year were in the neighbourhood of $120 million. The white paper projected costs for 1973 were $73 million and the actual costs for that year were $145 million. This actual cost of $145 million represents an increase over the estimated cost in the white paper of $72 million.


An hon. Member:: It is double.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Yes, it is double, and then you wonder why we in this party call for an independent inquiry.
The problem in the administration is the high benefit cost. Let me tell you what happened in 1972. I will not go back farther because in 1971, as already stated, we had the introduction of the new plan in conjunction with the older plan. In 1972 benefits cost $1,873 billion, and there were additional administrative costs of about $122 million, the latter having to be looked after by the employer and employee. In 1973 benefit costs hit $2.03 billion, plus $145 million for administrative costs, despite the fact that in 1973 unemployment generally was lower than in 1972 and notwithstanding the fact that 250,000 claimants were disqualified or disentitled.
By contrast, benefits in 1971 cost $892 million and in 1970 $694 million. What a contrast! What a history! Surely it is time to reassess the act seriously as to its intent, purpose and direction. Most certainly, Canadians are entitled to know the truth. We must determine the relationship between the high job vacancy rate, high benefits and high unemployment.
As the Hamilton Spectator put it in its issue of January 9, 1974;
To tax the productive to subsidize a growing number of non-productive cannot help but lead to ultimate disaster. No nation can long survive if it does not respect the dignity of labour.
As I have often said, Mr. Speaker, this country was built on the work ethic, is still being built on the work ethic, and will continue to be built on the work ethic. But now we have disincentives to work. I have seen them introduced as a result of the new thinking brought in by the government, and I say we are in trouble unless there is a reversal of this thinking. Most Canadians are raising a hue and cry because they dislike what is occurring with respect to the Unemployment Insurance Commission.
March 5, 1974

A sampling of the nation's press underlines the suspicion raised as a result of misuse and abuse of UIC funds. It was called a "mess" by the Winnipeg Free Press on November 21 last. That paper had this to say:
Originally planned as an insurance program, it has long lost any semblance to this. It is a social welfare program, pure and simple, paid for in large part by thousands of Canadians who can never hope to benefit from it.
When the Minister of Manpower spoke on or about November 6 last year, the Vancouver Sun said he was whitewashing the UIC. It stated:
He made a great point of saying that about 250,000 persons will have been disqualified for benefits or thrown off the insurance rolls this year as a result of diligent investigation. Such statistics, however, merely prove the massive extent of attempted or semi-successful fraud perpetrated against the fund, without any indication about how many are getting away with it. The number who weren't caught must have been astronomical. This is implicit in Mr. Andras' statement that the investigating staff that totalled 147 a year ago now stands at 369 and 55 more will be added by the end of this year. This simply means that the number of watchdogs was insufficient a year ago and it still is.
That was the Vancouver Sun summation. "Unemployment income tax," reports the Vancouver Province of November 10, and "Rip-off continues," comments the Toronto Sun of November 15.
The third and most important problem is the credibility of the minister responsible. On May 22, 1973, when he was speaking to his estimates before the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration, he said:
But without indulging in superlatives I feel I can say honestly that this is a good and decent program and that, although as I have mentioned we still have problems to solve, our reorganization will move it a long way toward more efficiency, sensitivity and humanity.
When introducing notice of the increased premiums on November 7, 1973, the minister made a statement on motions. I should like to quote from page 11 of that statement where he said:
The important review of social security in Canada, now going on under the leadership of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, also makes this the wrong time for a legislative change in a social program as significant as the unemployment insurance program.
How inconsistent can that minister be, Mr. Speaker? This is what I am talking about in terms of a credibility gap. We see now that he is bringing in legislation in order to amend the act. I wonder whether the social security review has now been completed by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde). I would respectfully suggest that it has not. I would respectfully suggest that he is bringing in legislation now because he realizes that the act in its present form is unacceptable to Canadians and that they expect action.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: In terms of action we await the legislation that the minister promised by his letter of intent and the Speech from the Throne, and we say that we will not accept any cosmetic features in a bill, nor do we expect him to bring in any ad hoc measures in order temporarily to appease the opposition and not so much us but the people of Canada.
The Address-Mr. Alexander
Again, on the question of the minister's credibility I should like to quote from the same speech at page 13 where he said:
I am determined that the unemployed who are genuinely doing their best to get work will receive their rightful benefits, and our fullest assistance in their efforts to find new jobs. But I am equally determined that those who are not entitled will not receive benefits. And I am confident that we now have the administrative system and competence to make this determination stick.
That is what the minister said on November 7, Mr. Speaker. I will repeat that:
And I am confident that we now have the administrative system and competence to make this determination stick.
During this time when the minister was procrastinating and flipflopping and taking shortcuts through facts, we in the opposition, particularly through the hon. member for Hastings (Mr. Ellis), had charged in no uncertain terms that he was wrong about the act. The hon. member raised charges related to mismanagement, financial waste, computer chaos, all within the past two years, but the minister and his officials dismissed those charges. His officials called them distorted, misleading and outdated.
To show how quickly the minister realized he was wrong when he was being pressed, in the first week of February, 1974, when attending a meeting of the Canadian Construction Association he admitted that most of the criticism levelled a year ago or even six months ago was valid. Then he went on to disclose a massive salvage plan. I should like to list some of the plans which the minister wanted to bring in: a closer system of checks for eligibility for unemployment insurance; increased emphasis on manpower training for employees; insistence on an active job search by insurance applicants; expansion of the Unemployment Insurance Commission benefit control staff; new controls on hiring through union halls; incentives to improve the mobility of the work force, particularly in construction.
These were his proposals even though in November he indicated that he had the "administrative system and competence". I hope that these matters to which I have just referred as being matters of salvage will be brought within the ambit of the Unemployment Insurance Act, as well as other matters.
We have long said that we are not happy with and we have never accepted a qualifying period of eight weeks; we have indicated that it should be at least sixteen weeks. We have also indicated that Manpower and the Unemployment Insurance Commission should be merged.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: It seems to me that the minister has been less than honest with the Canadian people in this regard. We must have the truth. Canadians not only are entitled to it but are demanding it. This is why we have continually called for a full-scale, independent inquiry into unemployment insurance. Surely the ever-widening credibility gap and the inconsistency of the minister make such an inquiry mandatory. My party will continue to press for a major independent public inquiry into the unemployment insurance program to clear the air of suspicion and to assess what the program should be accomplishing in the context of over-all Canadian policy.

March 5, 1974
The Address-Hon. J. Turner
We believe that an inquiry is more than justified. The unemployment insurance account is now running a deficit of about $509 million compared with 1972 when the unemployment insurance deficit was $174 million. Unemployment insurance benefits last year increased by $16 million over 1972 despite-and I repeat-despite lower unemployment rates and an Unemployment Insurance Commission benefit control program that disqualified an estimated
250,000	people.
The so-called comprehensive review to which the throne speech refers is, in our opinion, not comprehensive enough. First of all, Mr. Speaker, it was not independent and we believe that any review must be independent and not conducted by those at whom the finger of criticism has been pointed. Next, we believe that it should be an inquiry rather than a comprehensive review. The inquiry we are calling for and would like to see would get to the roots of the program and would provide concrete solutions to a number of basic questions. For example, are the fears about abuses and misuse justified? Further, we must resolve the question of whether disincentives to work are built into the unemployment insurance program and, if so, try to determine what those disincentives are and what can be done about them.
We must decide whether the unemployment insurance program is an insurance plan in reality or a welfare plan in which the contributions are simply a new kind of tax. Only a full and open inquiry into the program will provide these answers. Canadians are demanding them, Canadians are entitled to them, and I stand here on behalf of Canadians pleading with the government to give us the opportunity to get to the truth of the matter.
I should like to close by repeating and emphasizing some words of wisdom of my leader. He said:
Canadians want to see some sense of order, of value and fairness returned to economic and social policy of this country. Those who are seeking work but can't find opportunity for jobs and careers want a government that places high priority on providing such opportunities. Those who are not working because they find it is not worth their while to work deserve a government that will build incentives into an overhauled welfare system.
We await the legislation. But let me say it had better not be a cosmetic effort, it had better not be an ad hoc approach to a very serious problem. If so, I am sure we will just have to look into this matter at more length and more thoroughly than we have in the past. At this time we do not intend to be bamboozled; we want the facts and we want the truth.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to join with other hon. members of the House in congratulating the Governor General and his Lady and to welcome their unique human qualities to Rideau Hall on behalf of all Canadians. I should also like to congratulate the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Stol-lery) and the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Pelletier), the mover and seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. Both made eloquent speeches of committed men.

The House will recall that my budget of February last year had two major objectives. The first was to promote further healthy growth of the economy through the injection of continued strong expansionary stimulus. The second was to do everything reasonably possible to contain the impact of worldwide inflationary forces on Canada that had already reached what I described as "epidemic proportions". Specifically, I forecast that real national output in 1973 would increase by around seven per cent, given fair crops, labour peace and international stability, and that employment would increase by at least 300,000.
Hon. members will also recall that the reaction of the Official Opposition to the budget was one of ridicule and derision, their typical knee-jerk reaction. The Conservative leader described it as a "national sick joke", as a piece of "fiction". He told the House on February 23, as recorded on page 1598 of Hansard, that he could not emphasize too strongly that the budget "falls far short of the nation's need for a new era of expansion of productivity". Those who supported it then would have to explain tomorrow why unemployment was still "a lingering curse".
The Conservative's chief economic spokesman, the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies), said the budget provided far too little expansion-I use his words, as recorded on page 1559 of Hansard of February 22, 1973-"to really move this country ahead, to produce the sort of employment that Canadians have every right to expect and to hope for." As recently as December 10, 1973, as recorded on page 8588 of Hansard, he was still bemoaning Canada's "basically poor economic performance" and the lack of growth since the first quarter.
Let me quickly outline the real state of our economy in 1973 so that the House will have an opportunity to compare the facts against Conservative fantasy.

The main fact is that the real national product increased by 7.1 per cent last year, despite major labour conflicts during the third quarter and international instability. This figure, matching perfectly the predictions of my budget speech, represented the greatest national product increase since 1956, the most substantial growth in Canada in 17 years-in this regard Statistics Canada was mistaken for it is really 17 years and not 7 years-and perhaps one of the most considerable noted in all industrialized countries. Let us compare that with the dark predictions of low economic growth made by the Progressive Conservatives!
The second noteworthy fact is that this unusual development has helped create 430,000 new jobs in Canada in 1973, 130,000 or 43 per cent more than the minimum growth I had predicted. This figure represents a record increase of 5.2 per cent in employment, which is close to 25 per cent greater than the previous peak, 4.2 per cent, reached in 1966. The average unemployment rate shrank from 6.3 per cent in 1972 to 5.6 per cent in 1973, which is the lowest level recorded since 1969.

Employment in manufacturing during 1973 increased by
111,000	according to estimates in the Labour Force Survey, a rise of 6 per cent. This was the largest increase in
March 5, 1974

manufacturing employment relatively and absolutely since 1966, when the number of new jobs rose by 122,000 or 7.5 per cent.
Growth of manufacturing employment during 1973 exceeded the total for the whole of the previous six years by 8,000. It represented 26 per cent of the total increase in employment in 1973 of 430,000 or 5.2 per cent.
I am still troubled by the number of Canadians without jobs and I always will be so long as there are Canadians able and willing to work who cannot find employment. But I think I may fairly ask the House to contrast the unsurpassed record of employment growth last year with the grim forebodings and incantations muttered in darkness and in gloom by the Troika, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), the hon. member for Don Valley and the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), which all last year came to resemble nothing so much as Macbeth's three witches.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: That is wonderful writing, John.


John Napier Turner: The Conservative leader has treked back and forth across the country trying to create the impression that the standard of living of Canadians is being sharply undermined by inflation.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: And is it not being undermined?


John Napier Turner: It is quite true that during 1973, for the first time in many years, the increase in average earnings of individual workers has only just about kept pace with the increase in the cost of living. But it is also true that the real standard of living of the great majority of Canadians has further substantially improved, based on the more comprehensive measure available to us of Canadian prosperity.
Over the course of last year the real, personal disposable income of Canadians per man, woman and child in this country, that is to say, the income available after taxes, after discounting the erosion of inflation and adding back transfer payments such as pensions and family allowances and after taking into account the reduction in personal income taxes equivalent to between 12 and 13 per cent as provided in the last budget, rose, in 1973 over 1972, by 6.8 per cent. That is the size of the average, real increase in disposable incomes of Canadians. This follows already exceptional increases of 5.9 per cent in 1971 and 6.7 per cent in 1972.
This increase in real, personal disposable income per capita last year in Canada of 6.8 per cent was half again as much as that in the United States. Since 1970, the average, real disposable income of Canadians has risen by 21 per cent, which is nearly twice the increase in the United States.
To sum up, Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives in February, 1973, were totally wrong in their conclusions about where the economy stood and they remained totally wrong throughout the year about where it was going. But, as I
The Address-Hon. J. Turner
will indicate to the House later, that error of judgment was probably the very least of their follies.

I said at the beginning of my remarks that one of the main objectives of the estimates was to do anything reasonably possible to limit the spread of world inflation. Canada did not escape-it could not at any rate in view of the important position it holds in world trade-the effects of this international evil which has taken over the past 12 months such proportions that even the most pessimistic observers had not envisaged them. In spite of our vulnerability to these world inflationary pressures, our price structure has reacted rather better than that of most other countries. Compared with the same period in 1972, our consumer price index showed in December 1973 a rise of 9.1 per cent compared with an average increase of 10.3 per cent for most OECD countries and 9.5 per cent for members of the European Economic Community.
As Minister of Finance, nothing bothers me quite so much as the negative effects of inflation on the budgets and savings of Canadians. This affects all Canadians. Inflation is the No. 1 economic problem of this country, a problem which has been and continues to be a matter of great and serious concern to this government. The leader of the Progressive Conservative Party and his colleagues have tried to convince the Canadian public that our only policy has been one of passive complacency. The truth is something quite different: Canada has taken more concerted and vigorous steps than any other country to limit the effects of inflation, try and protect the real purchasing power of the people who are the least in a position to protect themselves against the cost of living increases, and do whatever is in our power here in Canada to strike at the root of the evil with legislative measures likely to increase the amount of goods available to satisfy the needs of an expanding economy.

Before the outbreak of this energy crisis we expected that expansion of the Canadian economy in 1974 would again exceed long-term growth potential and would be at the upper limits set by available manpower and industrial resources. We expected that there would be some easing of worldwide inflationary pressures as a result of some increase in output of goods in short supply and significant moderation in the growth of a number of industrial nations.
Canada stands to be less affected by problems stemming from potential petroleum shortages and astronomical oil price increases than virtually any other industrial nation. Growth of national production in Canada may fall somewhat short of our earlier expectations, but it could very well match or exceed that of any other industrial nation, not excepting that modern industrial miracle, Japan. Certainly we moved into 1974 with substantial momentum following the substantial real growth in GNP during last year's fourth quarter at an annual rate of 11.5 per cent, matching the upsurge in the same period in 1972 and the first quarter of 1973.
Rapidly expanding capital investment, spurred by the tax measures to assist manufacturers and processors and

March 5, 1974
The Address-Hon. J. Turner
reinforced by accelerated outlays on new energy resources, will provide a strong boost to the economy. As the recent OECD survey of Canada pointed out, measures already in force to increase social security benefits to Canadians will help to sustain personal income and consumer expenditures. Because petroleum exports exceed petroleum imports, we should escape from any adverse impact on our balance of payments because of higher oil prices.
But we still face a number of uncertainties. The effect of sharply higher oil prices on global inflationary pressures remains to be seen. Expansion of Canadian exports may be moderated by the effects of the energy crisis in retarding growth of our major trading partners, but by how much it is difficult to determine at this stage. Decisions still remain to be made regarding future oil prices in Canada which bear directly on the level of consumer income and consumer spending and about the division of oil revenues between governments and companies.

I proved well enough a while ago that the Progressive Conservative opposition erred completely in its assessment of the state of our economy last year. Small wonder then that it should have been led into compounding the error by advocating economic measures that were absolutely inappropriate and could have had disastrous effects on production.
They themselves recognized it to some extent later on through the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies) who, for a while last fall, did a complete turnabout on financial, monetary and exchange matters, as compared with his previous stands. More recently, he started to change direction almost daily, like a weathervane, by proposing opposite economic measures.
A year ago February, as I pointed out previously, the Conservative financial Troika contended the fiscal stimulus proposed in the budget fell substantially short of that required to stimulate strong economic growth. The member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies) called for a budget deficit on a national accounts basis of more than two and a half times that I projected, or more than $2V4 billion. He maintained that Canadian growth would be retarded because of the appreciation of the Canadian dollar to around parity with the U.S. dollar. On February 22, 1973, as recorded on page 1559 of Hansard, he said:
We know that in Canada we have never had really high levels of prosperity since the dollar floated up in value.
In a press release issued on behalf of his party on March 21, 1973, the member for Don Valley suggested that monetary policy, in addition to fiscal policy, was also too restrictive. "There is growing evidence," he claimed, "that the Finance Department and the Bank of Canada are not seriously committed to creating full employment and are going to shift both fiscal and monetary policy to fight inflation by constraining demand and stalling maximum job-creation."
It was in a speech to the Empire Club of Toronto on October 25, 1973, that the member made complete and astonishing about-turn. He listed three major causes of inflation in Canada: excessively expansive fiscal policy, when he had been calling for more expansion; excessively expansive monetary policy, when he had been arguing for

more expansion; and depreciation of the Canadian dollar along with U.S. currency in relation to the currencies of other industrial nations. He deplored the fact that, in his words, "we continue to follow an expansionary fiscal policy long after it was clear that it was having a strong inflationary force in the economy without doing much about unemployment." I cannot help but wonder, Mr. Speaker, when that became clear to the hon. member.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: He deplored what he alleged to be the "easy money policy" being pursued by the government and the Bank of Canada, contending that an increase in credit beyond the real growth rate of the economy was a major contributor to inflation. It was only a few weeks before in the House of Commons, on September 10, 1973, that in the course of pursuing the same theme the member at the same time accused the government of following a "tight money policy" and an "expensive money policy."
Finally, the member expressed grave misgivings about the fact that the Canadian dollar had depreciated along with the U.S. in relation to other currencies, the clear implication being that Canada would have been better off if the Canadian dollar had also appreciated in relation to the currency of our most important trading partner. What then, Mr. Speaker, are we to make of his earlier claim that Canada had never really been prosperous since the Canadian dollar rose to parity with the U.S. dollar?
The Conservative leader has spoken frequently about the fundamental need to pursue "judicious fiscal and monetary policies." Having said in October that our fiscal and monetary policies should be far more restrictive, the member for Don Valley in the House on November 29, page 8257 of Hansard, questioned when I was going to bring in "new monetary and fiscal policies so the economy will not slide into a serious recession." At the time I presumed he was now advocating adoption of more expansionary policies. But on December 11 and again on December 13, pages 8615 and 8699 of Hansard, he asked whether I believed nothing could be done through fiscal, monetary and exchange policy to moderate inflation. Obviously he was advocating that fiscal and monetary policy should be more restrictive and the exchange rate somehow pressed upward.
I can only conclude, Mr. Speaker, that in the mind of the Conservative party a judicious monetary and fiscal policy is expansionary on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays and restrictive on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Hopefully, on the seventh day they will rest and try to reconcile what they did the rest of the week.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Because they totally failed to appreciate the nature of the global inflationary problem confronting us, the Conservatives also advocated the adoption of specific policies to deal with it that also amounted to sheer folly. Having concluded that inflation
March 5, 1974

in Canada was caused primarily by domestic cost-push forces, the member for Don Valley last February, as found on page 1561 of Hansard for February 22, urged the adoption of wage and price controls. He contended this would bring the inflation rate down to 3 per cent, solving the inflation problem in the way that it was allegedly already solved in the United States. That is what he indicated in his speech. We asked for the Conservative studies on inflationary forces based on cost-push rather than demand-pull. I asked for them through my department. I have not yet received those studies. I wonder how they would contribute to the intellectual economic climate of the country. Where are the studies? If there are studies, why have they never been produced?
Let us have a hard look at the facts. What is the major source of inflation? The recent OECD survey of Canada concluded that it "can mainly be attributed to the price boom on international markets."
As every member is well aware, the prices of agricultural commodities, raw materials and petroleum have increased over the past several months at a rate never before experienced in our peacetime history. Consider a few products traded internationally which we ourselves do not produce in Canada. Over the past year, the price of tin has gone up by 83 per cent, cocoa by more than 90 per cent, coffee by 40 per cent, sugar by 57 per cent, rubber by 85 per cent and rice by 206 per cent. What would the Conservative party do about controlling sharply increased prices for these and many other goods which we import from abroad?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Are controls effective in containing inflation and promoting healthy economic growth in the circumstances confronting us today of worldwide inflationary pressures-and let me stress that important qualification? It may come as some surprise to Conservatives, but the answer must be a resounding no. In January the year-over-year increase in the U.S. Consumer price index was 9.4 per cent, compared with an increase of 9.1 per cent in Canada. I am not proud of those figures. I just put them on the record. In Britain the cost of living in January was up by 12 per cent over a year ago.
I know the hon. member for Don Valley does not like us to compare the American situation, although he did that last year when it apparently was running favourably for him. His colleague, the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard), on "The Nation's Business" or some other program last weekend, cited the American figures to the best of his ability, the only problem being he did not have the up to date ones.
Not only have controls in those countries failed to have any significant effect in checking inflation, but they have also impeded economic growth. The British economy and British society are perched on the edge of disaster because of labour's militant opposition to controls. The United States is moving rapidly to dismantle what controls still remain in force because they proved only to increase inflationary pressures by creating artificial shortages and to retard economic expansion. Herbert Stein, Chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisers, told a joint economic committee of Congress recently that the United
The Address-Hon. J. Turner
States had tried the wage-price control "medicine" and found that it gave "temporary relief only, followed by many headaches." Furthermore, he said:
We know that controls won't stop the inflation; they only offer us more and more shortages and inefficiencies.
The Leader of the Opposition tells us that controls are necessary to dampen down inflationary psychology. Where in the world have they been effective in doing that to the slightest degree? He says they are necessary to overcome growing bitterness caused by inflation. I might observe that if his long round of speeches advocating controls provide no solution to inflation, they certainly contribute to the problem by inciting bitterness and inflationary psychology.
In the United States, Treasury Secretary George Schultz has told a congressional committee-the Senate banking subcommittee-that controls, initially so warmly welcomed, have lost public support. Certainly, controls have served only to create bitterness in Britain. This should come as no surprise to the Conservative leader, who warned us several years ago in a speech at the Agudath, Israel's Mens' Club on January 31, 1971, that controls would cause "untold resentment among groups and individuals who felt unfairly done by, and would result in a climate of constant confrontation." One year after the Conservatives first proposed the adoption of a wage-price control program following a 90-day freeze, we are still waiting to learn just what kind of a program they have in mind, what limit they propose to impose on wage and price increases, and why they consider such a program would be any more effective here than programs carried out in the United States, Britain and other countries in reducing inflation without retarding economic growth. Surely the idea of establishing across the board controls covering virtually all wages and prices in the circumstances confronting us today of strong worldwide inflationary pressure has by now been totally discredited on every count.
I shall conclude in a few moments. Let me underline one simple but important fact. Because they do not bear the responsibility of office, opposition parties are not obliged to accept the consequences of the follies they often urge us to commit. Particularly in the case of the Conservative party, these nostrums and panaceas change from day to day depending on what it calculates might catch the public fancy at the moment. One day they demand we adopt more expansionary economic policies and the next day they tell us our existing policy is far too expansionary. One day they condemn us for even contemplating the adoption of price and income controls and the next they condemn us for not having done so. They continue to try to foist controls on the country long after their ineffectiveness in existing world circumstances has been demonstrated in one nation after another. As Minister of Finance, I do not intend to be pushed into gambling recklessly and irresponsibly with the future of the Canadian economy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: The plain fact is that there are no simple or easy solutions to the inflationary problems confronting us. As I said before, probably no

March 5, 1974
The Address-Hon. M. Lambert
other country has taken such broad and concerted action to deal with this situation as we in Canada have already taken by broadening the scope of supply and protecting those who are least able to protect themselves.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I shall not spend any time now in reciting the further important measures we propose to take, measures which are outlined in the Speech from the Throne. Despite all the problems that face us-and we do face problems-despite the erosion caused by inflation-and it hurts-when we look around the world we have reason to consider that we are a fairly fortunate people, and we intend in this government to do everything we possibly can to keep it that way.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Edmonton West will be recognized at two o'clock.
It being five minutes past one o'clock, the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I would like to join my sentiments to those expressed by other members during this debate to the member for Spadina (Mr. Stollery) and the member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Pelletier) who, as young members-I say young in the sense of experience in the House-proposed and supported the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. I know that this is a very difficult task. They are often not used to the atmosphere of the House at the beginning of a new session. Thus, the Throne Speech was read in the morning and the speeches in reply the same afternoon. I do not think that this would be the best atmosphere. It seems to me that it would be better to proceed the same day only with the reading of the Throne Speech. Then we could study it. This would be more realistic. We know very well that young members having read the speech in the morning are not ready at 2 o'clock in the afternoon to make serious comments in reply to this speech.
This means that these things were "cooked in advance" and, in this sense, it is unreal.

I should like also to join with others in extending my sincere congratulations to His Excellency on his appointment to office, and to wish him and Madame Leger a very interesting and successful term, and I do not suggest five years as that does not now seem to be the rule. I am sure they will bring their own charm and distinction to the discharge of the functions of that office. I may say that Canada has been more than singularly blessed by the quality of our vice-regal representatives since I came here in 1957, as a matter of fact, after the rule was adopted of having a Canadian act as the Governor General. We know

each of those who have occupied that office, and the more recent ones are fresher in our memories. Let me say without disrespect to your predecessor, Mr. Speaker, and mine, who occupied that distinguished position since 1967 when he took over under rather pressing circumstances on the eve of Expo '67, he left his own very indelible impression on the office of Governor General of Canada. We wish both Mrs. Michener and Roly, to some of us, now that he is no longer in office, a very pleasant life in retirement, although I see it is not exactly to be idle.
It was quite an experience to sit here before the luncheon recess and listen to our good friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) literally whip himself into a frenzy of political fury. He had to whip himself to deliver a speech in which I recognized a number of sentiments and arguments that have been put forward by a number of apologists for the Department of Finance from time to time. In the writing of this speech one can see some fine as well as some rather blunt hands. There was as well some political digging, which is a lot of fun. I am sure he was doing his best to get back one dig for every 10 he gets from this side.
Having looked at the speech as a whole, I note a welcome departure from the high-flying but clearly empty phrases of last year. We now find a compendium of proposals or promises delivered with one eye on the political horizon. Perhaps I should not say "one eye", I should say that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his cabinet prepared this throne speech staring bug-eyed at the political horizon. They have come up with the simple phrase "Ask and you shall receive", because this is the basis on which they are giving handouts here and handouts there. We must remember, however, that there is a good deal of distance between promising and delivering.
It is clear from the speech of the Minister of Finance that if he had not spent so much time trying to get in political licks he might have given the country what is required of the Minister of Finance at this time. He indicated he would be making a report on the situation regarding the International Monetary Fund, the Canadian dollar and the value of gold. These are the things on which the Minister of Finance should be reporting. Instead of that, he presented some cheap arguments about certain statements researchers dug up out of context from speeches and questions by my colleague the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies).
The key to this throne speech will not be, as suggested by the Prime Minister, the docile servility of this House in accepting and passing government proposals, not at all. We will look for what is contained in the budget, the proposals the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) will make in order to raise the money to pay for all the promises contained in the Speech from the Throne because we have seen that the government is distributing largesse on the basis of "ask and you will receive". This involves a great deal of money.
Although I cannot do so this afternoon in the time allotted to me, I could take up twice the amount of time allotted on subjects which I think should be discussed, such as inflation, regional development and unemploy-
March 5, 1974

ment. I would have liked to have gone into the subject raised by the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) concerning Canada's relations with Taiwan and some of the things we were able to see during the recess. I would have liked to have gone into the relationship between the government and Canadian participation in the deliberations of the Council of Europe, which I heartily support because this gives members of parliament an opportunity to speak to their opposites in the parliaments of Europe. This is the only place where there could be a dialogue between members of this parliament and members of the Assembly of the Council of Europe which in its membership as observers goes much beyond the United States, which has had observer status there for a long time. We are invited to assume that position of observer. The hand of invitation is out. I think it is up to Canada to respond affirmatively. There is no question that Canadian contacts around the world on a ministerial or government basis are far too narrow. I think a greater role can be played by members of parliament from all parties. This is the kind of forum if you like, the kind of arena, in which members of parliament from this House and senators from the other place could exchange views without being tied by government positions. This is terribly important.
I could talk about industrial strategy and about national unity. At the moment there is a great deal of malaise in the national body. Many people say it is a sense of regional alienation, but it is only because they have become aware of an already existing inequality. The favourite whipping dog in this field of alienation over the past decade was the province of Quebec.

In the province of Quebec, it was a cultural, a linguistic situation, but never an economic issue. There was never any argument on this point. Moreover, the claims of Quebec barely touched the economic situation.


Thomas Miller Bell: That is true.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Now, we get to western Canada. There, the sense of injustice and alienation is purely economic. I suppose some of it may be a little geographical, but primarily it is economic. But that has been a grievance for a long time. As a young man I was aware of many of the arguments which basically exist today although in more modern dress, such as freight rates, the cost of manufactured goods from central Canada and so on. Now, there is the fact that there is a price freeze-yes, a price freeze-on an essential commodity, 85 per cent of which is produced in the province of Alberta. This has been imposed without consultation by central Canada on the basis apparently that there should not be windfall profits to those who are exploiting the resources. I intend to ask the Minister of Finance why he and his administration do not move in on the gold mines of Ontario and Quebec which have the major monopoly on the production of gold in this country. At today's prices if there aren't windfall profits in gold then the whole situation is crazy. There are no windfall profits with regard to oil.
In this situation, oil was seized upon as a convenient whipping boy, and there must be a great deal of careful negotiation. There is no way that, shall we say, the ben-
The Address-Hon. M. Lambert efits of a below-world price on this commodity in Canada is to be loaded on the backs of Canadians who happen to live in Alberta. If that were done, then I think the people of western Canada could say, do it with regard to lumber because those people pay world prices for lumber, or do it with regard to nickel because they must pay the world price for nickel. Also could we not do it for steel, because they pay the world competitive price for steel. The arguments used by the government in this connection are as empty as a hollow egg shell.
I suggest that in order to justify just what shall be a Canadian position, a negotiated Canadian position, there are other arguments which must be used. I will admit that in many areas there has been a sense of isolation and injustice, but this has existed for a long time. It is the oldest cliche in Canada to say Canada is a hard country to govern. Let us get on with it and try to change the pattern.
I think we require a national mobilization of effort to master inflation at the present time. To counter inflation we get bandaids and blow-out patches applied from time to time by the government of Canada whether or not they suit the purpose of any provincial government. Whether or not it suits the purposes of such governments in any region of Canada, the government of Canada moves in without consultation and unilaterally takes those steps it has decided upon.
Although the impact of any policy may not be too bad in, say, Ontario, it could be disastrous in the Atlantic provinces. It may not affect Alberta very much and yet the neighbour in Saskatchewan may be hard hit. That is not the way to proceed. In this whole area of combatting inflation an industrial strategy must be developed. The situation today is an indication of the bankrupt performance by the government of Canada and the provinces. I will not entirely absolve the provinces because there is a bankruptcy of leadership in this country with regard to industrial strategy as a whole. It is a dog-eat-dog operation. The leader of the dogs is the program on regional and economic expansion. Action is taken without consideration of the aspirations of the provinces. It is usually done with an eye to the political climate and the political return. We know it is on the basis of beggar thy neighbour in many instances. A plant is established in one province so that one of a similar nature may be closed in an adjoining province. It is strictly on that basis. However, I shall have more to say about this on a later occasion. We receive complaints from the provinces that it is either economic clout that is used to back up the government's action or just plain bullying, such as the attempts at bullying we have had in respect of the marketing of oil.
During the last month we have seen that "brain trust" in the cabinet, the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) come out with a program that was filched directly from the Hudson Institute-the statistics were quoted directly from the compilations of that organization-for the development of the tar sands. The government of Canada would borrow capital from various countries and the tar sands would be developed on a crash basis over the next ten years. Thousands of Korean labourers would be imported.

March 5, 1974
The Address-Hon. M. Lambert
Yet the minister is speaking on behalf of a ministry which has absolutely no jurisdiction over the tar sands or over the development of them. Only the government of the province of Alberta or its appropriate agency, the energy conservation board, has any say about whether a shovel will be put into the ground. There is no doubt that the federal government can tax the product in the end, but as for the development and the marketing of any oil produced it cannot say one thing about one barrel or drop marketed within the province of Alberta.
If anybody should think that the federal government is able to move unilaterally into the development, or participate in the development, of those tar sands within the confines of the province of Alberta without the consent and co-operation of that province, then there is absolutely something wrong with their thinking. The federal government could no more do this than they could say they were going to develop a gold mine in the province of Quebec without the consent and co-operation of that province. The permits would have to be issued by the appropriate government, which would be the government of the province of Quebec in that case. Yet we seem to be assuming that this kind of development will be done unilaterally.
I wanted to talk about inflation, Mr. Speaker. This morning the minister seemed to say that he had pulled out all the stops and touched all the bases of sympathy regarding the effects of inflation. But the net result has been that the government has not done a thing effectively to counter inflation.
Let me just take a look at the situation. In 1968, when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his then administration took office, the consumer price index for all items stood at 120.1. In October of 1972, when this particular administration took over again, the consumer price index stood at 142.0. By January of this year it had risen to 157.6. When the minister became Minister of Finance in January of 1972 it stood at 136.7.
I can go down through various items, such as food and shelter. Food stood at 122.0 in 1968, in 1972, October, it had risen to 145.3, and in January of 1974 it was 174.0. Shelter in 1968 stood at 124.6, increased to 160.5 in October 1972 and in January of 1974 stood at 173.8. We have seen increases each year.
Let us look at the performance of the minister, and particularly at this self-congratulatory budget of which he spoke. He must have sprained his shoulder patting himself so hard on the back for his predictions and for the measures taken by the government in 1973.


John Napier Turner: That budget speaks for itself.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it certainly does.


John Napier Turner: Look at the results.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Let us look at the increase in the price index. In the first quarter of 1973 the increase was 5.9 per cent over the preceding quarter. In the second quarter it was 7.3 per cent; in the third quarter 8.2 per cent, and in the fourth quarter 9 per cent. So, it

speaks for itself. The rate of increase has been not quite double.


John Napier Turner: What about the
increase in jobs?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I am glad the minister reminded me of that.


John Napier Turner: And growth.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Jobs are the most artificial statistic you could possibly have. Because there is no indication how long a job lasts. An individual can come on a job that lasts two weeks, stand down, and then a new person is hired in the same job. Statistically that is classified as a new employment.


John Napier Turner: Oh, come on.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The minister shakes his head but he knows that is true. There is no true measure of jobs other than by putting some measure on the length of a job before it can be considered a new job; for example, that an employment shall last for three months or six months. I defy the minister to say that that is the criterion at the present time, because I know it is not. As a matter of fact, these job starts can be as artificial as a rolling engagement of one week-a start and a stop, a start and a stop. These are all classified as new jobs.


John Napier Turner: That is not the way it
works, Marcel.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It certainly does.


John Napier Turner: There have been almost half a million new jobs.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The minister says half a million. With our mobility of labour today, with stops and starts, summer jobs, and so forth and so on, these are all part and parcel. You would never see, Mr. Speaker, such a collection of garbage can items as you see in this particular statistic relating to new jobs.


Walter David Baker: Just like the budget speech.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The minister spent a great deal of time deriding the Conservative position on an incomes policy, saying it does not work here and does not work there. On the other hand, he cited with great self-satisfaction, and out of context, the last report of the OECD. I had the privilege of participating in the debate in Strasbourg with Mr. Van Lennep of OECD on this selfsame report, and I invite the minister to read the whole of Mr. Van Lennep's commentaries about Canada and the dangerous situation prevailing here.
The minister spent a lot of time this morning saying it was too bad that people do lose their life savings, pension and insurance plans and all that when we have inflation at a rate of 9 per cent to 10 per cent this year. The decks were awash with the minister's tears. He referred to the inflation rate in England, their value added tax and so forth. I was in England this year and I know what the situation is. I was on the continent as well and they do have inflation.

But what comfort is it, Mr. Speaker, for a man to tell his neighbour: "You have a telephone pole in your eye, but never mind the fence post in mine, we are both blind"? That is the type of consolation the Minister of Finance is offering the people of Canada.
I invite the minister to express some real concern for the backbone of the taxpaying public of this country, those people who have insurance plans. After all, Canada prides itself on the amount of savings that go into insurance schemes. But today it is worthless to go into that. It is even worthless to put money into the minister's own savings plan, the Canada savings bonds. Last year the investor lost over 2 per cent by investing in a Canada savings bond. Is that any encouragement for savings? Insurance programs loom very largely here in Canada, to provide security for individuals and families, and to provide investment funds for Canadian industry. But inflation at a rate of almost 9 per cent and 10 per cent hurts insurance.
I have spoken on inflation since 1968. I remember the crisis of February, 1968. It was a crisis of inflation. The government had to take certain actions, and people beat their breasts, protesting that there would not be any increase in government expenditures. We all remember those days. But what have we seen since? The other day the minister's colleague said there was an increase of only 11 per cent in the estimates he tabled.


John Napier Turner: You wanted to double them last year, Marcel.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I will tell the minister what he conveniently forgets. He conveniently forgets what I said at that time-


John Napier Turner: I don't. I remember.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: -that to deal with unemployment at that time we required a massive program of government development, with satisfactory controls. The minister forgets that point.


John Napier Turner: You underestimated the economy last year.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Underestimated the economy?


John Napier Turner: You certainly did.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, the minister gave his figures. They were not in constant dollars. They were in current dollars, with 10 per cent inflation in them.


John Napier Turner: There was real growth.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Real growth!


John Napier Turner: Seven per cent.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Not 10 per cent, seven per cent is the predicted growth.
The Address-Mr. Douglas
I will hold the minister accountable to me for not speaking about the International Monetary Fund. What has happened to the efforts to reform international monetary relations? What about the meeting in Rome? Why has the government changed policy since February, and relaxed its efforts to maintain parity with the U.S. dollar? That has to be a change of policy. I am not criticizing it, but where is the explanation? What was the degree of intervention by the Bank of Canada in the international monetary field during the past year in order to maintain parity? Did we have a clean float, or was it tattle-tale grey, or almost miners' black?
I know that I have almost exhausted my time, Mr. Speaker, and there are still many things I wished to mention. But will the minister please shortly make a statement on what is being done with regard to the review of the Bank Act? The Bank Act has to come up for renewal in 1976.


An hon. Member:: 1977.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: A lot of hard work has to be done. I want to ask the minister to tell us about the silly proposal included in the Speech from the Throne, which is an off-the-cuff offer from the Prime Minister to let someone, primarily Premier Barrett, get his itchy fingers on the Bank of British Columbia. There are some doubtful statistics. As a matter of fact, no one has demonstrated the thesis on which these so-called provincial banks should exist. In any event, provincial government ownership of banks should come only with a total review of our banking system.
There may be a case for it in some places where we know there are institutions that act much like banks-for instance, the Alberta Treasury Branches.


John Napier Turner: Exactly.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: But when the government had the opportunity under the deposit insurance legislation to make those people come in, it went on craven knees to the provinces and asked them, "Please, please come into this program." The totality of our banking system and of credit institutions has to be reviewed. To add this complication at this point is ill timed. To bring it in at this time is just for the birds, but again geared with an eye to political support.


John Napier Turner: Oh, don't say that.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It is just on the basis of obtaining partisan support from the NDP. I simply say that it is a very poor way to run the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, in the speech which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) made in this debate last Thursday he likened the NDP members to seagulls who, because they are squeaking and making a lot of noise, act as though they were running the ship. I think the Prime Minister should be aware of the fact that the message which the seagulls are trying to convey to him can be summed up in the

March 5, 1974
The Address-Mr. Douglas
words of the English poet, Alfred Noyes, "Captain, art thou sleeping there below?"
I was interested to listen to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) reciting with some pride a catalogue of steps which the government has taken during the past 12 months to protect Canadian consumers during the oil crisis. However, they neglected to state that every one of those proposals was put forward by the members of the NDP-


John Napier Turner: Oh, come on.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: And they also neglected to state that all of those proposals were at first rejected by the government, and belatedly accepted and implemented by the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: When the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) shakes his head-and I can hear it from here-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -I would just like to remind him that it was the members of this party who, in January of last year, advocated putting domestic controls on the export of oil. The government said there was no need to do that, and then imposed them on March 1.
It was the members of this party who advocated export controls on gasoline in April. And the government finally implemented them later in June. It was the members of this party who, in May, advocated a price freeze on domestically produced oil, a two-price system, and an export tax to pick up the windfall profits. And the government put those into effect on September 6. It was this, party which first proposed, and for years had been proposing a pipeline to Montreal, which the government's energy report tabled in this House last June rejected, but which the government accepted and the Prime Minister announced on September 6. It was this party first put forward the proposal for a one-price system across the country, which the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said was completely impractical, and which the government has now adopted.
I think that when the people of Canada review the steps that have been taken with respect to the oil crisis during the past 12 months they will be inclined to say, "Thank God for the seagulls."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: There are three major oil policy decisions which must be made during this session of parliament. Our failure to face up to them will wreak havoc in our economy, and create untold hardships for the people of Canada. The first of these policy decisions has to do with fixing the price of crude oil in Canada. The present voluntary price freeze will end on March 31 and has to be replaced by a new pricing policy which the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) described on March 1, at page 83 of Hansard for that date as follows:
... a proposal for a one-price oil system in Canada which, from the first of April this year, will keep Canadian prices at less than international

prices but which will provide the revenues necessary to first find and develop new resources and to offset the higher costs of oil imported into eastern Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I draw attention to the words "revenues necessary to first find and develop new resources" of oil. The question that this parliament will have to settle is, who is going to get the revenue from this proposed price increase to find and develop new resources of oil? Is it to be the oil companies? I point out that the oil companies do not need more money. Before the price freeze went into effect they had secured an approximately $1 per barrel increase which brought them revenue of something in the nature of $700 million annually.
I note that the President of Gulf Oil says that the government of Canada will have to pay them some $400 million just for the months of February and March. It is interesting that the Minister of Industry, Mines and Resources admitted in a speech last Friday that it would probably be in the neighbourhood of $300 million, or perhaps more. What is the justification for that? Has any analysis been made of what they are paying for this oil and what the markup is on this imported oil?
The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that oil profits are a national scandal at a time when this country faces an energy crisis. Look at the figures: Imperial Oil's profit up 45 per cent, Shell up 43 per cent, Gulf Oil up 58 per cent. Mr. Jerry McAffie said very proudly that these were the highest profits that Gulf Oil had enjoyed in all its history. For the fourth quarter of 1973, the profits of oil companies increased by 46 Vi per cent. All this profiteering at a time when we are in a national crisis, Mr. Speaker, when Canadians are being asked to tighten their belts and when the workers of this country found in 1973 that their share of the gross national product actually declined while corporation profits as a share of the gross national product increased.
In his speech last Thursday the Prime Minister made a statement that I hope will be engraved in stone as it ought to be. At page 33 of Hansard for that date he said:
We will not allow corporate profiteers and gougers to pile up windfall profits at the expense of the people of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I like the words: I am waiting to hear the melody. I say to the Prime Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, that the profiteers and gougers are profiteering and gouging right now. What does your government intend to do about it? If one could judge by the statement of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, they not only do not intend to do anything about it, they are going to enable the profiteering and gouging to go on at an accelerated rate under the guise of encouraging oil development and exploration. The government should institute a full scale public investigation of oil profits before they agree to any increase in the price which is to be paid to the oil companies. Even in the United States the Senate has had an investigation into oil profits and that revealed a situation in companies like Exxon which borders on economic piracy.
As a matter of fact higher prices to the oil companies is no guarantee of increased exploration and development. They have made good profits and yet drilling has decreased in western Canada during the past three years. It is estimated that $1 billion per year of profits from
March 5, 1974

western oil has gone elsewhere for exploration. These companies get depreciation allowances, depletion allowances and reports show that they pay less than 6 per cent tax on their book profits.
We in this party contend that the only justification for higher oil prices is to secure revenue to develop oil resources for Canada under Canadian ownership and control. Any increase in the price of oil should go to the treasuries of the oil producing provinces and to the federal government to be used to develop the oil sands and the frontier oil under public ownership and within the control of the Canadian people.
That brings me to the second policy decision which the government will have to make in this session and that is one regarding a national petroleum company. The New Democratic Party were the first to advocate the establishment of a national petroleum company which would have three main functions: First, to be the sole purchaser and seller of all oil products consumed in Canada; second, to purchase one or more of the major oil companies to provide competition in the oil industry; and third, to participate in the development of the oil sands and frontier areas alone or in conjunction with the provincial governments concerned.
The Prime Minister announced that the government was accepting the concept of a national petroleum corporation on September 6, last. We were skeptical of the government's intentions then and we are more skeptical now when we examine the statements of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Let me point out first of all that according to the minister's statements, the national petroleum company will not-and I emphasize "not"-take over a major oil company engaged in refining and marketing but only in exploration and development. He made a statement to a Liberal constituency meeting of York-Scarborough held last Saturday night which, the Globe and Mail of March 4 has reported as follows:
Asked about plans for a national petroleum corporation he assured questioners several times that there is no intention to get involved in an integrated oil marketing operation. "He said if the corporation buys an existing company it will be one engaged in exploration and development of oil-bearing land, not one that refines and markets petroleum products".
Mr. Speaker, I want to ask, where is this exploration and development going to take place? The millions of acres that are likely to be oil-bearing or gas-producing are already hypothecated to the multinational companies through permits and leases. If all the national petroleum company is going to be is another small company drilling for oil on Baffin Island, I say to the minister-forget it! This is a time for a frontal attack on the oil and gas cartels that have ravaged our resources and exploited our people. There is no time for the government to get into the oil business by the back door. We must start by taking over the largest of the companies, Imperial Oil, which would give a national petroleum corporation access to the oil fields, refineries and control of the interprovincial pipeline.
I should also like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that this national petroleum corporation as outlined vaguely by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources will not-and
The Address-Mr. Douglas
again I emphasize "not"-participate in the development of the oil sands nor prevent those resources from falling under the control of United States oil companies that already control 91 per cent of our production and 99 per cent of our oil refining. In his statement to the House last Friday the minister said, as recorded at page 86 of Hansard:
While the major thrust of this corporation will be in the form of exploration in the frontier areas, we are of the view that it should also contribute to the development of the large petroleum resource existing in the Athabasca oil sands both through mining techniques and through in situ extraction methods.
I draw the attention of the House to the words, "both through mining techniques and through in situ extraction methods." Apparently the minister has no thought of the National Petroleum Corporation going into the production of oil in the Athabasca tar sands. This is the usual Liberal technique. The public company will spend public funds for the engineering and research and then turn their findings over to the oil industry, who will then gouge the Canadian people for the privilege of using their own oil. So far as I am concerned, I am not prepared to accept a national petroleum corporation which is merely a bird dog for the major multinational oil companies. I have no intention of becoming a partner in perpetrating a cruel hoax and transparent fraud on the Canadian people.
That brings me to the third policy decision which will have to be made by this Parliament during this session. We must determine who, and under what circumstances, is going to develop the Athabasca oil sands and heavy oil deposits. I cannot believe that the government does not know how serious the oil situation is in this country. When I recall how they were misled, and in turn misled the country, about gas reserves in 1970, as revealed by the former Liberal cabinet minister Eric Kierans, it is quite possible that the government is being deceived again.
Recent studies which will be published shortly show that conventional oil reserves in this country could be exhausted in less than ten years. They also show that by 1980 Canada could have a deficit of one million barrels per day between supply and demand, if the present rate of Canadian consumption continues and if we continue to export Canadian oil at the same rate as we are exporting it at present. There is no possibility that sufficient oil will be on stream from the oil sands or the frontier areas to meet a deficit of those proportions. This country is in a race against time. We are racing to see whether we can develop new sources of oil before our present conventional sources are completely exhausted. The real energy crisis-at present we are suffering from a crisis of delivery-is going to hit this country in five or six years.
What steps should we take to meet this threatened crisis? I suggest we should do three things. First, we should begin now conserving oil and gas consumption. Many electrical generating plants could be switched to coal or other fuel for generating electrical power. Second, we should begin phasing out our exports of oil and gas. It is only fair to tell the American people what lies ahead. We should phase out our exports in such a way as to give them adequate time to secure other sources of supply. Third, we should begin immediately negotiations with the

March 5, 1974
The Address-Mr. Douglas
provinces, to start development of the oil sands, with a very substantial component of public ownership. The federal government can offer inducements to the provincial governments to participate in joint ventures with it and the oil companies, if those companies are kept in a minority equity position, in developing this vast reservoir of oil which can be the salvation of Canada.
We, in this country, sold our birthright with regard to the production of conventional oil and conventional gas. Our predecessors might have pleaded ignorance; we cannot. In view of our experience of how the world oil cartel has exploited both producing and consuming countries alike, posterity will never forgive us if we allow the Athabasca tar sands to fall under foreign control.
It will be argued that the development of these sands will take large amounts of capital. I say, Mr. Speaker, that if capital is a problem, then we should postpone any consideration for constructing the Mackenzie pipeline. With proper conservation, we will not need gas from the Mackenzie Delta for another ten years or more. The Prime Minister's commitment to go ahead with the Mackenzie pipeline, made on September 6, was purely an attempt to conciliate the United States. Remember, 82 per cent of the drilling in the Arctic produces American gas, only 18 per cent produces Canadian gas. The only purpose for spending $5 billion building that pipeline is for supplying natural gas to the United States. Canada probably has between 23 and 25 years of gas reserves. If we needed to look into the Mackenzie pipeline proposal for gas to meet Canadian needs, we could begin those studies about ten years from now.
I suggest that the $5 billion which we would be called upon to spend on the Mackenzie Valley pipeline would be better spent in developing the Athabasca oil sands. By building one plant every 18 months with an average capacity of 125,000 barrels per day it is just possible that we could have sufficient oil on stream, if we conserve our consumption and our exports, to meet our own requirements in 1980. I say that anything less than the development of the Athabasca oil sands and heavy oil deposits in Saskatchewan under Canadian ownership and control will be a betrayal of Canada and an insult to posterity.
Certain proposals have been made by Mr. Herman Khan of the Hudson Institute and his think tank. Since we do not have to take advice from Mr. Kahn, nobody worries much about it. But I am alarmed to note that his proposal was picked up by the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer). The minister has been going around this country saying that it is going to take $20 billion to build ten plants in the Athabasca oil sands; that we should do that by borrowing the money in the United States, Japan, Germany and wherever we can get it; that we should bring in Korean labour or labour from wherever you can get it so long as it is cheap; and that we should pay these countries back, says the Minister of Supply and Services, in oil.
What does this mean, Mr. Speaker? It means that the Minister of Supply and Services is advocating the alienation and the hypothecation to other countries of oil from the oil sands of Alberta. Those oil sands contain reserves larger than the oil reserves of the Middle East. He would hypothecate that oil to foreign corporations. It means,

secondly, that $20 billion of that oil will be hypothecated to other countries and not to the Canadian people, to whom the oil belongs.
Surely this is a preposterous proposal. But the government says, "Ah, the Minister of Supply and Services is speaking on his own, as a private individual." Mr. Speaker, since when do cabinet ministers, members of the Privy Council, speak on their own? A minister cannot separate himself and say that he speaks as a private individual and not as a minister of the Crown when he discusses public questions. The Prime Minister has a responsibility to this country either to tell the people of Canada that the policies being enunciated by the Minister of Supply and Services are the government's policies or to tell the minister to shut up. It is just possible, however, that the minister is not speaking out of turn. It is possible the minister is flying a kite for the government. It is possible the government has in mind one of the grand sell-outs which have characterized the Liberal party down through the decades.
I say the Prime Minister has a responsibility before many days have passed in this House to tell the people of this country who is going to develop the Athabasca oil sands and under what conditions. What steps does the government intend to take to ensure there will be a public component in the development of those oil sands? What steps does the government intend to take to make sure that the control of this last great reservoir of oil will not fall into foreign hands as have both energy resources and other nonrenewable resources?
I want to say in closing that the New Democratic Party will oppose with all the power at its command any step to turn over this remaining oil and gas potential to foreign monopolies. A recent Gallup poll showed that an overwhelming majority of the Canadian people want Canadian ownership and public ownership of our oil industry. If the government fails to take steps along this line, I say that they will lose and deserve to lose, the confidence of the Canadian people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I wish to join my colleagues, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and other members in congratulating Their Excellencies, Mr. and Mrs. Jules Leger, on the assumption of their very high function. I also join previous speakers in complimenting the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Pelletier) who seconded a motion to move the address and, of course, the original mover, the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Stollery), who gave such an eloquent address.
My reason for speaking during this debate is to make reference to the government's program relative to the promotion of equality of opportunity for women generally in our Canadian society and to enlarge upon references made in that connection in the Speech from the Throne. In particular, I want to concentrate on the government's program to improve the status of women.
We regard it as a challenge to the government and to society as a whole, to work toward an evolution of roles to enable both males and females to play fully their part in
March 5, 1974

the family and in society according to their individual choice. Each individual should be encouraged to discover and fulfill his or her own unique potential and identity without the constraint of society's presumptions. Women must not be treated as members of a group on the basis of some assumed average characteristic if they are to be allowed to realize their own potential. More than a token gesture, more than just what is required by law, a whole change in attitude is needed if the barriers preventing them from participating and contributing to all aspects of human activity are to be removed.
The government has in recent years strived to create public awareness of the problems facing women today, has continuously advocated equal opportunity for women in all fields of life and has worked toward the elimination of discrimination as a prerequisite for the improvement of the status of women. Our efforts are beginning to bear fruit. During the past year increasing attention has been given to this question by the public.
Throughout this period I have had the privilege of being assigned the responsibility for co-ordinating government activity on the status of women. I have taken every opportunity offered me to bring the concerns of women to the attention of my colleagues and to interpret women's needs to them, and I have received their constructive co-operation in my task. One step forward of which I am justly proud is the establishment of the Advisory Council on the Status of Women. This council has, in its first year, made many valuable recommendations to the government and has become a focal point for the aspirations of women everywhere in Canada.
Despite our achievements to this point, however, we recognize that much more has to be done in the field of legislation as well as changing attitudes. Two recent decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada have made this abundantly clear. I refer of course to the Murdoch case and to the Lavell case.
In the former, the Murdoch case, a woman who had worked with her husband building up a substantial farming property from nothing was denied any interest in that property when she separated from him. All that she was able to obtain was maintenance payments of $200 a month. The decision brought home to all of us the vulnerable position of women who spend all their lives doing what is expected of them as wives, tending to their husbands and children and maintaining their homes while their husbands produce an income. In the case of farm wives such as Mrs. Murdoch, the injustice of the situation is particularly apparent, since they usually contribute directly to the development of the farm.
In other cases, such as wives of wage-earners or businessmen, the wife's role may be less direct. But surely, however a couple has decided to divide the various duties and responsibilities of living between them, the time has come to recognize that both partners contribute in one way or another to the acquisition of their assets and, therefore, both should have an interest in those assets. While jurisdiction with respect to matrimonial property is, I think, largely with the provinces, we in the federal government are concerned and a study of this matter, particularly as it applies to distribution of assets following
The Address-Mr. Munro (Hamilton East) divorce, has been undertaken by the Law Reform Commission.
The other Supreme Court decision, the Lavell case, has pointed out the limitations of the Canadian Bill of Rights in protecting women against discrimination. The government is determined to act to provide new protection. First, as mentioned in the throne speech, the legislation to be introduced creating a Federal Commission on Human Rights and Interest will include provisions to protect women from discriminatory practices. This will incorporate the prohibition of discrimination on the basis of age, sex and marital status in the field of employment, which I originally announced would be added to the Labour Code. Our purpose in putting the employment provisions in the human rights legislation is to avoid the duplication and confusion which would result if the various fields in which discrimination might exist-employment, services, and so on-were covered by different pieces of legislation administered by different bodies.
Our second attack on discrimination will be through the amendment of existing legislation to provide equal treatment for men and women. The Speech from the Throne referred to the Canada and Quebec pension plans and the agreement reached with provincial governments to amend the legislation in this respect. Presently, as hon. members know, these pension plans require everyone to contribute on the same basis but contain differing provisions with respect to benefits payable to the survivors of male and female contributors.
Another act which has received a great deal of attention is the Canadian Citizenship Act. My colleague the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) will be introducing legislation to amend this act so that among other things men and women will be given equal status.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carr Munro: In addition, an omnibus bill on the status of women will be placed before the House with the object of removing from a number of other acts provisions which are presently discriminatory, or otherwise prejudicial to women. Examples of these acts include the Canada Elections Act, its provisions with respect to the listing of electors; the Immigration Act, particularly its reference to "head of family" and the acts relating to pensions and allowances for veterans. Changes will be proposed in these and other measures.
I turn now to the position of women who are public employees. The President of Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) will be proposing amendment to the Public Service Superannuation Act and related acts to provide for equal treatment of men and women in pension plans.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carr Munro: The Treasury Board already has a program under which to review all regulations, directives and other regulatory measures with a view to removing inequities in them based on sex.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: What about rug ranking?

March 5, 1974
The Address-Mr. Munro (Hamilton East)


John Carr Munro: Hopefully these provisions will end that very unfortunate situation which occurs all too often. A new relocation directive and a revised foreign service directive have already been issued and amendments have been made to such regulations as those covering conditions and terms of employment in the public service and payments to estates.
The government's endeavours to ensure equal opportunity to its women employees have been outlined on a number of occasions. One of the important elements of the program was the cabinet directive addressed to deputy heads of departments in April, 1972 directing them to undertake steps to encourage the assignment and advancement of more women into middle and upper echelon positions. We shall now be directing a request along those lines to Crown corporations.
All these activities are designed to meet the objective set out in the Speech from the Throne, that of creating a society free from discrimination. However, as I indicated early in my statement, more than government legislation is required. The recognition of society in general of women's changing status is a pre-requisite of true equality. It is with this in mind that the government is developing its program to celebrate Women's Year in 1975. That year has been designated by the United Nations as one in which efforts will be made to promote equality of women in all aspects of society. We in Canada have decided to take advantage of the United Nations proclamation in order to give special emphasis to the changing attitudes of women, and changing attitudes about women. Preliminary planning has begun. An inter-departmental committee has been meeting for some time and a special secretariat to implement the program is being established. Consultation will be undertaken in the near future with provincial governments as well as non-government organizations. A major part of our program will be designed to reach those in the community who have not yet been involved, both those whose lives are being affected by the changes and those who are in a position to effect those changes. The main element will be a series of regional and national conferences as well as an informational and education campaign involving the public media.
Knowing how important is the role of non-government organizations, especially of the many women's organization's which have been fighting for changes over the years, we shall also be making available to these groups increased financial assistance for the development of special projects for International Women's Year. Within the federal government, each department and agency will be undertaking special programs and realigning priorities in 1975 to promote equal opportunity for women both in their programs as they affect the public and for their women employees.
On the international level, the role of the Canadian government in improving the status of women has received particular recognition. Canada has been asked by the United Nations to host an international seminar during the summer of 1974. The experts will concentrate on elaborating a model of permanent machinery at the national level for improving the status of women and promoting equality of the sexes at all levels of society. This seminar will form part of the United Nations adviso-

ry services program in the field of human rights. In addition, every attempt will be made to increase the number of women representing Canada at international conferences of all kinds.
It is hoped the activities foreseen for International Women's Year will heighten the awareness of the people of Canada of the new role of women and indicate the government's support of it.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: May I first of all join with the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) and others who have spoken in this debate in extending congratulations to Their Excellencies on taking up their new responsibilities and also to the mover (Mr. Stollery) and seconder (Mr. Pelletier) of the address.
I believe that over the years the significance of this debate has been somewhat eroded, partly due to the changes in the rules which now oblige members of parliament to inject into this discussion matters which were formerly taken care of in the committee of supply. I believe this debate should be one in which members of parliament, whether in the treasury benches or elsewhere, should take an over-view of the situation. They should concern themselves as to where we are going as a nation and, whether or not we feel this or any other government has the will or capability to lead this nation, whether our goals are leading us to the point we hope to reach. This debate should give an opportunity for us to look at the whole forest. Because of the operation of the rules in the last number of years, I feel we are usually looking at the trees, and there is no opportunity to take an over-view of the whole situation.
If we do not do that we find the government staggering from one crisis to another with ad hoc solutions and policies of putting salve on the blisters to ease the pains and ills of our society rather than being able to take the time to diagnose the cause of those ills and pains. As a result there is a tendency for people to take a rather jaundiced view of parliament, and perhaps they have lost confidence not only in this government, which I think is justified, but in this parliament, which is less justified, and perhaps in our whole system, which is completely unjustified. This situation arises partly because of the circumstances in which we find ourselves. I would be so bold as to suggest that the sacred cow, the media, is not entirely without some responsibility in this field.
I know that the press gallery is composed chiefly of men who are well enough educated and hard working, but it would seem that on many occasions the important things which are going to be vital to this nation in the future, and the proper presentation of them, are not the things that sell newspapers. I am told that the people who report the happenings of parliament do a good job in that they discriminate as to what is important, pick those things out and give them proper prominence in contrast to some things that are just spectacular or sensational. One cynic has said that the trouble is that the people they work for spend all their time separating the wheat from the chaff and then print the chaff. I am not sure about that and therefore will not have anything further to say in that regard as I do not consider myself qualified to do so, but

there is a responsibility, if this system is going to function the way it is intended, for everyone concerned to take an intelligent and, hopefully, objective view of this country both in respect of its opportunities and its problems.
Even those people who take a jaundiced view of this institution and its works are not always without redemption. I was interested to read the other day the writings of perhaps one of the most critical and cynical commentators on this institution over the years when he made a confession in the foreward to one of his books, "Home Country" by Peter Newman. He says:
To my surprise, I now harbour a suspicion of the automatically assumed beneficence of change. I have come to believe in the value of tradition, especially as it allows us to preserve the relatively gentle society which still exists on this side of the 49th parallel.
He goes on to say:
Perhaps my real ideological swing has been away from a blind acceptance of the small "L" liberalism of the fifties to a strongly felt nationalism.
Later he says:
It is far too much to claim for "Home Country" that it's the chronicle of a time, but it is the chronicle of a political education, my own.
It is refreshing to come across the writings of someone who is candid enough to say there is something we can all learn.
We have good men in public life at all levels, and perhaps more people have devoted more of their lives to making municipal, provincial and federal affairs operate to the best of their abilities than can be said of almost any other professional calling. This country has men both inside and outside parliament of great leadership, many of whom are in our legislatures and municipal councils, and often they are not given the credit tnat is due. We no doubt have many potentially exceptional leaders in other fields as well. Sometimes one gets the feeling that it is perhaps a little too bad that so many of them have been employed by newspapers to write editorials and comments on the news, particularly those who have such a great potential for solving our national problems.
Let me take a few minutes to try to put into perspective and on the record some of the apprehensions which concern the people I represent and the people I meet every day. The first and greatest concern or apprehension is inflation, the ever-rising cost of living and the fact that purchasing power lags behind the increase in the cost of living with the rapid debasement of the value of monetary savings of all kinds with a resulting discouragement to thrift, making it an almost impossible task for people to provide for their old age when their savings are depreciated so much in the interval.
Perhaps the worst feature of inflation is the diverting of investment from the production of plenty to the speculation in ownership of things it is supposed are in short supply and, therefore, will command a high price in the future, in an attempt, which is a natural one on the part of individuals and business, to find something that will neutralize the depreciation in the value of money.
There are two types of inflation. There is the general type that is inevitable because as population grows and our needs grow beyond or even greater than population it becomes obvious that material wealth will be harder to
The Address-Mr. MacLean
obtain. For example, it is more difficult and no doubt more expensive, no matter how great our science and technology may be, to extract oil from the Athabasca tar sands than it is to remove it from the ground in easily accessible areas.
It is inevitable that the price of food will have to go up as we have to move from the richest agricultural lands to marginal lands in order to produce food. There are many examples of this sort of thing which I could cite such as in respect of lumber, building materials, metals or any other extracted material. Naturally the cream was taken off first. Then as time goes by and demand increases it is necessary to exploit less rich supplies of these natural resources which are available to us. It is true that science and technology can do much to improve the efficiency of our production, but we should not expect science and technology to be able to accomplish the impossible because the resources are finite and only so much can be achieved.
The most serious type of inflation of course, and the type this government should contain and has the responsibility to contain, is what I might call induced inflation stemming from the government's failure to practice what it preaches. It tells the working man he should not expect his take-home pay to increase faster than his productivity, that people should live within their means and that they should constrain expenditures of certain types. However, the government does not pay any attention to any of these principles. In my judgment we have had rapid over-expenditure on the part of the government.
We have seen the mis-employment of human resources and the unemployment of human resources. If we are to obtain the greatest benefit from our natural and human resources they must be used as efficiently and as fully as possible. Not only this government but governments at other levels-although I believe this government has the blackest record-have acted as if these immutable laws do not apply to them. I submit they do. In this connection I should like to quote briefly from an article in the Board of Trade Journal by Mr. R. L. Smith, president of the Board of Trade of metro Toronto. He makes five points but shall quote only three. He states:
Government spending is taking too much of our gross national product. As a nation we have to live within our means.
The country does not need all the government restraints and controls that are being placed on business today.
The realization of social and political objectives are dependent upon the achievement of economic goals.
He goes on to say:
Perhaps too few of us know that total government spending in Canada is approaching 40 per cent of our gross national product. In 1952, the figure was 26 per cent; in 1962, 31 per cent. Compared to other countries in 1972, government spending in the U.S. was 32 per cent of the GNP; Britain, 36 per cent; France, 37 per cent; Germany, 37 per cent; Japan, 17 per cent.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) in speaking today in this debate referred in some way to the almost miraculous economic development of Japan or something to that effect. I should like to point out to him that in Japan only 17 per cent of the gross national product is spent by governments. Only ten years ago the federal and provincial revenue totalled about $13 billion. Today the total is
190

March 5, 1974
The Address-Mr. MacLean
about $39 billion. That is a three-fold increase in that short period of time. We have set in play many programs which by themselves inevitably will expand in cost at a perhaps uncontrollable rate. The Economic Council of Canada, for instance, said this year that the expenditures of all governments on health and education would, at their present rate of increase and at the present level of taxation, account for all available government funds-that is, take up the whole budget-within little more than a decade, leaving nothing over for many other services government is expected to provide.
I want to make perfectly clear that I do not condemn education or government expenditures on welfare and public health. We must realize, however, that our resources have some limit and that therefore we must use our resources in the best possible way and that we must have priorities. These priorities should be based on the value received for the expenditures made. Mention was made in the quotation to which X referred of government restraints on business, especially the statement made by the President of the Metro Toronto Board of Trade. When one conjures up government restraints on huge corporations the average man in the street will say, what is the matter with that. That is not my concern. I think large corporations are in a position to deal with these restraints in a fairly efficient manner. My concern is the effect that all these government demands and restraints has on small businesses. They make it almost impossible for the person who is self-employed and who wishes to contribute to the production of the country as a whole to do so in an efficient manner.
I have visited little operations in my constituency in Prince Edward Island. These are operations which manufacture some item or other such as perhaps some phase of the lumber business. It might be a little operation involving a man, his wife and perhaps two other employed persons. At the end of every month they have to send in forms and statements to eight departments of government, including federal and provincial. For them this is a chore and a hindrance. It causes them to wonder whether the whole thing is worthwhile and whether perhaps they might be better off if they were in the position of employees. It seems to me that in the last number of years governments have become so preoccupied with reallocating our wealth that they have ignored its production and the best climate in which the production of wealth and the good life might be possible.
It is said that humans differ from animals because of the fact that humans have the capacity to anticipate the future and have a concept of time and therefore are able to adapt to and cope with the future. As I look at this government day after day, on the basis of that harsh definition it would seem to me it hardly qualifies. It barely qualifies because there is a horrible lack of appreciation of the trends that have been set in motion in this country in the last few years, trends of geometric progressions which if they doubled every 50 years, let alone every ten years, would mean that some day we would reach the point where something has to go bust.
To illustrate what I am saying I might be forgiven if I once again refer to the fable of the stupid stable boy who was sent with a horse to be shod. The fable is in pounds

and pence, but in order to simplify it I will put it in dollars and cents. The blacksmith said: "The charge is $5, but if you prefer I will give you a special deal. I will let you pay just one penny for the first of the 32 nails in the set of horseshoes, and you can pay for it now. Next week you can pay for the second nail, which will be two cents. The third week you can pay for the third nail, four cents". The stupid stableboy thought he was on to a great deal so he took it on. He went back to the man he was working for and told him what a great deal he had had from the blacksmith.
His boss was, of course, able to point out to him: "Yes, you are all right for this week and next week, and after six weeks you will pay 32 cents for the sixth nail. Then it starts to get tough. At the end of 16 weeks you will pay for the sixteenth nail $327.68; for the 24th nail you will pay $83,886.08; and by the time you get to the last nail in the set, the thirty-second nail, you will pay $21,474,836.48".
This is the kind of course on which the government has embarked. It is acting like a stupid stableboy. Every year it embarks on some expenditure, some course of action, that has built into it an exponential curve that will create terrible difficulties for the government in its present life span-which will be short-and certainly for the Canadian people in the days ahead, unless action is taken well in advance. This is why I say that foresight in government policy is absolutely necessary.
If corrective action is taken early, it need only be a slight correction which will not disturb the economy or disrupt life at all. But if allowed to go on, as the case with the oil crisis in the United States, and we double our consumption of oil year after year until demand rapidly outruns any hope of supply, then we will be in for real trouble.
The population explosion is, of course, an example of the exponential curve to which I have referred. It took all history, and pre-history too, to produce a world population of one billion by 1840. It took less than a century to add the second billion and a mere 35 years to add the third. By the end of the twentieth century the world will have doubled its present population, bringing the number to more than seven billion. This is the kind of problem we will be faced with.
I think it is vitally important for us as a nation to recognize how our policies are going to affect the rest of the world, and how the rest of the world is going to affect us by their policies. We cannot operate in a vacuum. We cannot operate as a federal parliament by ignoring the effects our policies will have on provincial policies and on the policies of other levels of government.
We, of course, have gaily encouraged the population explosion, and I see nothing wrong with this. We have coped pretty well as a civilization with one of the four horsemen of the Apocalypse, the rider of the black horse, famine and pestilence. We have even delayed the rider of the pale horse, death, to the point where we now have a much longer life expectancy, which is a beneficial thing. But one of the side effects is that we have more and more people in our population who are non-productive. In other words, the productive years of an average individual rela-
March 5, 1974

tive to his entire life span are becoming shorter and shorter, which puts great weight on his responsibility during his productive years.
I think government expenditures have been allowed to increase at an unjustifiable rate. For every man, woman and child in this country this federal expenditure is now at a rate of $1,000. The government says that this is partly due to statutory items over which it has no control. Who, may I ask, introduced the statutes, Mr. Speaker? The government is saying, in effect, either that it did not care, or it could not see the effect of the legislation it forced down the throat of parliament, in some cases, and passed last year.


Mr. Hales:: They were like that stable boy.


John Angus MacLean: I also think the growth of the civil service is completely out of reality. I believe, of course, in an efficient civil service. I am not saying there should be no growth but that I think the rate of growth should be controlled so we do not continue to be the one country in the western world with the highest percentage of GNP going to government expenditure. If that is our goal, to be the most expensively governed country in the western world, then we have achieved it. But I doubt very much that one of Canada's real national goals, so far as the average person is concerned, is to have the biggest, most expensive and most grandiose government in the world.
The effects of this run away rate of acceleration in government expenditure cannot help but bring with it inflation. Indeed, it is one of the chief causes, if not the chief cause, of this induced inflation about which I have been talking. What effect does this have on the average citizen? For example, the expenditures of this government have doubled in the last eight years. If they double every eight years over the next 48 years, then the annual budget will be $1,408 billion.
What effect will this have on the young person now entering the work force and contributing relatively good dollars to the Canada Pension Plan? At the age of 66 he is supposed to get the benefit of 48 years' work. Presumably if this trend is allowed to continue, the annual budget is going to be, as I say, $1,408 billion, which will mean that the Canadian dollar at that time, compared with today's dollar, will be worth about three cents.
So is it fair to expect people to save good money now, even through a very meritorious scheme, which will be almost worthless when the money is repaid? The same argument applies to all kinds of savings. I think sooner or later-and sooner rather than later-the government is going to realize that it will not be able to borrow money from the general public, because people will not lend money to a government only to have the money repaid years later in dollars that have become almost worthless in the meantime. So we are not very far from the time when, in order to get anyone to buy government bonds, the government will have to guarantee an escalation in the face value of the bond so that it will be redeemed at the same purchasing power the investment had when the bond was first purchased.
The Address-Mr. Rompkey
What does that do? If that trend continues you have an explosive acceleration in the cost of carrying the national debt. That is happening now due to the increase in the interest rates. It does not take much of a mathematician to realize that it costs three times as much to carry the national debt at 9 per cent as it did at 3 per cent. This adds to the deficits, subtracts from the amount of money that is available to a government for constructive use, and cheats the person who lent his money to the government to save for his old age, because he gets paid back in dollars of deflated value. It has always been so, and the government should realize that it cannot make this country prosperous, that it cannot bring about a satisfactory economic situation by debauching our economic system and debasing our currency.
I believe my time is almost up, Mr. Speaker, and so I will try to conclude. There are other trends that are equally deplorable. One is the unnecessary and accelerated urban growth, and the depopulation of rural Canada. I would like to talk about that for a long time, but I will not on this occasion. Then, there is the worship of growth. I think that an economy which does not operate satisfactorily unless it is being artificially stimulated is sick. An economy that is sound should be able to do what it is supposed to do in a state of equilibrium.
I said that I may sound like a prophet of doom, Mr. Speaker. I am not; I am an optimist. I believe this is a country with a great future. However, I believe that there are certain dangers that we must foresee and avoid. If we do then there is a great future for this country, but in some cases time is running out.


Mr. William Rompkey (Grand-Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: On rising to take part in this debate, Mr. Speaker, first may I add my congratulations to those of the hon. members who preceded me, offered to the Governor General and Madame Leger on their appointment. I wish them success and happiness, and I hope to welcome them to the province of Newfoundland whenever they can find time to visit there. I understand they will be visiting with us to take part in our celebrations at the end of this month and the beginning of April. I can assure them that they will be most welcome indeed.
May I say also how glad I was to see a keynote in the speeches that were made, moving and seconding the Address in Reply, one which I hope will be followed in this debate and throughout the continuation of this parliament, namely, that in Canada we cannot be isolationist or parochial, that we must learn more about other countries if we are to solve the problems that beset us today because certainly the majority of our problems are international in origin and scope. It is only by learning more about each other, and working more closely together, that we will be able to solve them.
It is indeed a pleasure and honour for me, Mr. Speaker, to speak in this throne speech debate on behalf of the people of Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador. This is a large, far-flung riding, one of the largest in Canada. It stretches over about 130,000 square miles from the inland paper town of Grand Falls, and the nearby town of Windsor, built around the great Price Paper Mill. This is a bustling,
192

March 5, 1974
The Address-Mr. Rompkey
burgeoning area of Newfoundland, an area of rapid growth, including the fine towns of beautiful Green Bay, the fishing communities along the shores of White Bay, north to the town of St. Anthony, historic for its associations with Sir Wilfred Grenfell and that great medical mission of his. Along the coasts of Labrador we have Indian and Eskimo people in addition to the settlers. It encompasses Goose Bay airport, which boasts the longest runways in Canada east of Montreal, Churchill Falls and the massive hydroelectric project there, and the iron ore mining towns of Labrador City and Wabush along the Quebec border. This is a very diverse area, containing many different kinds of people, not only from Newfoundland but from many parts of the world.
Much of the area contains the potential for great prosperity, but it is also a region with many problems. Mr. Speaker, much has happened since I rose to speak in a similar debate a year ago. It has been a year of crises, of great challenges, and yet a year of great strides forward. The government, in a minority situation, has met these crises and challenges with courage and vision. Things are not what we would like them to be, far from it, but they are immeasurably better than they would have been had it not been for the policies of this Liberal government.
It is important to realize, not for the purpose of excuses but for the purpose of clarity and perspective, that the problems we have faced have been worldwide. For example, escalation of the price of oil in foreign countries caused an increase in the price of petroleum products in eastern Canada. The government will ensure that in future there will be one price for oil in all of Canada, and that the country will be self-sufficient in oil.
While the news of a subsidy for petroleum products and of the extension of the pipeline is welcome in Newfoundland, I should like to point out that in my riding we have our own source of clean and everlasting power in * the Churchill River. The proposed development at Gull Island rapids will produce 1,700 megawatts of electricity, and at Muskrat Falls another 600 to 800 megawatts. Further, there is the possibility of power potential from the Eagle River. Altogether in that area we have the prospect of producing 10,000 megawatts of electricity for use in Canada. Little of that will be needed in the province of Newfoundland, but Newfoundland would like enough of it to meet its own needs in the foreseeable future, including any required for new industry that may be attracted to the province as the result of readily available power supply. As I say, there would still be a great deal available for use in other parts of the country.
It is important for the economic development of my riding, for the province of Newfoundland, and I believe for Canada, that the power development on the Lower Churchill River go ahead immediately, and that the power be brought across Labrador to the island of Newfoundland. I would hope the government would be as magnanimous in its assistance for this project as it was in regard to Manitoba and the Nelson River power development project. As I have said, Mr. Speaker, hydro power is clean and everlasting, and free from economic fluctuation in foreign countries. The development of this power potential is important for Newfoundland and for Canada, and I urge the

government to give all possible assistance to my province in connection with it.
The problem that is heaviest on the minds and pockets of all Canadians is that of inflation and rising prices. Again, Mr. Speaker, it is small comfort, but nevertheless important to note that the problem of inflation is not confined to Canada but is in fact worldwide. Therefore, it cannot be solved in Canada alone, but only by Canada acting in co-operation with other countries. Nevertheless we in Canada must take action, and we have done so.
Our approach has not been to curtail wages and prices. We have seen this tried in other countries with disastrous effects, and we do not want to repeat the mistakes of other countries. Our approach is to try to increase the consumer spending power of Canadians. Our approach has been to attempt to put more money into people's pockets, particularly the pockets of those on low or fixed incomes who are hardest hit. We have done this by raising and indexing pensions and family allowances, by greater tax concessions, by changes to the Canada Pension Plan, and by selective subsidies on certain food items and on petroleum products. This has helped tremendously; things are still not good but they are immeasurably better than they would have been. This is what we did in the past and this is what we will continue to do in the future to help the Canadian consumer meet rising costs.
The great thing about this throne speech is that it attacks the cause of rising prices and not only the effect. The fact is that to bring food prices down you must bring up food supply. In a very positive way this speech suggests a policy that would help our food producers, particularly the farmers and the fishermen and this is of the most importance to me. While we are making progress in farming in Newfoundland, the mainstay of our economy has been and will be the fishery. With a market that is constantly demanding more fish, this government, realizing the importance of increasing our catch to meet increasing demand, has responded positively and emphatically by giving fisheries a prominent place in the throne speech and listing policies designed to increase production in both the inshore and offshore fishery. I am pleased and proud of the importance that this government has obviously attached to the fisheries, Mr. Speaker.
In summing up those sections of the speech dealing with fisheries, I should like to quote from an editorial in the St. John's Evening Telegram of March 2, 1974. In the past the Telegram has been very critical of our fisheries' policy, as a journal should be, but it is prepared to give credit where credit is due. To be quite fair, the editorial does urge the creation of a department of fisheries. But it also says that the fishery has been fully recognized in the Speech from the Throne and a great deal of emphasis has been placed on it. It says: "Be thankful things are suddenly going your way". That word "suddenly" is worth dwelling on, Mr. Speaker.
Suddenly, in October 1972, we had more Liberals from Atlantic Canada in the House of Commons. Suddenly, as a consequence, there was more talk of fisheries in caucus. Suddenly, there were resolutions on fisheries before the national convention. If fisheries has been emphasized in
March 5, 1974

the throne speech it is for a number of reasons. It is because those Liberals from Atlantic Canada have been working long and hard threshing out a fisheries policy, discussing, persuading, convincing. It is because we have a Minister of Environment and Fisheries who is extremely competent, able and far sighted. It is because the Liberal parties in Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, have ensured that fisheries get a prominent place in national policy. And it is because we have a responsible and responsive government which realizes the value of the fishery to this country, particularly at this time when there is a food supply problem. These policies are Liberal policies, Mr. Speaker, and it is a Liberal government that has recognized the importance of the fishery not only to Atlantic Canada but to the whole country.
The editorial sums up those statements of policy in the Throne Speech which apply to the fishery:
The improvements are aimed at the modernization of the inshore and offshore and the provision of ice boats and gear to make them multipurpose and the provision of ice-making plants to assist in improving the quality of the catch. Harbour facilities will be improved and updated and incentives will be provided to encourage the fishing effort in the direction of species and areas which are underexploited.
There will, of course, be immediate short term effects which will assist the fishermen to bring their boats up to the new standards and to help them meet the new quality controls which are in the offing but the real objective appears to be the development of the total fishing effort to take advantage of any concession which might come from the Law of the Sea Conference.
Environment Minister Jack Davis is quite convinced Canada will get management control of the continental shelf and the government must be accepting his optimism to give so much attention to the fishery in the Throne Speech.
There was a time when people said that this is Jack Davis's policy-this is a time when Jack Davis is speaking for himself. I think it is quite clear that this is no longer true. The policy we have and are enunciating at the Law of the Sea Conference, a policy which will give Canada control of her continental shelf to a minimum of 200 and possibly a maximum of 400 miles, is Liberal policy accepted by Liberals across Canada and espoused and defended by this government.
But the most eloquent symbol, Mr. Speaker, is the dollar sign. Money talks and the language in so far as spending on the fisheries is concerned, is impressive. Environment will be spending almost $6 million in Newfoundland on environment and fisheries in the coming year. I am pleased but I am not satisfied. It is not enough, particularly for the small craft harbour program.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bill Rompkey: This is a program for which those of us from Atlantic Canada fought very hard, and I think with a great deal of success.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bill Rompkey: Wharves, breakwaters and harbour improvements are an urgent necessity for inshore fishermen and there just is not enough money to do what needs to be done. We have doubled the budget for small craft harbours over the past year. We are spending more than
The Address-Mr. Rompkey
we have for some time. Commendable as this is, it is still not enough.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that fisheries were given prominence in the Throne Speech and that measures are to be introduced to help fishermen improve their facilities and increase their catch. But let me deal with some of the problems that remain with the fishery, particularly in Newfoundland.
The catches of inshore fishermen in Newfoundland are continuously declining. Generally, the landed value is rising because of better prices. But, particularly in vulnerable places like the northeast coast of Newfoundland and the Labrador coast, where the season is necessarily short and the effect of offshore fishing particularly damaging, fishermen are becoming very discouraged by catch failure. Moreover, those who have invested in longliners are faced with debts that they cannot foresee paying, unless the pattern of fishing changes. The policy of improving assistance to fishermen so that they may provide themselves with better equipped and more flexible boats is extremely important. Many of our inshore fishermen will want to go where the fish are, and there must be ways and means of helping them to do so.
Another means of protecting the catch of inshore fishermen on the coast is to place a moratorium on fishing by the offshore fishing vessels, particularly on the spawning ground for groundfish on the northeast coast of Newfoundland, to the coast of Labrador. A restriction on fishing these grounds for a period by the larger vessels would increase the catch of inshore fishermen. These are the people who are the most vulnerable; these are the people we have to think about most. The merchants and firms who operate the offshore fishery have been getting help from the government, but to a certain degree they are able to look after themselves. It is the little man in the small boat about whom we must be concerned, and to him we must address our policies.
But the inadequacy of their particular unemployment insurance plan is the reason many inshore fishermen are quitting and finding jobs elsewhere. The fact is that all other workers are much better protected against unemployment than the fishermen, so fishermen are opting for other jobs, both temporary and permanent, where they get a steady income and a better deal if they lose their job.
What fishermen want is to be equal, to get benefits equivalent to those of other workers from the unemployment insurance plan. Fishermen want to be equal to other workers in terms of unemployment insurance benefits and they deserve to be. They are our primary producers, providing us with much needed food. They work hard, very hard, and they deserve help and protection for themselves and their families during the offseason. I was pleased to note, Mr. Speaker, that changes will be made in the Unemployment Insurance Act in this session. We are now busy drafting the necessary modifications to give fishermen equality with other workers in unemployment insurance benefits. We in the Liberal party are aware of the problem. It is a complex problem but we are working hard to come up with a solution.
The department will be making proposals to Manpower on behalf of fishermen. The thrust of these proposals will be to make fishermen equivalent, to give them an equal

March 5, 1974
The Address-Mr. Rompkey
deal with other workers in so far as unemployment insurance is concerned. This must be, Mr. Speaker; because the Law of the Sea, the limit on fishing, the subsidies to boats to improve boats and gear, and all the other measures that we had designed on behalf of the fishermen will be to no avail if, through something like an inadequate unemployment insurance plan, most of them tie up their boats and go to work at other jobs.
This leads us, Mr. Speaker, to the whole question of the development of rural Canada and northern Canada. We have all been aware for some time now, of increasing urbanization. More and more Canadians are coming to live in cities. They are moving from rural areas, from farms, fishing villages, small communities all over Canada. This has done two things. It has made it necessary to cope with increasingly complex problems in our cities in such matters, for example, as transportation and housing. But this emigration, particularly from Atlantic Canada, has caused what has been called "the brain drain" or what might be described as the erosion of rural Canada. True, some young people who are disenchanted and dissatisfied with the cities and with "the system" are returning to the country or to wilderness areas. But there seems to be little encouragement for many young people to remain in rural communities and little incentive for young people to go to rural communities.
First of all, the cost of living in most cases is much higher, particularly where residents cannot supplement their income by harvesting the resources of the land or the sea. The cause of this to a great degree is high freight rates. People who live at a great distance from manufacturing and supply centers find it doubly difficult to pay for necessary consumer products because of excessively high freight rates. For this reason, I was pleased to see in the Speech from the Throne the promises that steps will be taken to end discrimination in freight rates. This problem, Mr. Speaker, does not exist only in the west. There is discrimination in freight rates in parts of Atlantic Canada as well, indeed even within sections of a province.
Many people in rural and northern Newfoundland and in the Labrador area have, up to now, found it difficult if not impossible to obtain adequate housing. While we have had programs to assit native people, our housing assistance to non-native people has been less than adequate. This is particularly discouraging in burgeoning areas where jobs are available but where jobs go begging because prospective takers cannot obtain or erect adequate accommodation for themselves and their families. However, I notice that the throne speech indicates that measures will be brought forward to provide substantial assistance for rural housing. This is an absolute necessity, Mr. Speaker. Otherwise we will add to the depopulation of rural Canada. But, what is even worse, we will never be able to attract new people to rural and developing areas. This government has always believed in the vision of the new Canada of the north, and there are indications in this speech that that belief is more firmly held than ever.
Transportation is another serious problem, Mr. Speaker, certainly in Newfoundland and particularly in my own riding. We need more and better roads. We need improved air services. We need improved transportation by sea.

There are still too many parts of rural and northern Canada which are not linked to the rest of the country by road. I could mention those in my own riding, some of which have been completed under DREE. Others, I hope, will be completed in the near future. We must continue our attempt to knit the various parts of this vast country together. The current CBC TV series, "The National Dream", brings home to us once more the need for vision and imagination in the area of transport. Development follows improved transportation. If the people at the extremities of this country, and indeed within provinces, are to feel that they are fellow citizens, they must somehow have better access to one another. We have made great progress in this regard through the Department of Regional Economic Expansion but we still have a long way to go. The department has been a godsend to Newfoundland. It has worked wonders and will continue to do so. Recently a $5 billion plan was signed with th province of Newfoundland, which is an indication of the support the government of Canada is supplying with regard to the budget of the province. As I say, much more remains to be done.
We need to improve air services. There are communities in rural and northern Canada which will not be connected by road in the foreseeable future. We must ensure that they have access to their fellow Canadians. A great deal of emphasis needs to be put on STOL aircraft in our rural areas. Better aircraft and improved landing facilities are needed to bring goods and services to people in rural areas and to bring them closer to each other. This government has made a tremendous improvement in communication in rural and northern Canada. Still, there is much to be done.
Since the introduction of the satellite, many parts of northern and rural Canada are now connected to television and telephone service. Yet, in a day when we can talk to men on the moon, I still have great difficulty in reaching and talking to people in many parts of my riding by telephone. Actually, some people in my riding do not have any telephone. You communicate with them by means of a high frequency radio set. If you are lucky enough to get them in the first place, the chances are that your conversation will be cut off in the middle. Television in some areas is still non-existent or of an inferior quality. I was pleased to hear the announcement recently that $80 million is to be spent on the CBC's accelerated coverage plan to bring TV to remote areas. We must provide this kind of communication link to all our people if they are to feel part of the country.
The speech also mentioned measures to be taken to provide workers with improved access to available jobs. The decentralization of government services is essential. The Department of Manpower has already taken steps to set up a more decentralized system of combined Manpower and UIC offices by establishing smaller offices to serve local areas. This is highly desirable and the policy should be continued. Too many still find it is easier to find jobs for themselves than to seek them through Canada Manpower. I believe this decentralization of administration will help to correct that.
Hand in hand with this trend goes the community employment policy in a social security context for those Canadians who have particular and continuing difficulty

in getting and keeping employment. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) has already said that it is his intention to emphasize jobs rather than social assistance. He will be working with Manpower and the job-creating branches of other departments in a positive approach to finding productive and useful work for our unemployed. In the past programs such as LIP and OFY, while they have been admirable in philosophy and generally in application, nevertheless have not fully met the need. A more comprehensive program is necessary. We must also bear in mind once again the need for decentralization of administration. Programs to create employment should be fully integrated in a total plan for community development.
In Newfoundland, as possibly elsewhere in Canada, we have been creating employment through large scale projects to develop our natural resources. I am thinking of power projects, of mining ventures, of large scale lumbering and fishing operations. While these are necessary and desirable, we should at the same time realize that small scale commercial enterprises in rural areas can supply the economic needs of the local population. At the same time, these justify the provision of infrastructure, but allow the residents to retain a great deal of their original life style. I am thinking of small fish plants, saw mills and small agricultural operations. I am thinking of communities with populations of from 500 to 5,000, which could be provided with adequate housing, schools, water and sewer systems and up-to-date communications, cultural and recreational facilities. I am thinking of communities where residents would have the necessary cash income, but where they could do other things to supplement this cash income, depending on the life style they wish to pursue.
So, I support the principle of developing a community employment policy, but only if the application of it in a particular community is designed and executed not only by the federal and provincial governments but by the people of that community as well. At the same time as we are developing our community employment policy, we should be developing our policies designed to help people participate in the decision-making process. We, as a federal government, should be very heavily involved in adult education in the broadest sense. Too many of our people are still unaware of what choices are open to them and what programs are available to them. Too many still find it difficult to plug into the decision-making process which is becoming more and more complex. It is their community and their life, and it should be our job to help them to design and build the kind of community they want and the kind of life they want. Programs of this nature are most effective if at the same time we invest heavily in educational programs designed to help communities decide for themselves how their environment should be modified or how they should adapt to it.
There were other parts of this throne speech that will be of interest to my constituency, Mr. Speaker. The town of Windsor in central Newfoundland, for example, will be pleased to know that measures will be introduced to assist provinces and cities in the relocation of railway lines and terminals and in the redevelopment of these areas. The whole of the central Newfoundland area is growing and progressing rapidly but will need help from various feder-
The Address-Mr. Yewchuk
al departments if it is to keep its public services in line with its rapid growth.
This is a bold and robust speech, Mr. Speaker, and these are bold and robust policies, Liberal policies backed up by Liberal spending. Certainly, we have experienced crises; but crises often call not for caution but for imagination and foresight. This government has recognized the fundamental changes taking place in the world, as it at the same time becomes smaller and yet more complex. Change, in all aspects of our society, is becoming increasingly more rapid, as society becomes more complex. It is to the great credit of this government that it has governed and governed well in these circumstances while in a minority situation. A great deal of impressive legislation was passed during the last session, Mr. Speaker, and I believe the list will be even more impressive this session. It has been a source of pride for me to be associated with this government and with this caucus. I have found that members of parliament can be heard and can change things, not as fast as we would like and not as many things as we would like, but the changes come with a little help from your friends.
The policies this government has put forward bear the mark of this caucus and this party. They are policies that were forged in hot debate. They are all the more enduring because of that. I believe they will carry us through this turbulent time. I believe also that when the time comes, the people of Canada will give credit where credit is due.


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I was rather perplexed by some of the comments of the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Romp-key). He spent the first part of his speech trying to be a Liberal and the second part trying to be honest. He wound up by again being a Liberal. He spent a good deal of time extolling the great policies of the Liberal government. It almost made me feel as though I should move to Newfoundland immediately because things are so great there.
For some strange reason, the hon. member forgot to mention the unemployment rate and the rate of inflation in the past year. After stating how great Liberal policies were, he proceeded to give all the reasons people are leaving Newfoundland. He referred to high freight rates, inadequate housing, inadequate transportation by land, sea and air, inadequate development, inadequate television and inadequate telephone service. All of these factors I see as a reason why this government should be thrown out completely and replaced by a Progressive Conservative government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Yewchuk: I read with great interest some of the comments made a few days ago by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald). I hoped he would explain what policies he and the government are proposing in order to expedite development of the tar sands which happen to be located in the middle of my constituency. For that reason I hope I will be forgiven if I talk for a few minutes about the tar sands. I was hoping the minister would give some indication of what the policies will be in order to ensure that the tar sands are developed

March 5, 1974
The Address-Mr. Yewchuk
at a rate sufficient to meet Canada's needs on an interim and long term basis.
We have been hearing and reading much in the last few months about an energy crisis in the world. I think it is fair to say that insofar as the world is concerned this is not a myth, although insofar as Canada itself is concerned, from the short term point of view, there probably is not a crisis in terms of availability of energy but rather a crisis in terms of transport of it from producing areas to consumer areas. This is simply the result of government neglect over the past 10 years.
Because of the unique position that Canada occupies in that the tar sands are located in this country, the solution to foreseeable energy problems faced by North America will in large part involve major activities on the part of Canadians. The estimate of reserves of conventional oil in North America insofar as present liquid hydrocarbon reserves are concerned is that they are equivalent to approximately 10 to 12 years' supply.
As production capabilities from these sources decline, new sources must be developed at a rate which meets both the increasing consumption and the declining capacity of conventional reserves. While the minister, in his comments, touched briefly on his intentions as they may relate to the tar sands, he by no means indicated any kind of a long-term plan, or indeed any specific short-term or interim plan for federal government assistance or participation in the development. He stated that the government proposes to spend $40 million on oil sands research technology and that this will permit full and rapid development of that resource. He also stated that a national petroleum company will be established which will, among other things, involve itself in the tar sands.
As far as I am concerned, both of these suggestions could be considered at best a feeble, airy-fairy effort to meet a problem which could be severe and acute in a fairly short period of time. I have no objection to a national petroleum company in principle in that it will fulfill a certain need which exists in this country, but I certainly cannot see it as the solution to our petroleum requirements for the future. Much more important to consider if we are serious about long-term planning is the encouragement of private enterprise as well. We know that without encouragement of private enterprise which is already in the business, serious shortages could develop rather quickly, since it could well be a decade or more before a national petroleum company could get its production on stream.
The world energy crisis has placed a strain on many countries but it has also had its beneficial effects, namely, the new price structures which have been forced by international and economic pressures. These price structures have had the effect of making it possible to undertake with greater vigor the development of some of the more difficult sources of petroleum, such as the tar sands in our country, because these developments are now economically feasible and economically attractive in the long term. With the old price structure, there was some question as to whether the tar sands development was economically viable. With today's price structure on the international scene, there is certainly no question about viability, although with the price structure within our own country

still held at $4 a barrel, economic viability is questionable unless the prices are allowed to rise at least 5 per cent per year for the next 25 years or so. With that kind of Price increase, there would presumably be sufficient return on the investment to make investment in the tar sands as attractive as in a number of other types of private enterprises.
While the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has said in the recent past that he would allow the price of crude to rise sufficiently to make tar sands development a more attractive area for private investment, we have yet had no clarification from the Prime Minister or the minister as to what the government envisages this level to be. A positive statement from the government at this time in this area would be useful in terms of removing some of the doubts that now exist as to the real economic prospects for interested developers.
While there are other potential sources of liquid hydrocarbons, such as the vast coal reserves, the oil shales in Colorado, Arctic oil and offshore sources, the most obvious known potential source for which the technology now exists is the Athabasca tar sands. This source consists of some 700 billion barrels of oil, of which 60 billion barrels are obtainable by surface mining and another 90 billion by presently known in situ techniques.
To encourage further research and development, the very progressive Progressive Conservative government of Alberta has announced a $100 million fund for mining and other research to develop more effective techniques to increase the percentage of recovery of oil from the tar sands. With this research, if it bears fruit, it is expected that an additional 150 billion barrels could be removed, adding up to a total of 300 to 350 billion barrels removable out of the total deposit of 700 billion barrels.
As I mentioned before, the United States has a projected reserve supply of somewhere in the area of 10 to 12 years, while Canada has a prospect of 15 to 17 years supply. It is, therefore, rather urgent that our alternate sources be developed not only for fuel but because these hydrocarbons are also sources of raw material for the petrochemical industries, synthetic rubber, plastics of many kinds and organic chemicals which generally require vast amounts of hydrocarbons for which there is no substitute raw material. At the same time, we should be taking appropriate steps to ensure that producing provinces cease to be exporters of the raw materials only. We should ensure that more and more of the exports from the producing provinces are in the form of fully manufactured products. Since there is no substitute raw material available to these petrochemical industries we must use our depleting reserves prudently and ensure that, while development takes place, some thought is given to the needs of future generations. So, while the short-term need requires maximum achievable output, long term need dictates development in keeping with principles of conservation.
The appropriate level of development, to judge from the rate at which tar sands development has been going on so far, is not likely to be reached in less than 15 or 20 years from now. The plant which is already in production began research on the tar sands in the 1950's, applied for a permit
March 5, 1974

to build an extraction plant in 1962, received it in 1964 for a capacity of 45,000 barrels a day and was permitted to increase production to 65,000 barrels a day in 1973. The first oil was produced in 1967 but full output was not achieved until 1973. In this case, approximately one decade elapsed between the time the application was made and the date on which full production was achieved. The experience of the existing plant shows that three years were required for construction. Organization in terms of ordering materials, locating skilled staff, and so on actually began a couple of years prior to construction. We are faced with a similar situation as far as progress toward construction of a second plant is concerned.
Construction of a second plant is about to begin. The capacity envisaged is 125,000 barrels a day and the plant is expected to go on stream by 1978, four or five years from now at best, but it might be as late as 1980 before the full rate of production is achieved. Difficulties are also being faced by this company in terms of locating a sufficiently large pool of skilled labour, including engineers, to enable the project to proceed. I am told there are presently some 500 vacancies in Alberta for engineers. A number of large projects are under way not only in Alberta but in North America generally, and these are absorbing all the available trained labour. These shortages are a source of potential delay and indicate a certain lack of foresight on the part of the federal government inasmuch as it failed to take the appropriate steps to prepare a labour pool for this project as well as for future plants as they get under way.
I did not hear the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources make any mention of his department's plans to overcome this serious problem. I should like to suggest the immediate initiation of a massive manpower training program designed and carried out in conjunction with industry and the province. Such a training program makes all the more sense when one considers the high unemployment rate existing in our country today. In its absence, skilled labour will have to be brought in from other countries, leaving unemployed Canadians to continue to enjoy the fruits of our massive and costly unemployment insurance program.
Another serious problem arises from the shortage of manufactured equipment largely stemming from difficulty in obtaining steel, and here again no comments have been forthcoming from the minister. I am told a search is being carried out all over the world to find an industry capable of manufacturing the appropriate equipment and that the company has been unable to obtain the commitments it requires in the equipment field in order to carry on in accordance with its projected schedule. The steel shortage is a cause for major concern and it could seriously delay development of the tar sands. I want to know what the government is going to do in terms of assuring a supply of steel.
There is another area in which the government has been somewhat negligent. I refer to the immediate needs of people at the site of development and in particular to the need for assistance in the provision of adequate housing for employees and potential employees of tar sands developers. Presently, Fort McMurray is classified by CMHC as a one-industry or one-company town. Under such a classification, severe mortgage restrictions are imposed;
The Address-Mr. Yewchuk
requiring a company to guarantee all housing loans. This, of course, becomes a serious obstacle in the way of individuals obtaining housing, particularly if they are not directly linked with the company involved in the extraction project.
Predictions are that upon the completion of the second plant the population of Fort McMurray will rise to somewhere in the vicinity of 25,000. It is projected that 1,000 new housing units will be required for the next four or five years until the plant is on stream. So far, however, there has been no evidence at all that the present rate of housing development can adequately meet the rapidly growing demand. In view of the fact that the potential for development is unquestionable, Fort McMurray should certainly be considered to be a stable community and made subject to ordinary CMHC rules. And since there is already a severe housing shortage, I believe it is reasonable to expect the minister responsible for CMHC to seriously consider removing the present restriction in order that mortgages to individuals could be more readily provided. This is another immediate and pressing aspect, and it is one to which neither the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) nor the responsible minister have made even a passing reference.
A third developer has filed an application with respect to a plant to produce 100,000 barrels a day. It is conceivable that this plant will not be in production until the early 1980's, depending on several of the factors to which I have referred. On the basis of these three examples, it is obvious that although huge deposits exist in the tar sands it will be some years before production is anywhere near the level required to assure self-sufficiency in Canada and security of supply. A host of other companies are stepping up their activities and interest in the area. They may be planning extraction plants and in due course it will be necessary for them to go ahead so as to assure security of supply. Before this can happen, the government must seriously consider providing assistance in the areas I have discussed; it must give some indication of a stable, longterm program in terms of providing an assurance to these companies that they can expect a reasonable return on their investment over the years. Such an assurance will encourage them to move ahead as quickly as is required.
While I appreciate that the minister is looking at the creation of a national petroleum corporation, I remind hon. members that he himself has stated it might be many years before such a corporation does, in fact, have a plant on stream in the tar sands region. Until this is the case, the government must take steps to encourage those who are already in the business and who are in a position to proceed immediately.
Mr. Speaker, I know there are many in this country who feel that most of the development of Canadian resources from now on should be carried out by Canadian enterprise and in large part owned by Canadians. I happen to agree with this proposition and what I have said does not conflict with it, providing the government takes steps to ensure that Canadian interests are protected. The fact that the companies which hold leases on the tar sands, and are in process of development, are in large part foreign-owned should not be a reason for failing to proceed with development. All that is necessary is that legislation be passed
198

March 5, 1974
The Address-Mr. Yewchuk
requiring these companies to allow adequate Canadian participation in ownership and administration.
As to the debate over whether development should be carried out by private enterprise or public enterprise, I personally do not think it makes much difference. If a publicly-owned company such as the proposed national petroleum corporation can go into the extraction business in the tar sands and can produce oil on a competitive basis, proving itself to be more efficient than private enterprise, then by all means it should be encouraged. What I should not like to see is a publicly-owned corporation going into the business as a lame duck industry requiring continuing injections of capital from the public treasury. I do not think that is what Canadians are looking for. Basically the aim must be that the factor of competition be allowed to play its role fully in order that Canadians get the best value for their money. If a public company can really provide that kind of competition, then so much the better for Canadians. If it cannot compete and becomes a drain on the treasury, then Canadians will be the losers.
With regard to the amount of profit that is taken out of these developments, again I do not believe it matters whether the ownership is private or public in so far as returns to the public treasury are concerned, since governments have the authority to legislate any royalty or tax structure they deem to be in the best interests of Canadians. In the case of a privately owned company, it does not need more than a reasonable return to be encouraged to stay in business.
Another important factor we must keep in mind is that we must not hang our hopes only on the tar sands as being the only remaining potential source of hydrocarbons. I think adequate steps must be taken to encourage the continuation of exploration for conventional oil supplies, and while my friends to the left-


An hon. Member:: To the far left.


Paul Yewchuk: It is obvious that because the government has not been able to hold the line on domestic causes of inflation it is now trying to cover up its own incompetence. At the same time, the Prime Minister said recently in a radio interview that over the next 12 months he cannot see a lowering of the cost of living, which suggests that he and the government are openly admitting that they cannot cope with our inflation problem. In view of these facts the only recourse Canadians have is to follow the advice of the Prime Minister given on December 30, 1973 when he said: "If a government can't cope with self-induced inflation, it deserves to be thrown out".


Mr. McRae:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Paul Yewchuk: I would be very happy to do so.


Paul Edmund McRae: In view of the fact that an interdepartmental committee of the government of the province of Alberta on the Athabasca tar sands suggested that a plant should not be brought on-stream more rapidly than once every four years, is the hon. member not concerned that the more rapid development of the tar sands he suggests will create serious environmental and social dislocation in the community he represents?


Paul Yewchuk: I am sorry I did not hear the question. I wonder if the hon. member would mind repeating it.


Paul Edmund McRae: In view of the report of the Alberta government interdepartmental committee on the tar sands which suggested that plants should not be brought on-stream more than once every four years, is the hon. member not concerned that the more rapid development which he seems to suggest as desirable would create environmental and social dislocation in his constituency?


Paul Yewchuk: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am concerned.


Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, like those who preceded me in the throne speech debate, I want to congratulate the Governor General and Madame Leger on their assumption of their important roles. I was very impressed with his remarks during the ceremony when he was sworn in, as I thought they were very timely and very profound. He covered many of the basic questions with which we as Canadians must cope. I am confident he will perform his functions as Governor General, with the aid of Madame Leger, in a superb manner, and will represent Her Majesty here in Canada in a way that will be a real credit to all Canadians.
Second, I should like to congratulate the mover and seconder, the hon. members for Spadina (Mr. Stollery) and Sherbrooke (Mr. Pelletier) on their very excellent speeches in moving and seconding the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. In addition I should like to congratulate the new Chief Justice of Canada on his appointment. I take particular pleasure in this because of the number of communications I have received from constituents of mine who were deeply impressed with the government's action in appointing this man as the Chief Justice of Canada in view of the great reputation he enjoys as a person concerned about civil rights and other matters of importance to all Canadians.
The Address-Mr. Cafik
I was very pleased to be present in this House when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) spoke on leader's day in this debate. Personally, I thought it was one of the finest speeches I ever heard delivered in this House of Commons since I was elected in 1968. I do not say that simply because he is the Prime Minister. I have had the opportunity to say that on numerous occasions before in similar debates but have not chosen to do so. I was deeply impressed with what he said, and particularly the philosophical base he provided for his statement at that particular time.
Before proceeding to make specific remarks in this throne speech debate, I should like to make some comment on what was said by one of the earlier speakers, the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean), whom I hold in great esteem and consider a personal friend. While I was in the House he spent some time talking about the high cost of government expenditures. I have heard a great deal about that from all sides of the House, but I was disappointed that he did not choose to tell us in what areas he would like to see a reduction in expenditures. It is very easy to say that expenditures are too high. Anyone can say that. However, I think it takes some real study to calculate where the reduction should be. Should we be reducing the old age security benefits, the guaranteed income supplement and so on which have an enormous impact on the federal budget? Should we be knocking out the New Horizons Program and the community employment program, and should we not have the escalation provision in our social security programs? I believe that all these things are socially desirable.


Paul Yewchuk: Start with Information Canada.


Norman Augustine Cafik: March 5, 1974
The Address-Mr. Cafik
provision in these social measures, but no one was willing to do so. However, they did try to make the charge that the government was fanning the fire of inflation when in fact they were voting for the very things they were trying to say were so bad.
One other point I should like to make is that the previous speaker, the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yew-chuk), was talking about the rate of inflation, real income and so on. I would be quite happy to speak to him privately later because clearly there seems to be some confusion concerning the real facts. I have no vested interest, political or otherwise, in trying to portray the facts in any particular way other than the way I believe them to be on the basis of the information I receive from Statistics Canada.
On January 11, I embarked on a small research project in respect of this question. I based the figures resulting from my calculations on facts and figures presented by Statistics Canada. They differ from those presented by the hon. member for Athabasca. I am not saying the hon. member is wrong, but clearly either he is wrong or I am wrong in respect of the statistics I shall mention. It would be very interesting, and I believe valuable, to find out which figures are correct. The information I obtained at that time indicated that in 1973 the percentage increase in personal income was 13.8 per cent and that the consumer price index increase was 9.1 per cent, which included all items. As a matter of fact if one were to extract the food items, one would find the increase would be more than 13.8 per cent for 1973. However, in respect of the real personal disposable income per person to which the hon. member referred as being 6 per cent, my investigation indicates that in 1973 there was a growth in personal disposable income of 5.1 per cent. These are Statistics Canada figures. That, of course, is small consolation to those who do not find themselves in that statistical group. We must be careful because clearly a statistician is a person who can make figures lie.
Obviously that statistic is of no consolation to some simply because it happens to be based on the broad average and would not be true in each individual case. There are many groups of which members of parliament would be one, who have had their incomes eroded through a loss of purchasing power. There are others who suffer more seriously and they are very much the concern of all of us. I think the fact is that it is not sufficient to simply say the government has not solved the inflation problem. That could be said about any government in the world. If one looks at the international rates of inflation in 1973, one will find that our rate of 9.1 per cent compares with the rate in Japan of 11.8 per cent, the rate for Australia of 10.5 per cent, the rate for Italy of 11.6 per cent and the United States with a lower figure of 6.2 per cent in 1973. The figure for France is 5.7 per cent. For Germany, it is 7.1 per cent. One hardly need say anything about the United Kingdom in view of all the controversies that have existed in that country within the last few weeks and the severe inflation problems it has had. This does not mean that we cannot do anything about it. However, let us look at what we have done about it.


An hon. Member:: Nothing.


Norman Augustine Cafik: If the hon. member thinks that the reduction in the price of bread is nothing, all I can say to him is that he does not know what fighting inflation is all about. If the hon. member for Athabasca says that escalating the old age security pension, the guaranteed income supplement, the family allowances, the veterans allowances and the public service pensions is not an attempt to fight inflation, all I can say to him is that this is the kind of nothing we are very proud of.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. gentleman a question. If the government has done so much to reduce inflation, can he explain why it went up from 5.1 per cent a year ago to 9.1 per cent.


Norman Augustine Cafik: I am sorry; I did not have my earpiece on.


Paul Yewchuk: I will repeat my question. If the government has done so much to lower the rate of inflation, can the hon. member explain why it has risen from 5.1 per cent a year ago to 9.1 per cent today?


Norman Augustine Cafik: I am talking about steps the government has taken in specific areas to keep down the cost of living. There is no question about this in terms of bread prices; neither is there any doubt about it in terms of milk prices. So far as oil prices are concerned, if the Conservatives had been in power and had allowed the kind of rip-off we have seen by the private sector to increase the price of oil to Canadians, we would be looking at a price which was not too far from 75 cents to $1 a gallon right across Canada.


Walter David Baker: We are being ripped off in oil by your government as well as in everything else.


Norman Augustine Cafik: If hon. members would like to ask questions, I would be prepared to entertain them at the conclusion of my remarks. I am not trying to be partisan; I am simply trying to give hon. members the facts as they really are. It is quite fair for any member to say that the government has not done enough. It is quite fair and reasonable for someone to ask why we didn't do this or didn't do that. But to say that this government has done nothing to offset the effects of inflation is just unadulterated political nonsense. To say we have not done anything to hold down prices in certain specific areas in this country, whereas the fact is that we have taken action to hold down prices, is equally unadulterated political rubbish.
In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, aside from the antiinflation steps I have already indicated, we have adopted a proposal which I think even hon. members opposite would believe to be significant. We have indexed tax exemptions for children, etc., to meet the rise in the cost of living. Since that step has been taken, some 175,000 people have been removed from the tax rolls and the amount of tax paid has been reduced by 6.6 per cent. Certainly that action has done something to offset the consequences of inflation.
The government has also taken steps in a number of other areas which I think are equally well known and to which I alluded earlier. First of all, we have almost tripled family allowances. I think it was high time this was done and it was a step in the right social direction. Certainly it
March 5, 1974

has placed income in the hands of those who are raising children, and this increase in income has more than offset the amount of inflation we experienced during the past year, since the figure now averages $20 per month per child across Canada.
As far as old age security and the guaranteed income supplement are concerned, last year single pensioners had their pensions raised to $183.99 a month. Married couples received, with the guaranteed income supplement, $351.02. Both payments are escalated on a quarterly basis to accommodate the increase in the cost of living. To say that these are not steps in the right direction is to say nothing at all.
I have heard many people talk of the problems confronting those on fixed incomes. We all know these problems exist, but in a very real way now, the number of those on fixed incomes, compared with one year ago, has dropped. By escalating the OAS and GIS payments in line with the cost of living increase, these incomes are no longer fixed but are escalated in line with the real cost of living. That fact ought to be taken into account by anyone who looks at the situation in an objective way.
The throne speech also makes many references to oil policy, agricultural policy, transportation, urban affairs, and so on, and I should like to address myself briefly to a number of these items. First of all, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) announced the government's oil policy in this House last December 6, if I remember correctly. I strongly applaud the steps that were taken at that time- indeed, the steps taken even prior to that time-so as to make sure that increases in the international price of oil would not accrue to the major oil companies but would in fact be preserved for Canadians. This was done through the action of the federal government in co-operation with the provinces. That was an important step; it made sure these windfall profits generated by the increased demand for oil in the world and by the war in the Middle East were not inherited by the oil companies. I am sure all Canadians would basically agree with that.
I also applaud the decision at that time to build an oil pipeline from the west to the east. At this stage of the game this means from Ontario to Quebec. I, along with many others, advocated the need for an all-Canadian pipeline and I am delighted that the government has announced construction of an interim pipeline along a southern route, with construction of an all-Canadian line over the long term. This is particularly important because I, as a Canadian, am not very comfortable when I realize that an energy-carrying line form the west to the east can have the valve closed, at least theoretically, by Washington. If we are to be independent in name as well as in fact, I think we must make sure we have total security of supply within this country; and I think the decision the government made at that time is consistent with this over-all view regarding the preservation of a Canadian national identity and sovereignty.
I feel very strongly that Canada cannot survive as a nation unless we have what I feel is a very basic requirement in this country, a common market. A common market means that the resources of all the provinces are essentially to be used for the benefit of all Canadians from coast to coast. Thus, I applaud the action the government
The Address-Mr. Cafik
has taken in the face of enormous criticism from many quarters, particularly on the opposite side of the House, to stand firm for what is Canadian as opposed to what is provincial or local. I think we must stand firm with a national policy to ensure that the resources of this country are used for the benefit of all Canadians.
I also applaud the establishment of a Canadian petroleum corporation. I hope its initial purpose, that of pursuing research and development of the Athabasca tar sands and that sort of thing, will be extended to give us a far greater degree of control over our national resources so that we as Canadians can reap the benefit rather than the multinational oil corporations and private individuals. I think that all Canadians understand that although oil prices need not increase in Canada on the basis of cost increases at the wellhead, in the long run the price of petroleum products in Canada will increase since new technology has to be developed to extract oil from the tar sands.
Many would argue that this means the price of oil in Canada today ought to be increased so as to provide funds for this kind of research. I would not object to that, provided the increase was reasonable and staged and the increased revenue was in fact used toward achieving that goal. However, I object very strongly to this argument being used as an excuse to provide higher incomes to the multinational oil corporations for the production of oil already discovered in this country and which does not cost them one nickel more to produce. I would like Canadians to have an absolutely iron-clad guarantee that the extra benefits oil companies receive are used for the development of new resources in the interests of Canadians, and not in the interests of the multinational oil companies and their investors.
I think the same principle ought to apply, with very strong safeguards, in respect of the tremendous advantages the oil companies and other resource development companies have enjoyed through tax incentives. These special tax privileges must be used to undertake research and development. That would be fair. But if these companies are really using the money that accrues from increased prices and tax incentives for the purposes of development, why cannot we do it through a national corporation? If they do not enjoy a rip-off through this kind of incentive, then they should be as happy as we parliamentarians to see that that money controlled by the government is earmarked, in co-operation with them, for specific purposes rather than going into their treasuries.
I also wish to speak briefly about the emphasis on agriculture which was contained in the Speech from the Throne. Agriculture is essential to our economy. There is not much doubt that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) has done a superb job in representing the interests of the farmers. In this area, the matters mentioned in the Speech from the Throne are very important. It says we must provide an adequate supply of food in our own country at reasonable prices both for the consumer and for the producer. Obviously, this is not an easy equation to work out, but in terms of principle it is highly desirable. A large number of steps are outlined to achieve this objective. I want to bring just two or three of them to the

March 5, 1974
The Address-Mr. Cafik
attention of the House because I think they are of particular significance.
First, we must improve the availability of manpower for the food production sector of our economy. Anyone representing even a modest agricultural riding knows the great problems being experienced by farmers in securing adequate manpower. It is also important that we provide assistance and financial incentives to young people to enable them to become established in farming. This is a matter of great concern, bearing in mind the average age of our farmers. If this is not done, then severe problems lie ahead not only for Canadians in the long haul but for the world in general. As an agricultural nation we have a tremendous responsibility not only to our own people, to our farmers and consumers, but to consumers throughout the world. Any human being worthy of the name must have deep concern when he sees so many people throughout the world going short of food when we have the capability to provide much of it for them.
I have consistently advocated increased availability of reasonably priced feed grains. The price of feed grains has increased because of international shortages and a number of other factors. This in itself is an enormous item which is reflected in the increased cost of food. I advocate subsidies on feed grains to a significant degree, not only in the interests of consumers but of farmers.
I am also quite pleased that the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce was alluded to so prominently in the Speech from the Throne which spoke about aid to small businessmen. These persons are certainly in need of considerable aid. We have many programs now to assist industry in Canada. We are familiar with IADA, PAIT, PEP and others. A number of them provide forgivable loans and other free money for various purposes that are deemed to be in the national interest. I applaud some of those programs. However, the area on which we must concentrate is that of providing capital to business people who need it, at reasonable interest rates without any forgivable feature. Many small business people suffer badly because they cannot get adequate financing. I praise the government for its initiative in talking about a federal development bank. I certainly hope this will provide funds to businessmen at better interest rates than were available through the IDB which it is to replace. This is one of the most fundamental problems in our country today and it must be dealt with quickly.
When speaking about small businessmen, I also wish to mention problems that surround the DREE program. Mr. Speaker, I am not being critical of that program because we all realize the importance of correcting regional disparities; however, it has some offsetting disadvantages in other areas. My riding is situated on the outskirts of Toronto and contains a number of manufacturers who need funds for expansion of their businesses. It would not be in the public interest for them to be squeezed out of business, or to think they are being squeezed out of business, by the application of DREE grants and other incentives to other parts of the country. This creates an enormous dilemma for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) and for parliament, and we must look at it. One way to correct it would be the establishment of a new kind of industrial development 
bank which would provide loan capital at reasonable interest rates to people outside designated DREE areas who badly need capital.
Now I wish to deal briefly with transportation. There has been a lot of talk about the difficulties between the western provinces and the federal government regarding the oil crisis and how the tax money will be divided. Frankly, I believe a large part of that problem would disappear if, as suggested in the throne speech, we were to introduce realistic freight rates that would end the discrimination which now exists. As a member for an Ontario riding, I have no great reason to say that; but, Mr. Speaker, I have had the good fortune to travel across this country of ours and I have a great deal of concern for the maritimes and for the west. I realize this is a problem for all Canadians and not just for Canadians in the west or in the east.
In what I call the golden horseshoe around the Toronto area there are many people, if not the majority, who feel that we have expanded too fast and too much and that it would be a good thing to decentralize some manufacturing industries to other parts of the country which need them. I subscribe to that view.
I am hopeful, too, that we will take steps toward improving commuter transportation as well as look at the freight rate situation, and will put more emphasis on rail passenger traffic in this country. We need a system which is more efficient, consumes less energy and is more desirable than many other forms of transit that we have at the present time. Rail is part of the answer. I must say, in a negative way, that I have been a little disturbed over the years by people who say that the CPR and the CNR are really outside our control. In my view, parliament controls the regulations and the acts under which these bodies, operate, and if we are not willing to take the kind of steps that need to be taken in the field of transportation, then it is high time something was done about it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired. He may continue, however, if there is unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues. I notice that one of them on the opposite side has his fingers up indicating "two". I do not know whether that is some sort of comment about my speech, or whether he thinks I should have only two minutes. I remember once before giving unanimous consent and finding out that there was no limitation once it had been given. I am not trying to scare hon. members, and I shall try to keep my remarks to a minimum, but I have a few more points to make. As I say, I appreciate the indulgence of the House.


An hon. Member:: You are getting better all the time.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Thank you. I thought I would save those negative comments until I needed consent, so that I would get it. I should like to pursue the question of a transporta-
March 5, 1974

tion policy for a moment. I think all hon. members probably realize that I inherited the proposed airport at Pickering which has caused me considerable grief. I recommended, of course, an independent inquiry, which is now sitting on that question. I certainly hope that the inquiry and the Department of Transport bear in mind questions such as the short fuel supply, and so on, and the fact that these are non-renewable resources. I hope they consider the steps we need to take in terms of a future transportation policy in regard to commuter transit over short distances, say within 50 miles of major cities.
I am not saying that such a system would automatically rule out a second airport for Toronto, but it would have a tendency to go in that direction. I am not an expert on whether airports are needed or not, but I think the department and the independent inquiry should bear in mind any new steps taken by the government of Canada toward a transportation policy which might affect the decision which was originally taken and sustained. The independent inquiry would be well advised to take into consideration all the relevant factors on the whole question of transportation which have come to light within the last six or eight months.
There has been some mention of housing and I have a question in respect of that problem. Much to my surprise, there appears to be a rather broad base of agreement on such questions as land banking and providing federal and provincial funds therefor. That seems to be the conventional wisdom today. But I have grave reservations about land banking and the development of "instant" cities. It seems to me that proper development in this country ought to occur around existing communities and should not create instantaneous communities such as the type suggested east of Toronto. An example is the Cedarwood development, which is nothing before it starts and when it is over it will not be very much. In terms of being a social unit it will not provide for the real needs of human beings who want to live close together.
If we are making the mistake of going heavily into land banking, it seems to me we are encouraging the development of large banks of land around the large cities. The cities will take advantage of this, not the smaller communities; therefore we will be providing an incentive to make our large urban areas even larger. That scares me a great deal, Mr. Speaker. I think cities such as Toronto are big enough now. We need expansion around the smaller communities. I think such expansion would solve not only the housing crisis but would have a beneficial effect on the price of land. There should not be large-scale developments concentrated in one area, if this was avoided a much more meaningful kind of human environment would be provided wherein people could live and raise their children. This is basically going into the past, but in the past small communities have provided a great deal. We should be very careful before we destroy that kind of thing for new and novel schemes which may temporarily appeal to many people. We may find that we have made a serious social mistake.


Walter David Baker: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I realize that we gave unanimous consent to the hon. member to continue, and the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) did put up his hand with two fingers
The Address-Mr. MacKay
outstretched. I also realize that there is no limitation once consent is given. But I wonder, through you, sir, if I could ask my hon. friend to terminate his remarks, interesting as they are. There are other hon. members who wish to speak.
I wonder if I could ask Your Honour's indulgence.


Mr. Speaker:: I tend to disagree with the hon. member's interpretation of the rule; I think there is the right to withdraw consent. I do not believe the fact that the House gave the hon. member consent to continue gives him leave to continue indefinitely. I do not think the hon. member proposes to do that, but if hon. members at this time wish to withdraw their unanimous consent, he would have to yield the floor.


An hon. Member:: He is going to say, "In conclusion".


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the indulgence of the House. I thought, from all the smiles on the other side, that hon. members were very much in agreement and wanted me to continue. In conclusion, I very much favour the establishment of a human rights and interests commission as suggested in the Speech from the Throne. I say, too, that I believe if we all work together as parliamentarians rather than as members of a particular party, this second session of the twenty-ninth parliament will be as productive as the last session and of great benefit to all Canadians.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: It is up to you.


Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to begin, as so many others have, by associating myself with the tributes which have been paid to His Excellency the Governor General, to his lady and also to the newly appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. Also, I should like to pay tribute to Your Honour. It is good to see you back again presiding over this new session with your usual calmness and impartiality. I enjoyed the address just concluded by the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik). It was reasonably nonpartisan though it contained a lot of self-applause in its early stages. We agree with much of what the hon. member said, and it is good to see he is changing his views.
On the basis of past experience, I think this Speech from the Throne can be fairly stated not to be a particularly credible document. It reads well, and if we could be certain that what is set out in the document would truly be implemented, we could talk about it in a much more meaningful way. It is interesting to note some of the remarks which are conspicuous in the speech both by their presence and by their absence.
There is no reference, even in an oblique way, to the famous just society which has been so prominently talked about in some past speeches made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). I was so interested in the origin of the phrase "the just society" that I thought I would see where it came from. For the record, and if I am wrong I will stand corrected, I believe that those who are interested will find the origin of the phrase in the issue of the New York Times of Thursday, May 4, 1968. The phrase "the just society" should really be attributed to the great Czech

March 5, 1974
The Address-Mr. MacKay
patriot, Alexander Dubcek. He is reported to have said in an article by David Binder which was special to the New York Times, datelined Prague, "We are aiming for a truly just society." For the record, that great patriot should be given his due for coining that phrase. In passing, it is fair to say that he faced many more obstacles in establishing the "just society" than did our Prime Minister.
This afternoon the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean) said it is unfortunate that a member of parliament, in the few minutes in which he speaks in a throne speech debate, has to cover so many subjects. As he said, our rules make this necessary. May I begin by talking of the energy situation in Canada and particularly about the energy crisis affecting eastern Canada. We in eastern Canada feel let down. Not only is the security of our source of supply of petroleum tenuous, according to reported statements by people in a position to know, but our once prosperous and important coal mining industry has been allowed to deteriorate to the point where it hardly exists.
Since there have been so many references to pipelines, and since so many have been speaking as to who thought of the pipeline and who suggested it, I think it should be pointed out for the sake of the record that paragraph 2 of part VII of the policy document considered at the priorities for Canada conference called by the Conservative Party at Niagara Falls from October 9 to 13, 1969, reads:
Strengthen the national oil policy by including a pipeline to Montreal to serve a minimum of one-quarter of Quebec needs as a security protection against the interruption of oil supplies from politically unstable areas.
Again, by way of background, let me mention some questions and answers which were raised in this House on May 29, 1970. On that day the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) asked the then minister of energy, mines and resources, Hon. J. J. Greene, the following question as recorded at page 7481 of Hansard for that day:
Mr. Speaker, would the minister advise the House whether any contingency planning has been carried out to date with respect to eastern Canada's position vis-a-vis our traditional sources of crude oil? Could he also indicate whether the low level of prices we pay for oil in eastern Canada is to be preserved under any planning that has been done?
The minister answered as follows:
Mr. Speaker, there are no plans at present to change the national oil policy which connotes that oil for the eastern market will be offshore oil. If there is any plan to change the national oil policy from its present course, then of course that would be announced in the House in the normal manner.
Other members asked questions, including the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams). One NDP member wondered, in so many words, whether Venezuela was a secure source of supply and whether any change in our oil policy was being considered. The minister said that in view of the very good potential of large quantities of economically priced oil being made available to eastern markets from offshore, consideration was not being given to any change in our national oil policy.
We in eastern Canada feel badly about the government's position and lack of policy. It is in order now for me to request the government earnestly to atone for its singular lack of foresight, and it should press ahead with construe-

tion of the pipeline. That construction should be given greater priority than now appears to be the case. Despite the urgency of the problem, I do not see evidence of any truly national commitment for building this pipeline on an emergency or crash basis. I say that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) should accelerate this program and do something meaningful at once, instead of making vague statements as to which route would be more preferable, and for what reason.
Speaking of coal, the government recently indicated that it is interested in allocating funds to Cape Breton Development Corporation to pursue more active research and development in order that we can better utilize the coal in eastern Canada. Our coal should be used for domestic heating and for cooking purposes as well after suitable treatment to remove sulphur. Recently, the Cape Breton Development Corporation displayed a remarkable lack of foresight. Being apparently unable to fill an order, it had to buy a large amount of coal, at great expense, in the United States for coking purposes; then, lo and behold, through inexcusable lack of foresight, large quantities of this coal were found to be unacceptable for the purpose intended.
This type of thing characterizes the poor administration of Devco operations. There has been poor administration and poor maintenance regarding the mines; also poor safety precautions, examples of which have previously been brought to the attention of the House. I will not elaborate on it at this time; will merely say that an uninspired record is shown in research and development, and I am glad to see more money allotted in the estimates for this purpose.
With regard to the environment, there is no commitment in the Speech from the Throne to do anything very meaningful to control conditions in parts of the country where environmental controls are necessary. Not too long ago there was a federal department known as the department of forestry. It has been completely absorbed by the Department of the Environment. Although there may be problems connected with provincial jurisdiction, surely the government knows how desirable it is to encourage provinces to use funds, perhaps made available through ARDA, for more active programs of reforestation. The denuding of forest lands in eastern Canada is causing difficulties with flood control and is bringing about other undesirable side effects. It is time the government seriously encouraged action in respect to reforestation, in conjunction with the provinces.
I always hesitate to mention unemployment insurance since so much has been said about it. Recently I wrote another letter to the minister on this topic. It seems that quite a number of people for one reason or another have been getting more benefits than those to which they were entitled and they are asked to repay the excess, and in some cases all of their benefits. When a person receives unemployment benefits to which he is not entitled, it means that an administrative mistake has been made. When a person in poor circumstances receives a considerable sum of money and then is forced to repay it even if his circumstances have not changed, the result is sad.
However, as in so many other areas, this government does not want to take responsibility for mistakes. I con-
March 5, 1974

tend-and I say this through you, Mr. Speaker, to the minister-that when through an administrative mistake a person has received a considerable sum of money to which he is not entitled, some penalty should be imposed in order to discourage officials from making that type of mistake again. Nobody in this House suggests that anyone should get something for nothing. Nevertheless, if a person gets money to which he is not entitled, and gets it through no fault of his own, some lesser amount should perhaps be paid back and the difference should be made up in some cases by those who were responsible for the mistake. At one time this sort of thing was done in some financial institutions, and it may still be done. The trouble is that officials do not want to take responsibility under government programs, and the unwilling victim of this situation is often the person who is not responsible for the mistake in the slightest degree.
As far as regional development is concerned, having read the current Speech from the Throne I see no great cause for rejoicing. Lip service is paid to regional development; and that is about all. At one time there was a great priority on this concept proclaimed by the government, on the basis that there was nothing more important to Canadian unity than regional development to relieve disparities in our country. I was particularly interested in listening to the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey) speak this afternoon. He made it sound as though everything is ideal in his part of the country, although later in his speech he denied that. I was reminded of what a great Newfoundlander and great Canadian, Joseph R. Smallwood, said in his book "I Chose Canada" on the topic of regional disparity.
I think it is fair to say that not many provincial premiers fought harder for the alleviation of regional disparity than Mr. Smallwood. I think it would be interesting and for the edification of hon. members who have not had time to read Mr. Smallwood's book if I quoted briefly what he said about regional disparity, for this is a very serious matter for Canada, particularly the eastern part of our nation. At page 482, Mr. Smallwood wrote:
There isn't the slightest doubt that Canada's four Atlantic provinces are still miles and years behind the rest of Canada. These four provinces have made real progress in the last quarter of a century; but the gap today is wider and deeper between them and the rest of Canada than it was before. The Atlantic provinces are farther behind or below the Canadian average than they were 25 years ago. At a federal-provincial conference in Ottawa, I once quoted Abraham Lincoln's dictum that "this nation cannot endure half free and half slave'' and said that Canada could not be the great, harmonious, and happy nation we wanted it to be while nearly half the provinces were lagging badly behind the others, and the discrepancy was becoming more acute all the time.
I will not quote from this excerpt at great length. Mr. Smallwood went on to say:
Mention the idea of the underdeveloped provinces being permitted easier credit in times of tight money, and a look of distaste comes over Ottawa's face. Mention the idea of tax-free bonds for the underdeveloped provinces, and Ottawa's only answer is a palpable inaccuracy-namely, that in the United States, where that financial device is so widely used, it is going out of fashion. Let an underdeveloped province make use of the Crown corporation technique to get development, and all hell breaks loose. The policy of reducing so-called regional disparity boils down, in the end, to a half-hearted willingness to dole out money for road paving, water and sewer systems, schools, and hospitals.
The Address-Mr. MacKay
He continues:
-with the exception of a few brave souls, nobody in Ottawa has the slightest belief in the likelihood, or even the possibility, of the four Atlantic provinces ever being much more than mere markets or colonies for the rest of Canada. They won't admit this; they'll deny it with vehemence, sarcasm, wit, indignation, and in a variety of other ways, for of course they can't possibly admit it-except in action.
He concludes this particular chapter by saying:
Some day there may come to Canada a government that will brush aside all weasel thoughts of the Atlantic provinces as Canada's poor-house; one that will attack the problem with nerve, employing for an experimental period of ten or twenty years the devices that have been condemned in the past, and others that it will think up, to get these four provinces 30 or 40 years ahead in the space of a decade or two.
Based on the performance of this government, we can be sure of one thing: it certainly will not be the one to take those steps. I commend those words of the former premier of Newfoundland to the present minister of regional development.
There is some mention about fishing in the Speech from the Throne with which we are dealing today. I note with interest that it states the government will wish to consult with provincial governments, consumer groups and producers. Once again I ask members to forgive me if I appear a bit skeptical as to the government's intentions, because at a political meeting in Nova Scotia last night the minister of fisheries for the province of Nova Scotia admitted that many regulations had been made regarding the fishing industry and "imposed without fishermen having an opportunity to express their feelings."
We have seen many examples of lack of co-operation between federal and provincial governments insofar as fishing is concerned. Although some members opposite may not believe this to be true unless they have had the experience, I can assure them that as far as Nova Scotia is concerned, there was a great deal of backing, filling and attempting to evade responsibility before the fishermen in Atlantic Canada whose industry had been grievously damaged last June got any payment at all for their losses. The minister first said he was consulting with his provincial colleague, i was then told it was in the hands of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner). When members from all sides of the House pressed the fishermen's claim, it was still many months before any payment was made.
It is high time there was a little co-operation between the federal and provincial departments of fisheries. When you look at the past history, it is easy to see why even new members like myself are disillusioned with the credibility of a document such as this, after having read some of its predecessors and experienced some of the practical effects of what was not done to implement speeches from the throne in recent years.
As the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) knows has said so well, there is certainly a great need for assistance in the fishing industry of this country. The hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador asserted that the present policy of extending the limits of Canada as far as jurisdiction over fisheries is concerned is a Liberal policy. It is obvious to those who have gone into the past history that that statement is as palpably inaccurate, as this government now trying to take credit for the idea of putting the oil pipeline through to Montreal. The

March 5, 1974
The Address-Mr. MacKay
record should be put straight on this particular point as well.
As far as finance is concerned, there are many more learned members than I who have given discourses on the subject. I do not intend to repeat what they have said better than I could. However, one thing that is indicative of the government's lack of commitment to do anything tangible in the field of finance on the domestic scene is the continuing neglect of the Minister of Finance of what should be a routine housekeeping measure, setting a very bad precedent-to rest. We in this country have a bond issue of some $50 million that was issued in 1936. It is known colloquially as the perpetuals. These are Canada Savings Bonds that were bought by Canadians in good faith many years ago. Today they are selling at ridiculously low prices because the sky-rocketing interest rate, on present-day Canada Savings Bonds has made their return so negligible that nobody wants them. These bonds are selling on the open market for about $35 or $40. The Minister of Finance has been approached by many members, including myself, and requested to do something about this situation,
I think it is disgusting for bonds of a nation like Canada to be kicking around the financial markets of this country like orphans, selling for less than half their face value. Many members have approached the minister about this matter and I know he has given it some thought. He said the government is a little puzzled about what it should do. It does not want to see windfall profits made: it does not want to do anything unfair. Well, Mr. Speaker, windfall profits are made and money is lost on the market every day. Any government so insensitive toward bringing in a selective capital gains tax to protect people from being hurt by it, which tax was never really designed to apply to them, should not worry too much about a little windfall gain for some people who bought their country's savings bonds years ago in good faith. Perhaps the minister should raise the interest rate on the bonds current rates and raise the rate of return.
I am sure the serial numbers of these bonds are on record. Perhaps the minister could say that if anyone held these bonds and could prove ownership for five or ten years, they could be redeemed at face value. This would be an equitable solution for some. After all, this is no more than is possible with respect to the current bond issue regarding redemption, I find it almost ludicrous that the Minister of Finance, who is responsible for a highly complex portfolio and who is no doubt a very capable minister-I am not denigrating or denying his capability- cannot find a way to redeem these bonds. After all, he is a spokesman for Canada at complex negotiations such as those conducted under the International Monetary Fund, and I think this is as good a time as any to put this request forward on behalf of many Canadians who are being hurt by the government's lack of action.
Perhaps I might take a minute in which to urge the Minister of Finance to do something else, too. I think it is time he considered varying the present unimaginative capital gains tax. Other nations which impose such a tax and have done so for some years have found it possible to make interesting variations designed to take the sting out

of the tax in cases where it was not really meant to apply. I fail to see why a man who has systematically purchased securities over the years, for example to provide for his retirement or for the education of his children, or a man who has bought securities through a payroll deduction plan and has retained them for years, should be taxed when he sells them on the same basis as one who habitually deals in the stock market.
I fail to see why the minister, if he sincerely wishes to give ordinary Canadians a break, especially when they are trying to provide for worthwhile projects in their future, cannot put together a workable scheme to vary capital gains on sales of securities and make the tax more flexible. Perhaps he could say that up to a certain sum, maybe $20,000, a Canadian who purchased securities in Canadian companies and retained them for five years, or ten years, would not be subject to the same type of capital gains tax when he sold them as, say, a financier who on the basis of his intuition or some inside information bought a thousand shares of Cominco or Imperial Oil and made a few thousand dollars in two or three weeks.
As the hon. member for Ontario has said, there is much to be done in the field of transportation. I would say to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) that it is time the government addressed itself seriously to some of these long-standing problems. It is not that the problems are not known. They are. Indeed, the solutions are known in many cases. It is just that the government has been too timid or too preoccupied or too lazy to act. For example, two years ago the then minister of transport said he was going to make sweeping legislative changes. He did nothing. What would be wrong about severing the association of Air Canada with the Canadian National Railways' system? Ministers have themselves agreed that this is a good idea in principle, but nothing has been done about it.
What would be wrong about reconsidering part III of the National Transportation Act and setting up a system designed to cope with the requirements of motor carriers across the nation, perhaps an interprovincial trucking board? What would be wrong about establishing a separate Crown corporation to handle ferry services to our island provinces? What would be wrong about considering the staggering of labour contracts affecting our major transportation systems so that all the contracts would not expire at the same time, paralysing the nation and effectively destroying the normal collective bargaining process? There are all sorts of innovative and common sense things which could be done to improve our transportation system. We could improve passenger facilities, for example, or get on with a program of electrification of the CNR and improve the roadbeds. As I say, there are many things which could be done, but they can only be achieved if the government is sincere in wanting to see them accomplished.
I return now to the theme with which I began. How can we in the opposition really take the Speech from the Throne seriously? We have heard of the little boy who cried "wolf" too often. The government and its supporters are apparently sincere. They say they have a constructive program, and they ask for our co-operation. They may be sincere, but on the basis of past experience we can hardly be blamed for being skeptical. There is no doubt the
March 5, 1974

government is worried about inflation, and well it might be because inflation is the number one topic which disturbs Canadians today. It is robbing us all. I find it very strange, when I look back over the statements the Prime Minister has made-I sometimes try to ascribe some credibility to him and to his government and see statements such as appeared in the Ottawa Journal on December 24, 1971, as reported by the Canadian Press: "Prime Minister Trudeau said flatly Wednesday that inflation no longer exists in Canada." That has to be one of the great statements of all time. That was about the same time he told us there had been a fantastic breakthrough with President Nixon. Needless to say, neither of these particular predictions came true, and now in fact we hear reports that the United States congress is considering strong retaliatory measures of the type taken against Michelin Tire of Nova Scotia, against Canada and other nations which give too great a measure of assistance to certain of their exporting industries. Some breakthrough!
If inflation were an abstract, philosophical topic or a metaphysical phenomenon, the country could afford a comment of this type from the Prime Minister. We could debate it philosophically and marvel at the logic, convoluted or otherwise, that it reflected. But, instead, it is a very vital issue, one which hurts us all, and until the government does something meaningful about it we can only remain skeptical. The hon. member for Ontario said, in effect, "What's $10 million." Information Canada costs $10 million. That is picayune. What about the $600 million the government has spent in the last fiscal year on consultants? That, I suggest, is hardly picayune. That might be a good place at which to start reducing some of the waste in government.
I see it is six o'clock, Mr. Speaker. I conclude my remarks by simply saying that if people could be sure the government really meant to do something about the ills which trouble the country, if they could be sure it would be forthcoming with quick, constructive decisions, they would certainly give the current Speech from the Throne the support which perhaps it should receive on the face of it. We in the opposition shall watch very carefully in the weeks ahead to see whether, just for once, the government is sincere. If it is, it will certainly receive constructive co-operation from this side of the House.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, we are now beginning the second session of the twenty-ninth parliament. Everything here interests me enormously. This new task and the active involvement in the satisfaction of my fellow citizens in this highest of Canadian institutions, the federal Parliament, hold great interest for me.
I shared with my constituents from Rimouski a deep feeling of pride when I heard the Speech from the Throne on March 6, given by the Governor General Mr. Jules Leger in the presence of Mrs. Leger, the honourable sena-
The Address-Mr. Allard
tors, the ministers, the members of Parliament and their wives, as well as many Canadians from all parts of the country. This ceremony was also carried on the French and English television networks.
I would like to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne (MM. Stollery and Pelletier) who acquitted themselves admirably of their difficult task by defending the position of the present government as well as the situation of the people who still live without the advantages to which they are entitled in Canada in 1974, while those among their fellow citizens who are more fortunate, benefit fully from the natural, cultural and spiritual resources provided bountifully by the Providence and made available, through the talent and work of the adult population of Canada, to all Canadian consumers.
However, I should like to point out that they have only begun their work in this field and that it is up to us, as members of this House, to continue and complete the task of distributing more equitably our unlimited resources among all our full-fledged citizens without exception, by introducing timely legislation during this session. I would like this session to be consumer instead of producer oriented as was the case in previous sessions.
There are no poor here, only Canadians deprived of their natural and providential rights, of their individual and universal rights, officially recognized in the International Declaration of Rights signed by the United Nations on December 10, 1948, three years after the Second World War armistice, as well as in the Canadian Bill of Rights voted unanimously by the Parliament of Canada and signed on August 10, 1960.
Why then must we keep on talking of inflation, unemployment, poverty in a country as rich and fertile as Canada, when in 1973 our gross production totalled $114 billion, which means $5,000 per capita and readily proves that the national production is not lacking; but the hitch is in the distribution of goods and services among all consuming citizens, whether producers or dependents.
In trying to clarify some points, Mr. Speaker, after attending a complete session of this Parliament and as one of the new members relected on October 30, 1972, sitting among members reelected once or more, I cannot but thank all members and ministers for their benevolent attitude towards myself and for the attention that I have been favoured with.
For these reasons, I do not wish to offend anyone without reason, feeling the obligation, under the circumstances, of making a detailed report of my observations over the past 15 months, particularly concerning the financial system in Canada, the monetary system, the administrative system, we could say that the whole capitalist system but chiefly the monetary system; I have been elected under the label of the Social Credit Party of Canada and I am proud of that perfectly conscious and grateful.
As I said and I want to emphasize it again, what I learned when I met with teachers and proponents of Social Credit helped me-understand the values and- methods of the capitalist system, the socialist system and

March 5, 1974
The Address-Mr. Allard
even the communist sytem. Of all those systems, I prefer the capitalist system even with its defects and shortcomings. I am convinced that it is the best to satisfy people who insist on the quality of life, the respect for other people, the scale of values, and the value of a human being.
If I could sum up in a word my true position here after one session in Parliament, I would say that I am today a capitalist Social Crediter. We must realize that those two words are not inconsistent but they are complementary. One can be a Social Crediter and remain capitalist, or capitalist and remain a Social Crediter.
Mr. Speaker, if I have astonished or surprised many members here, particularly members from older parties, I must give them some satisfying explanations, and I have a magnificent opportunity to do so by using reports published in the Canada Gazette on December 8, 1973, on the great results obtained by ten Canadian banks which are the core of the whole economic life in Canada in its financial relations with all countries in the world.
We are tied to all the other nations of the world not only by oil but also and more so by money. Oil and money could bring disagreements between peoples but also they are the cause of relations between citizens and peoples.
If the Progressive conservatives want to defeat this government on the oil issue, I would like to support and maintain the government on the question of money, finance, capitalism, simply asking that this government take immediate action to remove from the capitalistic system, from the banking and financial system, the deficiencies and the shortcomings which still prevent them it from having the whole people take part in the production they can provide us with.
And it is here, Mr. Speaker, that our knowledge of the Social Credit can be useful to the reformation and the improvement of the social capital because, on the whole, credit is only an extension of capital. When there is enough capital, there is no need for credit. If social capital completely suited everyone, we would not need the Social Credit because all citizens would have social capital in proportion to their needs, desires and ability to enjoy it.
Does not social capital itself depend from social work? Are we not all made to live in society? In social life, work and capital are necessary. We must thus all be capitalists, in fact or in wish. Everybody wants to be a capitalist, that is to say to possess something, to have a lot, a house, a business, furniture, a car, instruction, a good character, friends, a family etc. But it is all this that makes one a capitalist, to have the freedom to choose between the things which we fell necessary, useful or pleasant in life. But we need money today to buy these things. We need money even to buy oil. What is true of the difficulties between countries is also true of the difficulties between the citizens of each country.
Oil and money are necessary everywhere. Thus, I want this government to solve the problem of oil. I also want them to solve the problem of money. If the Progressive Conservatives want to defeat this government because of the oil problem, I want to keep it in office because of money problems. And money problems can be solved here in the Parliament of Canada immediately among ourselves
[Mr. Allard.)
according to our legislative powers. Our oil problems depend for a large part on foreign countries. So if we want to solve anything it is becoming pressing to solve first things which depend on us, which are within our immediate power-the money problems. If there is an oil shortage there is plenty of money. There is usually never any shortage of money but even if there is one somewhere it is because there is overabundance elsewhere in this country. There is generally plenty of money, so let the Progressive Conservatives instead of trying to defeat the government on an oil issue, keep it on the issue of the abundance of money and its better distribution among all Canadians who are full-fledged citizens who must have guaranteed personal incomes either through their work, their capital or their personal vital rights. That is the first requirement of any democratic capitalist system which takes the people into account in its monetary, economic and political administration. That is the essence of our requirements, Mr. Speaker.
A good capitalist system includes not only big banks, companies, or national or multinational corporations. A good capitalist system needs all consumers, all workers, all capitalists, all university graduates wherever they may exercise their talent, their science and their competence.
So our capitalist system must be brought up-to-date in view of the benefits it can produce as illustrated in the last reports on the ten chartered banks as of October 21 last and published in the Canada Gazette on December 8, 1973. I am not making up those figures. I am not trying to mislead or lure anyone. I take those figures in reports most trusted by this government.
So, on October 31, 1973, our ten banks increased their assets by $14.4 billion, to the terrific sum of $75 billion, and they started with a sum of $60.6 billion on October 31,
1972.	Imagine, Mr. Speaker, there is a spectacular increase of $14.4 billion over 12 months for ten Canadian banks. To put this phenomenal increase in the right perspective, in a year when all Canadians suffered from inflation, unemployment and poverty, when our governments repeatedly have to borrow and incur deficits in their administration, it is important to note that these increases were only $6 billion since the introduction of the 1967 Bank Act. But in
1973,	there is an increase of $14.4 billion, that is to say 228 per cent more than last year. To better evaluate the impact of this important factor on Canadian finance, it is essential to know that in 1967, the banks' assets amounted to $30 billion in round figures, that is after 100 years, and 33 years after the creation of the Bank of Canada. But in six years, these assets have gone up from $30 to $60 billion, an increase of two and a half times.
I hope I have been well understood. I hope I shall not have to make that point again when I ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) whether if he has found a magic wand or an alchemic formula to balance his budget, that of other families in the Rimouski constituency and throughout Canada, when I ask him to provide a guaranteed personal income to all dependents, unemployed and penniless, on the basis of their vital right.
I also hope that I will not have to bring up again the ticklish issue of the tremendous power of banks and multinational corporations, when I ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Gray) to equalize
March 5, 1974

incomes, expenditures, taxes and reserves among consumers, producers and corporations, when I also ask the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Stanbury) to treat ordinary people as fairly as professionals, unions and corporations, to do justice to labour as well as to management and to better balance their incomes.
In short, Mr. Speaker, let us not forget that if there is a shortage of oil somewhere, there is a great supply of money which is not properly distributed among all Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne deals so much with inflation, unemployment and poverty in Canada in 1973 and 1974, let us not forget that all those symptoms reveal the national economic imbalance between magnificent production, defective consumption and extravagant capitalization, since in 1973, out of a $114 billion production, only $66 billion are earmarked for consumption, $48 billion for capitalization for the years to come, including $8 billion to be capitalized by individuals and $40 billion by private and public corporations.
Let us not forget that such an awkward distribution of a magnificent national production is the result of a legislation imposed by the only government in Canada, for it is the only government having the power to regulate trade and commerce, any mode or system of taxation, currency and coinage, bank laws and the issue of paper money as well as the interest on money, according to section 91 of the British North American Act, according to our present constitution.
Let us face up to things without trying to blame the past or criticize anybody. Let everyone assume his own respon-sabilities without forgetting especially the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), the most scholarly of us all, the most able to know the importance of the altogether simple and universal management method, according to which income includes expenses and profits; a method as necessary to the smallest consumer as to the Royal Bank of Canada whose current assets of $18,366 billion increased by $3.6 billion in a single taxation year, namely 1972-73.
I also wish that the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury), who distributes family allowance cheques for the smallest children in Canada and the biggest cheque of the Prime Minister, would realize that there is no lack of money in this country when it comes to guaranteeing every dependent his minimum living wage, his individual guaranteed income, in direct relation with the national production of the current year, that will be over $5,000 per capita in 1974, or an average of $28,000 for a family of five.
I also wish, Mr. Speaker, that each member would think over the words that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said on July 1, 1973, Confederation Day, where he stated proudly and I quote:
The best part of our constitution stems perhaps from our set of values which puts in the first place the quality of life and gives such importance to the individual, where everyone can develop while respecting the characteristics of other people.
To conclude my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I shall summarize them as briefly as possible and insist with the Prime Minister on our set of values, respect for other people and the value of human dignity, as we keep on supporting our
The Address-Mr. Clermont
banks and corporations which can certainly produce and capitalize as they have demonstratd this year in an extraordinary way.
In view of the oil shortage, we are all convinced that we have money in quantities in all its forms and that money shortage is only artificial, temporary and casual, and that we are in a position to solve the problem immediately through the passage of legislation, as soon as we are ready to open our eyes on the real values of our Canadian democratic capitalistic system, by correcting immediately its defects and filling its gaps that threaten in the long run to make it lose its natural beauty. Therefore, we must simply proceed to a better distribution of what we are producing between all of us.
As far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, I speak of the respect we owe one another, in this House. Far too often, unhappily, we, in the Social Credit party, are ignored in our claims and are laughed at because of widespread prejudice. I would like you to know that all the Social Credit knowledge only helps us to better understand capitalism without recommending its destruction, on the contrary. As far as I am concerned, when I rise in this House, let us all be assured that I place myself in the atmosphere of the capitalist system in which we are living, working and paying taxes, while we see large banks and companies being granted substantial privileges, through our legislation, which even causes inflation, unemployment and poverty that we would be able to control as soon as we decide to do so, since our government have favoured or tolerated poverty, unemployment and inflation through technical measures. This Government will re-establish the national economic balance between individuals, families and companies through contrary technical measures and not thanks to an election or a threat of election.
If we are the higher institution in Canada, we must assume all our responsibilities and prove as a good administration in the balance and harmony of all the components of Canada.


Mr. Gaston Clermont (Gatineau):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset of my remarks, I wish to congratulate my two colleagues, the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Stollery) and the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Pelletier), the mover and the seconder of the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. They dealt with very important matters on various levels.
Mr. Speaker, the criticism made following the reading of the Speech from the Throne was the same as always, too many generalities, too many omissions, etc.
The Speech from the Throne is a document that stresses the points on which the government intends to legislate during the present session, but some events like the energy crisis during the last session may require bringing other pieces of legislation before Parliament.
But usually, as the session goes on, the legislative program set forth in the Speech from the Throne is brought before Parliament, amended in certain cases and finally passed. The speech read by the Governor General on February 27 deals with several economic, social and scientific matters, such as the energy crisis, inflation, means designed to offset its consequences and ensure supplies to

March 5, 1974
The Address-Mr. Clermont
consumers at reasonable prices in the near and distant future.
So it is proposed to help small and medium-sized businesses, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act and the Canada Pension Plan. First, I would like to deal with inflation which has spared no country in 1973. Several factors have caused the increase in prices, like bad crops, the growth of world population and, in many parts of the world, the shortage of food, changes in eating habits, the strong economic growth in several industrial countries like Canada, which actual growth rate was the highest in the last 17 years, have experienced in 1973 which has brought about a shortage of basic materials and food, the decrease of oil exports by some producing countries and price increases.
All these cases I just outlined have bad effects on food prices, materials and products involved in industrial processing and the building trade. In order to alleviate these effects, the federal government chose selective measures and continues to do so. Inflation strikes everybody, but particularly large families, people on average or fixed income as well as a large number of retired persons.
That is why we have seen the federal government pay subsidies to limit price increases of various items, such as bread, milk, heating oil, gasoline and other oil products, amend tariffs to allow greater imports of fruits and vegetables, increase old age pensions and the guaranted income supplement, increase family allowances gearing them to the cost of living. The sales tax on children's clothing has been removed and the personal income tax geared to the cost of living.
In the Speech from the Throne, the government announces its intention of taking steps to increase food production; I hope it will do the same with regard to industrial products and thus reduce the pressure on prices.
The official opposition prefers an overall price and salary freeze for a period of 90 days. It is not very clear about what steps would follow. Recently, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) suggested, also to counter inflation, doing away with the sales tax on building materials and clothing.
With regard to the tax on building materials, he did not specify what measures would make up the reduction in income that would amount to about $500 million. Some may say that government expenditures will be cut down; Mr. Speaker, that reminds me of the experience with the conservative government: from May 1957 to 1963 they made the same promise. What was the result? An annual increase in expenditures.
The progressive conservative party might perhaps want to increase personal income taxes to make up the' shortage. Who knows?
Mr. Speaker, we are aware of the experience of the United States and the United Kingdon in the area of price and wage controls which, following completion of Phase IV of the program, resulted in an exhaustion of supply sources and the spiralling of prices in the United States.
Here is what the policy of the Progressive Conservative Party was on inflation, as reported in the March 1, 1974

issue of the Montreal Gazette by Mr. John Meyer, the former financial critic with this newspaper, and I quote: [English.]
The Conservatives, predictably, have persisted in their argument for controls-surely an anomolous position for the party bearing the name it does to be in. They have been making that argument for so long, and with such indifference to the experience of other countries where controls have been used, that it has begun to threaten their credibility as an alternative to both the Liberals and the New Democrats.
Their persistence is curious in view of the number of senior members of the party with business and financial backgrounds, both practical and academic. There was, and still may be although with clearly reduced force, an argument for controls on strictly political grounds. Controls would be evidence of a government's determination to explore every means of containing inflation and some stability in prices might even be achieved over the short run.
But as the definition and scope of inflation has become clearer, and its source largely found to lie in the inability of production to keep abreast of demand, controls can now be seen more likely to prolong and intensify inflation than to contain it. That is what is happening in the U.S. where continuing shortages of both basic commodities and finished products are directly attributable to the inability of producers to adequately cover their costs.
Mr. Speaker, the labour and industrial sectors will not generally support a global policy of price controls, no matter their duration. Some quarters consider that the present state of inflation is attributable to the growth of spending by the various levels of government, and of the money supply. Under these circumstances, in view of the problems resulting from the energy crisis, I feel it would be a gross lack of responsibility to minimize them, since it may happen that because of the increase in the price of oil, which tripled within the past six months, some of our trading partners may face serious problems as far as their balance of payments is concerned. This could result in a very considerable decrease in their economic growth, and we are aware of the impact of our exports on our economy.
The results of a recent survey indicated that the biggest problem for many Canadians is that of energy. It will be recalled that in June 1973, the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources published a paper on energy in Canada. Among other things, the study analyzed energy supply and demand in Canada and many measures that could be implemented. It was then proven that they were most timely, following what happened in the fall of 1973 when some producing countries cut back their crude oil exports and greatly increased prices. At that time, two major problems came up, that of supply and that of prices which Canadian consumers would have to pay.
As far as supplies are concerned, we know that Canada was divided in two ever since 1961 by a line known as the Ottawa Valley or Borden Line. West of this line, oil was mainly shipped from western Canada by pipeline. Consumers east of the line were supplied mainly by cheaper oil imported from a number of producing countries in the middle East and Venezuela. In this case, means of transportation had to be provided without delay in order to ensure a constant flow of oil in this part of the country.
On September 4 and December 6, 1973, the Prime Minister of Canada advised the House of the action the government would take to deal with this difficult situation. On September 4, 1973, he announced the following steps:

1.	The oil industry will be asked to refrain from making further price increases affecting Canadian consumers before January 30, 1974. This price restraint would apply except where, to the satisfaction of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald), the increase in the cost of imported crude oil warrants a Canadian price increase.
2.	The government intends to seek a control mechanism whereby higher prices in the U.S. market would not automatically increase prices at home in Canada.
3.	The government will also hold early consultations with provinces and industry on the extension of pipeline facilities so as to enable Canadian oil to be shipped into Montreal. At a time of rapidly escalating international prices, this would put Canadian oil into competition with international oil and would give additional security against international disruption of supply.
In the meantime, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, with the co-operation of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand), was setting up additional means of transportation to provide adequate supplies to the residents of Quebec and the Atlantic provinces, either through the re-opening of the pipeline between Toronto and Ottawa which had been closed in 1962 or through the St. Lawrence Seaway from Sarnia to Montreal, until the closing of the latter, or by rail, truck or tanker from Vancouver to Montreal, the latter going through the Panama Canal. In December 1973, the Prime Minister announced further measures such as:
1.	The creation of a unique national market, the effect of which will be to abolish the "Borden Line" or "the Ottawa Valley Line".
2.	A pricing mechanism to provide sufficient incentives for the development of oil resources.
3.	Measures to ensure that any escalation in returns and revenues as a result of any higher prices will be used in a manner conducive to security and self-sufficiency.
4.	The early completion of a pipeline of adequate capacity to serve Montreal and, as required, more eastern points.
Mr. Speaker, the federal government recently announced the extension of the pipeline between Sarnia and Montreal, the construction of a second pipeline on Canadian soil, namely between Winnipeg and Montreal.
In January 1974, Parliament passed the emergency legislation on energy supplies.
As far as prices are concerned, consumers east of the Ottawa Valley Line have to pay a little more for their oil products. But following the Energy Conference held in Ottawa on January 22nd and 23rd at which the Federal government and the provinces agreed to hold a voluntary temporary price freeze on oil coming from Saskatchewan and Alberta, assurances were secured that the Federal government would protect the five Eastern provinces which have to rely on off-shore oil against the substantial increases they would have to face after February 1st, 1974.
The Federal government then agreed to maintain the price differential and assured Eastern residents that their prices would not increase on February 1st and that at the end of the voluntary freeze period in two months time prices would be even across the country, with allowances for freight costs. Then the Federal government will make substantial grants available to Eastern provinces so that costly off-shore oil will fall back to the same price as cheaper Western oil. The Federal government has resumed its talks with the oil producing provinces with a view to
The Address-Mr. Clermont
reaching by March 31, 1974 a consensus that will benefit all Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, on August 3, 1973, the Federal government announced a new feed grains policy to be implemented in two stages. The first would be a concrete program for 1973-74 dealing with price parity between Eastern and Western Canada, and adequate supplies during the winter months. With respect to supplies, due to various circumstances, feed stocks in the province of Quebec in this period are far from being adequate, and I seriously wonder if groups and organizations would not be interested in seeing that program fail. We know that when that program was announced there were rather violent reactions to such a project. I urge the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Lang) as well as the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) to make sure of that.
In another sector of agriculture, the Canadian Federation of milk producers has submitted to the federal government a series of requests to ensure these producers the incomes required to supply Canadian consumers with the dairy products they need, and a fair return for their work, their investments and their management skills. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the cabinet will seriously consider these requests and that the Minister of Agriculture, when he announces the government dairy policy for 1974-75, will also announce a substantial increase for industrial milk producers.
In going through the main estimates for the fiscal year ending on March 31, 1975, I note, in the estimates of the National Capital Commission, that an amount of $8 million will be spent on phase 2 of the highway network development in the national capital area north of the Ottawa river, that a further amount of $3,500,000 will be spent on sewers and $500,000 on public transportation.
The first two amounts are part of the comprehensive plan that the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada and the Minister of Transport had announced in 1969 and which will be carried out across the Ottawa river in the next 25 years.
As you remember, a general agreement on the improvement of the highway network on the Quebec side of the national capital area was reached on January 7, 1972, between the province of Quebec and the federal government, listing several projects to be carried out over a few years, such as the building of a bridge over the Gatineau river, the widening of Greber Blvd. from Maloney Blvd. in Gatineau to Archambault Blvd. in Gatineau Point, and the development of a limited access expressway from highway 8 in a south-west direction to the Gatineau river, as well as expressway A50 from Aylmer to Masson.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the parties who are negotiating the construction of this highway between the bridge on the Gatineau River, presently known as the "Pont des Dra-veurs", and Highway A5, to get this project under way soon so that the people living east of Pointe-Gatineau who have to go to Hull and Ottawa can use it and relieve the traffic on Greber Boulevard at peak hours.
Regarding the $500,000 contribution for public transport, it is to be linked with the agreement reached last fall between different government levels and agencies to

March 5, 1974
The Address-Miss MacDonald eliminate the traditional double fare applicable between Ottawa and Hull.
For many years now, the members of Parliament representing the Quebec part of the Ottawa region have asked for this measure, which has now taken the form of a $500,000 contribution from the National Capital Commission, made in the name of the federal government. The fact that there is now a transport commission on both sides of the Ottawa River probably helped to reach such an agreement.


Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, the throne speech which we are now debating is conspicuous more for what it does not say than for what it does. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has described it as a matter of fact document. This is synonymous with saying that it is prosaic, ponderous, pretentious; in fact, dull. It lacks imagination, compassion, identifiable objectives. It is, however, a true reflection of the government which presented it-stolid, complacent, selfsatisfied, even sanctimonious; much like the Pharisee who looked at others in their misery and thanked God that he was not as they. That attitude on the part of the Liberals opposite, Mr. Speaker, is the cause of much of the malaise in this country today.
We are saddled with a government that lacks daring, innovation, imagination; a government that lags along day after day in the same old rut, lacking the will to fight the problems that beset millions of Canadians, afraid to depart from the well-worn practices of a bygone era and come up with some contemporary policies; a government that was old the day it was born.
It makes parliament watchers wonder whatever happened to such spirited individuals as Walter Gordon, Judy LaMarsh and Joe Greene with their free-wheeling ideas- individuals whom the Liberal Party used to encourage. One is left with the distinct impression that cabinet solidarity today means thinking alike, acting alike, doing nothing to upset the uniformity and sameness which characterizes this government.


Mitchell William Sharp: You are much too optimistic.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the government lacks leadership which is responsive and sensitive to the needs of the country, and that lack is sadly reflected in the Speech from the Throne.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Canadians today are beset by fears of inflation and the spiralling cost of living. For thousands upon thousands on fixed incomes, their weekly shopping is an agony to be endured as the purchasing power of their dollar goes steadily downward. There is no relief in sight, certainly not in this throne speech, for the escalating costs of bread, milk, sugar, meat-the staples; no relief in sight for the thousands of would-be home owners for whom the cost of purchasing a house is prohibitive. Nothing in this speech indicates that the government is concerned with preven-

tive health plans. Instead, the government adds to the worries of millions of Canadians by reducing the rate of funding available to the Medical Research Council from a 5.4 per cent annual increase to 2.5 per cent for 1974-75.
Under Liberal management, the prolonged scientific and medical struggle to combat cancer, heart disease, multiple sclerosis, genetic defects-all diseases-is downgraded. Senior medical researchers are being denied the funding they so grievously require. Some of our most talented scientists will be forced to leave Canada to continue their research in countries whose governments place a much higher premium on health protection. It is a sad commentary on the Liberal government that it sees fit to spend $100 per capita on unemployment insurance, but a mere $2 per capita on medical research. It is ludicrous to think that this government can spend $2 billion annually for unemployment insurance and only $40 million next year for medical research. Surely Canadians have a right and a duty to demand that government priorities and spending are brought into line with reality.
Mr. Speaker, reference to Canada's native peoples is almost non-existent in this throne speech. This cannot be attributed merely to the oversight of one minister but, rather, to the collective decision of an entire cabinet. Brief reference is made to rural and native housing programs. We shall have to await legislation for details, but I trust these programs will apply to native housing both on and off the reserves. Over 80 per cent of current native housing is substandard, and the rate of housing starts for native people has been running at half the rate of that for other Canadians. I trust the new legislation is designed to eliminate both these inequities and to eliminate the hardships in settlements such as Fort Rae, where 1,000 natives live in small wooden homes at temperatures sometimes of 60 degrees to 70 degrees below zero, homes heated primarily by wood stoves, homes without running water and indoor facilities. And there are many native communities such as Fort Rae across Canada.
There is nothing in the throne speech to indicate that the government is prepared to recognize and accept the principle of aboriginal rights; nothing to show that a native communications policy which will provide for continuing dialogue in their own languages is in the offing; nothing to indicate that the government is willing to meet its commitment to provide funding to Indian organizations so that the Indian Act can be revised by and for Indians, both male and female. I trust the minister will be making positive statements in all these areas in the near future.
The throne speech does make specific mention of guaranteed loans and other forms of assistance to both farmers and fishermen to assist them in purchasing or modernizing their equipment; incentives to increase Canada's catch of unexploited stocks of fish; and assistance to young farmers to provide sufficient financial incentives for them to establish themselves in farming. We will insist that these programs will apply, without question, to native people both on and off reserves and that the government will not try to fob-off requests from Indian bands for assistance under these new proposals by referring them to the ill-conceived, poorly administered, highly restrictive

economic development loan fund which they now have to cope with.
The native people, Mr. Speaker, get very short shrift in the throne speech. But that is becoming more and more a characteristic of this Liberal government. A senior civil servant, Walter Rudnicki, attempts to consult with the native council over housing policy and is summarily dismissed-not given the opportunity for discussion or even resignation, which we were told the other day is the "Liberal way", but cavalierly thrown out on his ear without notice. Why? Because of consulting with native people. That is short shrift indeed.
A few weeks ago the native people of the James Bay area were given very short shrift when the minister threatened to cut off legal aid in their battle to halt the massive James Bay project until their aboriginal claims are settled. Legal aid will be cut off, the minister says, if the Indians are "unreasonable". What does he mean by "unreasonable"? Surely, throughout this long-protracted struggle it is the minister himself who merits the description "unreasonable". He and his government have consistently refused to assume their constitutional and moral responsibility with regard to the James Bay native people. Rather, they have maintained a narrow, legalistic, rigid approach, lacking compassion, sensitivity and understanding.
During the recess the minister found it convenient to throw around terms like "unreasonable", while at the same time lavishing praise on the Bourassa government's handling of the situation. I hope that now these aberrations are past, he will assume the responsibility he has hitherto ignored and lend his full support and the weight of the federal government to backing the position of the native people of J ames Bay.
As I have said, the native people received only minimal reference in the throne speech, but that vast area north of the sixtieth parallel, two-fifths of Canada, fared even worse. It did not merit a single word. I realize the government has signified its intent to introduce a bill to amend the Yukon Act and the Northwest Territories Act. This will, I trust, mean significant amendments, not just a political restructuring to allow for a fully elected council, an executive committee, the addition or more councillors or the separation of the role of Speaker and Commissioner, important as these are, but significant amendment which will indicate this government is finally prepared to do something to remove the stigma of colonialism which permeates the north; that it will untie the apron strings from Ottawa; that it will hand over to the territorial councils fiscal responsibility for those areas already administered by the territorial civil service-education, housing and local government.
Unless that step is taken, unless the federal government is prepared to concede some of its fiscal authority, all other proposals are merely a charade, a farce perpetrated against 60,000 northerners who deserve something better. As legislators we, any one of us, would be appalled to participate in a legislative process of dealing with appropriations where we had the right to ask questions but were denied the right to propose changes, additions or deletions.
The Address-Miss MacDonald
At the recent Northwest Territories Council sessions in Yellowknife, some of which I attended, the elected councillor from the eastern Arctic pointed out that there were some 200 children of school age in his area with severe hearing defects, but that no programs or special facilities were provided for them in the education estimates. Neither, I might add, is there anything done for them by the federal Department of Health and Welfare. Imagine the frustration of this councillor who could indeed raise what one cannot help but recognize as a serious health and educational problem, but who had no power to suggest that expenditures be reallocated to allow for special training of these handicapped children.
It is this kind of responsibility, Mr. Speaker, which northerners should be allowed to exercise. They are close to the problems; they can recommend legitimate action and they should be accorded the fiscal power to enforce it. In the true interest of northerners, and in a real effort to eradicate the last vestiges of colonialism in Canada, I hope the minister is seriously considering incorporating such legislation in the amendments he will be proposing to the territories' acts.
Health care of native people, particularly those living in isolated areas, is woefully inadequate. Study after study points up the fact that native people are not provided with a treatment and public health program comparable to that enjoyed by residents elsewhere in Canada. We had a sad illustration of that just recently with the death of a two-month old Indian child in Alberta. Nowhere is this inadequate treatment more apparent than in the isolated communities north of the sixtieth parallel. Doctors are few, and dentists almost non-existent. There are only seven dentists employed by the Department of National Health and Welfare, and a few in private practice, to serve a population of 60,000 scattered across 1.5 million square miles.
An official of the Department of National Health and Welfare used these words to describe dental health among native northerners: "The conditions of teeth among the people of the north can best be described as 'oral sewers', and this stands in strong contrast to the universally healthy state of teeth that was seen before the native people were introduced to the white man's diet." The Nutrition Canada national survey report released last November contained a number of references to nutritional problems among Canada's native people. It spoke of vitamin C deficiency, vitamin A deficiency and other dietary related illnesses; but it went on to say that the data collected for the Indians and Inuit have not yet been fully analysed and a special report on these groups would not be available until at least six months after the initial report and recommendations of last fall had been released. Is it any wonder that our native people are made to feel as second-class citizens when they are continually relegated to the tag end position, to the status of an appendix on governmental reports?
A recent report on mental helath in northern communities observes that, first of all, it is apparent that a number of myths entertained by both northerners and uninitiated southerners alike must be laid aside if we are to seriously grapple with the many problems confronting our northern citizens. One of these myths is that people indigenous to

March 5, 1974
The Address-Miss MacDonald the north are a simple, contented lot, accustomed to the rigors of the Arctic environment and satisfied as long as white intruders leave them and their ecology alone. At one time this may have been true. Today it is definitely false. This is not to say that the Indian and Eskimo peoples do not love "the land", nor that they are helpless and despairing in contending with the elements. Quite the contrary.
The report goes on to say that it would be absurd not to recognize the cultural disintegration and change in lifestyle amongst the indigenous population which is a direct result of the inroads made by the white man's culture. Both native culture and natural ecology have been disrupted and traditional hunting economics, whether inland or coastal, would no longer seem to be viable. Virtually no Arctic community can now be considered self-sustaining.
One serious consequence of cultural erosion has been a loss of traditional control by the community over the behaviour of its members. This disruption and the dominating influence of southern educational systems and technology in northern settlements has irrevocably altered northern society. Therefore, the report states, while this is not a comparative study in the strict sense, it seems safe to say that the people of the north, whether white, Indian, Metis or Eskimo, want and need the same kind and quality of facilities and services available to southern Canadians. One might go so far as to state that because of the severity of the climate, the relative isolation and the long, dark winters, the need for a full range of high quality services and public amenities is much more acute in the north. Unfortunately, such services are not available and this lack is felt by all northern residents. For the aged and economically depressed, the problems of northern living are further compounded. This study was funded by a grant from the Department of Manpower and Immigration. It sets forward the facts in a very straightforward manner.
I mention these health reports which are particularly directed to problems in the north-hearing defects, lack of dental facilities, nutritional deficiences, mental health hazards-to show that they exist and that concerned Canadians are aware they exist. But if the throne speech is a true reflection of the Liberal government's thinking- and I have no reason to doubt it-then I can only assume that the cabinet is not particularly concerned with these problems.
The throne speech makes special reference to transportation as a key factor in regional development. It goes on to say that steps will be taken to ensure that Canada's transportation capability supports the government's national goals and is safe and efficent. Those two words "sufficient" and "efficient" interest me. At the present time the government is engaged in building a multimillion dollar highway along the Mackenzie corridor, a highway that was begun as a political come-on without the benefit of adequate, or even any social and evironmental impact studies. Is that highway safe from environmental damage? Is it efficient? Well, compared with what? The costs of the highway have escalated wildly since it was announced in April of 1972. The environmental and social hazards are rapidly becoming apparent even without the studies having been done; and the highway, it appears, has few ardent advocates except for a cabinet clique.

The Canadian gas Arctic consortium have publicly stated a highway is not necessary to their developmental plans, if and when a pipeline is built. The native communities have voiced their opposition on a number of occasions. They regard the Mackenzie River itself as their traditional highway. Residents of far northern communities such as Inuvik see no advantage to driving at least 1,000 miles to Yellowknife so that they can board a plane to fly to other centres farther south. They would go by air in the first place: the people in the north "think air."
If the government is serious in developing a transportation policy that is safe and efficient and which will contribute to regional development throughout the north, why does it not admit that a better alternative might be to use the $300 million to $400 million which has been estimated as the cost of the Mackenzie Highway, to hard-surface and enlarge existing airstrips, build new ones in those communities which are still isolated and, most important, subsidize air travel and air transport throughout the north? Such a plan would benefit northerners from Frobisher Bay to Old Crow.
The $300 million which is being spent on the highway would subsidize air transport for years to come and would eliminate intolerable inequities in the present travel costs, inequities which set the rate structure at $110 for an air ticket from Edmonton to Toronto, an air distance of 1,700 miles, but which demands a payment of $150 from Edmonton to Inuvik, an air distance of 500 miles less, or 1,200 miles. Travel costs in southern Canada are 6 cents per mile; in northern Canada 12 cents per mile-double the rate This is just another example of discrimination against northern Canadians. This injustice could be eliminated by equalizing transportation costs in the north of Canada as well as elsewhere in the country.
If this country is to achieve its full potential, equal consideration must be given to all Canadians and to all regions. The native people and the northern territories deserve the recognition this throne speech has denied them.


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, as has occurred several times before, I would most sincerely like to compliment the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. I would also like to compliment my leader on what I feel was an effective and worth while amendment to the motion proposed by the hon. members on the government side.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: In my view, the time has come for this House to face some harsh realities. When I listened to the Speech from the Throne I was disturbed to hear the net content that was being suggested by the government with regard to any plans they might have for the curtailing or control of inflation in this country. I was more disturbed than ever when I listened to the rambling, disjointed speech of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) when he entered this debate. One conference which he made I would again like to quote for the record:
I draw a similar parallel to allude to the goings-on in the New Democratic Party. It has to do with an ocean liner but the parallel is a bit different. It has to do with seagulls. Because they were squawking
March 5, 1974

and making a lot of noise, they thought they were actually running the ship.
Like many other members of the House, I laughed when the Prime Minister made that comment. If he chose to compare the NDP with the scavenger bird, the seagull, and suggest that somehow they were catching refuse from a ship, that comparison presumably was his right to make. However, it suddenly dawned on me, if the NDP are only the seagulls following the ship, who in fact is running the ship? Up to this point I had assumed the NDP were running the ship, the government of this country. We now have the admission that while we do have a majority government with two caucuses, neither caucus is completely sure of which is actually running the ship.
Having listened to the current Speech from the Throne and the speech of the Prime Minister, I thought it would be interesting to see what was said in previous throne speeches and by this Prime Minister since he took office in April, 1968, concerning inflation. The reason I say that is you will recall, Mr. Speaker, having received in this House estimates for the fiscal year 1974-75 that are truly startling. It has already been pointed out that these estimates contemplate an expenditure of 20 per cent more than was spent in the previous year, based on the original estimates. Perhaps it puts the magnitude of the government's spending spree into perspective when we realize that by the end of 1975 the government will have spent, at the federal level, $120 billion. Give them one more year and they will have spent, since they took office in 1968, more than has been spent by federal governments in Canada in the previous 100 years.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: These are the hard facts. Yet this is a government which when it took power in 1968 had the audacity to say it would control government expenditures.


Mr. Benjamin:: What would you cut?


Walter David Baker: We'll start with you.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: It is not only the growth of government spending which is startling; it is the growth in the monetary supply of the nation. In the past three years, for example, the money supply in Canada has increased by 53 per cent, an increase of 17 per cent per year on average. Government expenditure in the last six years has gone up faster than 20 per cent a year. Can anyone sensibly say that a government which induces such increases in our money supply and in federal spending is not an inflationary government?
Having mentioned this, I should like to refer to certain statements made in previous speeches from the throne. For example, on September 16, 1968, the speech said:
Parliament will be asked during the present session to consider proposals for a systematic and continuous review of prices and costs in our economy. Just as incomes cannot increase faster than productivity if price increases are to be restrained so government spending by all levels of government cannot increase faster than productivity if we wish to restrain the increase in levels of taxation. These two realities are among the most important that Canadians and their leaders much bear in mind during the months and years ahead.
The Address-Mr. Stevens
The speech went on to say that the government would be conscious of the limitations it must place on its expenditures. This is 1968, and bear in mind that inflation in that period was approximately one-third of the current inflation in this country. Speaking in the debate on the Speech from the Throne of that year, the Prime Minister said there must be "a freeze on civil service growth". He stated:
We have issued explicit guidelines to be used in the preparation of the estimates of 1969-70 and we shall not hesitate to take whatever other actions may be necessary to restrain the growth in our expenditures.
That was in September, 1968. I would draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, that in the fiscal year ending March, 1968, total expenditures by the government of that time amounted to $9.9 billion. Today we are faced with an expenditure somewhat in excess of $23 billion, by the same government. Perhaps I might turn now to October 23, 1969, the date of the next Speech from the Throne. There it is stated:
In recent months the government has urged both the public and the private sectors to adopt special measures to combat the dangers of inflation. These measures, which the government has itself adopted, must be applied by all if further restraints are to avoided.
Again, speaking in the debate on that Speech from the Throne, the Prime Minister noted that the opposition parties had had much to say about the government's alleged failure to act in controlling spending. Mr. Speaker, there can be little doubt that history has shown the opposition parties were quite correct in their allegation.


John Napier Turner: What about last year- wanting to double the estimates from your side?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I turn, now, to Hansard of October 8, 1970, where we find the following statement contained in the Speech from the Throne:
We are not yet free of inflationary pressure but there has been real progress and price increases have abated to the extent that the Canadian record in the battle against inflation is superior to that so far attained in any other western country. In the result it has been possible for the past several months to moderate certain monetary and fiscal restraints.
I would draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that the government then took credit for a better record than that of any other western industrialized nation. Yet today we are repeatedly told by the same government that there is little we can do about inflation in Canada, that we are caught up in the worldwide inflationary experience. I suggest the government is not being candid with the Canadian people. They know that inflation can be contained. They know what measures can be taken. But they hesitate, through lack of leadership, to take those measures.
Mr. Speaker, in the debate on the Speech from the Throne to which I have just referred, the Prime Minister made a startling comment. He said:
May I repeat at this point that the first step which was proposed to us was the fight against an inflation which had become a threat to the whole economy. Courage was needed to take that step.
Here we have a Prime Minister who said he felt he must take action against inflation, a threat to the whole economy. Yet the inflation to which he referred amounted, in fact, to one-third of the inflation we are presently

March 5, 1974
The Address-Mr. Stevens
experiencing. Is it unfair to assume that if there was a threat to the economy in 1970 or earlier, there is a triple threat today with inflation running at more than 9 per cent per annum?
Last session, Statistics Canada produced some very relevant figures which show how inflationary the present government has been in its first five years of office and in its latest year. Let me point out that during the St. Laurent government's five years in office ending January, 1958, inflation in this country amounted to 6.7 per cent. For five years of the Diefenbaker government ending in January, 1963, inflation was 7 per cent; in other words, 1.4 per cent on an annual basis. In the first five years of the Pearson government ending in January, 1968, inflation rose to 15.6 per cent. And in the first five years of the Trudeau government it went to 22.3 per cent. That was the most sensational five-year period of inflation Canada has had, barring wartime. In the past year, January, 1973, to January, 1974, inflation has increased another 9.1 per cent.
Is there no relationship between the government's spending as I have outlined it and the government's policy of printing money? Certainly the financial leaders of this country are becoming alarmed. For example, the largest life insurance company in Canada, Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, through its president, Mr. Thomas Galt, stated at the annual meeting held on February 12 of this year:
It cannot be denied that the rapid growth in government expenditures and in the money supply in recent years have been major causes of the inflation we are having in Canada. Inflation must be combated-soon and effectively-or the damage to our economies, if not to our entire social order, will be irreparable.
That is what was said by the president of Sun Life, and I note that his words are very similar to the words of the Prime Minister in 1970 when he felt he had a better case to present than he has today. Mr. Earle McLaughlin, chairman and president of the Royal Bank of Canada, spoke to his shareholders on January 10 of this year and said:
I hope that the various governments would exercise restraint on the expenditure side, as a means to dampen inflation.
That was before the government tabled its $23 billion estimates for the current fiscal year. Surely there can be no suggestion that this is restraint. It is becoming customary for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), and I am pleased to see that he is with us tonight-


John Napier Turner: I never miss anything you say, and I never learn anything either.


An hon. Member:: That's because you're a slow learner.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: It is often said by the Minister of Finance and by his leaders, both on the New Democratic side and on the Liberal side, that somehow our inflationary record has been better than the inflationary record of the United States. In this respect, the Bank of Canada review of February, 1974, referring to the OECD report, puts the record straight, and I think it is time this government put the record straight concerning this comparison between the United States and Canada. In spite of virtually no inflationary pressure of the nature the United States has

had to live with, our record has been worse than the United States record in the past two years.
Let me quote from table 1 on page 6 of that Bank of Canada review. In 1972, United States inflation was 3.3 per cent, while ours was 4.8 per cent. In 1973, U.S. inflation-I emphasize that this is from a lower base-was 8.8 per cent, compared with our 9.1 per cent. Is it honest for the government to represent that somehow we have a better record than the United States? I suggest that such a statement is not correct. Not only has this government placed severe hardships on many people as a result of its inflationary handling of our economy; it has made millionaires of some individuals and corporations in this country.
I have already referred to the growth in our money system. You will recall that it is proposed in the throne speech that there be an amendment to the Bank Act. I will be very interested to see what the Liberal government intends to do in 1974 with respect to the banks, compared with what it did for the banks in 1967, the year of the great sell-out to the Canadian banks. I make reference to the fact that in that year banking legislation in this country was liberalized to such an extent that between 1967 and 1973 the banks were able to increase their earnings from $116 million to $321 million; that is the amount available for payment to their shareholders or for dividends. There are certainly some individuals and corporations who have truly prospered under the Trudeau government's rule, but I can assure you that it is not the poor man to whom the Prime Minister referred in his speech in this debate.
When explaining the government's record to Canadians, I believe it should be pointed out that when this government took power in April, 1968, Canadians paid $5.2 billion in income tax and in 1974 they will be required to pay twice that amount. This is before one even considers contributions to the unemployment insurance account which will add approximately another $1 billion to their tax load. It took 100 years from confederation to 1967 before the federal government's personal income tax levy reached $5.2 billion. Under the Trudeau government it took only six years to double that figure. That is the true impact of this high spending, high flying government which has the nerve to say that this House should continue to have confidence in it. It is time the people of Canada were asked who should run Canada.


An hon. Member:: David Lewis.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Based on the estimates that have been tabled, after allowing for indexing-an idea that this government accepted from this party, and thank goodness- and after allowing for inflation, personal income taxes are likely to increase by more than 25 per cent as a result of this government's spending spree. If this forecast is borne out by the facts, this will mean that the increase in federal income taxes paid by Canadians will be $2.5 billion, or $200 million more than the entire tax paid by all Canadian citizens in 1963, the last year of the Diefenbaker government.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. It being 9.30 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings
March 5, 1974

and put all questions necessary to dispose of the amendment now before the House.
The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment? All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: All those opposed to the amendment will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. This House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock.
At 10.02 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Wednesday, March 6, 1974