1974-03-04

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The matter of urgent and pressing necessity concerns the immediate danger of the loss to Canada of a sale of locomotives worth $25 million to Cuba and the potential loss of much more in the early future as the result of the failure of the government to make unequivocally clear that all companies operating within Canada are to trade according to priorities established by the government of this country and not to be subservient to foreign law. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn):
That this House instructs the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) to make a statement in this House within 48 hours asserting the primacy of the above-stated principle for all foreign-owned companies located in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the House give unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.


FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT ACT
Hon. Otto E. Lang (for the Minister of Fisheries) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-2, to amend the Fisheries Development Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

Otto Emil Lang: for leave to introduce Bill C-3, to protect human health and the environment from the release of substances that contaminate the environment.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-4, to amend the Export and Import Permits Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. minister rising on a point of order?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I rise on motions. Pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), I should like to lay on the table of the House, in both official languages, the Metric Commission's first report.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House agreed that we return to motions for this purpose?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
104

March 4, 1974
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I am sure the matter is of such importance that the Prime Minister will be familiar with it in any event. I should like to ask whether the government has taken appropriate measures to prevent unreasonable increases in bread prices? Can the Prime Minister tell the House what action the government has taken since last Friday?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Since last Friday?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Since last Friday when the minister spoke.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The minister has been in communication with many of the important sectors of the baking industry. He has secured assurance from some of them that they would not increase the price by four cents. He is in the process now of trying to nail down this agreement, as it were, and I am certain he will want to report on the good news if indeed it materializes as we hope it will.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs who has now entered the House. I should like to ask him specifically what action he has taken to prevent an unreasonable increase in the price of bread and, more specifically, whether he has told the bakeries what bread price increase the government considers to be appropriate and will permit and, if so, what price increase has been authorized?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, Friday afternoon I asked the Bakery Council to transmit to their members my request that they not increase the price of bread beyond the level considered acceptable by the Food Prices Review Board until they have held further meetings with the board. I have just received a message, which I will attempt to paraphrase, from the Bakery Council of Canada.
"Many bakery companies have agreed to restrain their increases to every extent possible. Other bakeries have already incurred cost increases of such magnitude they are simply unable to agree to any change from their action for even a week. They recognize, however, that competitive market pressures will undoubtedly force restraint. In the Bakery Council's overall assessment of the situation, therefore you can expect the general restraint of one cent per 24-ounce loaf through the month of March. This would indicate a move of two cents per 24-ounce loaf in most

markets and three cents a loaf in some. This would be broadly in line with the Food Prices Review Board recommendation." The council completes its message by saying it "shall proceed to resolve a further meeting with the Food Prices Review Board as quickly as a satisfactory meeting format and date can be arranged."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Bell:: Big deal!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the response seems to be a little vague in some respects with regard to any assurance, can the minister indicate to us what position the government is in fact taking, whether the government is simply leaving it to the further discussions that are to take place in the hope that something satisfactory will happen, or is the minister indicating to the industry what price increase the government considers to be acceptable?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend's question is really hypothetical. I can just reiterate the message I have received from the Bakery Council to the effect that "in the bakery council's overall assessment of the situation therefore you can expect the general restraint of one cent per 24-ounce loaf through the month of March." They conclude by saying that they will proceed to have "a further meeting with the Food Prices Review Board as quickly as a satisfactory meeting format and date can be arranged."


PROPOSED INCREASE IN PRICE OF BREAD-PURPOSE OF FURTHER MEETING BETWEEN BAKERY COUNCIL AND FOOD PRICES REVIEW BOARD
Mr. Terry Grier (Toronto-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact the Food Prices Review Board had in its possession prior to the publication of its report the confidential financial statements of the bakeries, would the minister indicate to the House what purpose is to be served by a further meeting between the Bakery Council and the Food Prices Review Board unless it is to permit the Bakery Council a further opportunity to bamboozle both the government and the board into permitting an increase which at this point they have publicly stated is not justified?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the Food Prices Review Board issued a report stating what increase in the price of bread it considers justified. It seems to me there would be good grounds for allowing the Bakery Council a chance to state its position and discuss it with the board so that any further action that would be required would be taken in light of that further discussion. I think the important thing to note is the message I received from the Bakery Council indicating that in its view there would be restraint for the month of March on bread prices to the level considered acceptable by the Food Prices Review Board.


Terrence Wyly Grier: In view of the fact the assurances from the Bakery Council quoted this morning by the minister have a hole in them large enough to drive a bakery truck
March 4, 1974

through, may I ask the minister what steps the government is taking to equip itself with the power to force a roll-back either of these prices or any other prices which in the view of the board are not justified and which the retailers and wholesalers are unprepared to roll back?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: The Prime Minister stated last September and in August, if I am not mistaken, that the government would be prepared to take further action where there were unwarranted price increases, as determined by the Food Prices Review Board, which the parties were unwilling to correct voluntarily. I think the important thing to do is to see the results of this effort that has just been announced. Certainly this is not the time to announce a further policy in this regard, not until we have seen the results of these efforts.


POSSIBILITY OF VIOLATION OF COMBINES ACT BY BAKERIES-LEGISLATION TO PROTECT CONSUMERS AGAINST FURTHER INCREASES IN BREAD AND MILK PRICES
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister if during the course of his discussions with the Bakery Council on Friday he discussed with them the implications of the Combines Investigation Act? I ask that question in view of the reference made to this by the Food Prices Review Board in its report. May I also ask the minister why he did not contact the Bakery Council when the Food Prices Review Board first reported on February 18?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, first of all, the Food Prices Review Board report of February 18 was stated to be a preliminary one. I personally thought it advisable to consider what further action should be taken in light of their more complete report, and promptly on its receipt action was taken.
With respect to the first part of the question, I certainly did not think it proper to go into the type of area my hon. friend has mentioned. I said in the House on Friday that that aspect of the Food Prices Review Board report has been drawn to the attention of the director and certainly he is in a position to carry out his responsibilities under the law.


James Aloysius McGrath: In view of the fact the minister has not received a total commitment from the Bakery Council and in view of the anticipated increases that can be expected not only in bread but in milk as well, I ask the minister what immediate steps the government proposes to take in a legislative way to protect the consumers of this country from any further increases in these two very basic staple foodstuffs?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: The government will be prepared to take appropriate action where necessary as it has demonstrated its commitment and ability to do over the past months.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We should try to complete the first round of questioning. If hon. members have more supplementaries on this subject we might return to it later.
Oral Questions TRADE


CUBAN ORDER FOR LOCOMOTIVES PLACED WITH MONTREAL
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Last week I asked the minister if the government had been attempting to facilitate the sale of locomotives to the government of Cuba and he informed the House that some communication had taken place between our government and the government of the United States. Is he now in a position to inform the House what the results of that communication were?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I have no further word at the present time.


APPLICATION OF CANADIAN RATHER THAN U.S. LAW TO SUBSIDIARIES OF AMERICAN COMPANIES OPERATING IN CANADA
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Would the minister follow the example of Argentina which declared unilaterally that corporations operating within its borders, whether they are subsidiaries of United States companies or not, must operate according to Argentinian law, which led to American subsidiaries in Argentina going to Cuba last week on their own without consulting the United States and obtaining rather substantial orders for their products?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: So far as I know, Mr. Speaker, corporations in Canada do obey Canadian law. If the hon. member has some evidence that they do not obey Canadian law, I would like to have it.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will be recognized for a second supplementary, following which the Chair will see the hon. member for Roberval.


John Edward Broadbent: In view of the fact the firm in question in Montreal did exactly what firms now operating in Argentina no longer do, namely, consult its parent body in the United States before proceeding to sign a contract, would the minister assure the House that this is not in fact the general operating procedure for firms within Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, that, of course, is a different question. I can assure you that the government of Canada, at all levels, has been making representations to the United States government. My colleague, the Minister of Finance, has been in touch with his counterpart in the United States. My department has been in touch with the State Department. Dr. Kissinger has been away. The matter has now been brought to his attention, and we hope it will have a good outcome.

March 4, 1974
Oral Questions


AGRICULTURE
Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture.
Can he tell us if he is aware of a petition signed by all the farmers of the Roberval-Lake St. John area asking for subsidies for the purchase of feed grain this spring? If so, did he give a positive answer to this request?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I did not catch the translation. Did the hon. member say feed grain or seed grain? I do know a request for aid of some kind has come in from the farmers of that area, but I am not in a position to say what action is going to be taken.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I was speaking of seed grain. Everybody knows that this year we are in short supply due to the weather. We are worried about seed grain.


Eugene Whelan: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am aware of their request, but no action has been taken up until this time. We are consulting with the provincial authorities.


AIR TRANSPORT
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. While as yet there is no direct proof that the awful air tragedy which occurred yesterday in the crash of a monster Turkish aircraft in France was caused by international revolutionaries, this is suspected. In recent cases it has been established that there seems to have been a war declared against innocent pilots, crews and passengers on airliners. In view of the fact that the taking of a fellow human being's life in war is justified, and as this is war that is taking place today against innocent people, has any consideration been given by the government, in collaboration with other governments in the western world, to providing that in cases of international treason such as this the penalty shall be death?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as the right hon. gentleman knows, Canada has been in the forefront of the countries that have been trying to get effective international action. We are prepared to take all measures necessary to prevent hijackers operating from Canada. We have been endeavouring to get agreement that there shall be no safe haven for hijackers. This would be the most effective

measure that could be taken. Unfortunately we have not been able to get the agreement of all countries in the world.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, as one who has been an avowed opponent of capital punishment within one's own country I ask this question: Does the minister not consider that this, the latest of several tragedies and the greatest of all, demands not only that the wrongdoers shall not have refuge in any country but that each of the countries within the western world should in fact regard what has taken place as international treason and thereby subject to the penalty of death?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am sure we all share the abhorrence of this dreadful crime that has been committed, if in fact it has been committed as the hon. gentleman said-but the problem is not the punishment; it is bringing these people to trial anywhere in the world.


John George Diefenbaker: A very weak answer.


CUBAN ORDER FOR LOCOMOTIVES PLACED WITH MONTREAL FIRM-BASIS FOR CANADIAN REPRESENTATIONS TO UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a supplementary arising out of the answers given by the Secretary of State for External Affairs to the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby regarding possible trade with Cuba. If I understood what the minister said, it was that the Canadian government was making representations to the United States government regarding a possible deal. May I ask the minister on what basis it is necessary for the Canadian government to request the intercession of a foreign government in an export deal between a Canadian company and some other country? Is it not time for this kind of thing to end so far as Canada is concerned?


John George Diefenbaker: It ended under my administration.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I entirely agree with the hon. gentleman that this kind of action is most undesirable and does not promote good relations between our two countries. But may I say to him that it is not any law of Canada that has been broken but it is a law of the United States that is in question. Americans are being prosecuted in the United States, or could be, for actions taken in Canada. I agree with him that this is most reprehensible, but one has to change the laws of the United States, not of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: It ended under my administration.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. When the hon. member rose on a supplementary to the previous question we were on a question asked by the right hon. member for Prince Albert. I believe the hon. member for Edmonton West has a supplementary to that question, following which the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Dauphin.
March 4, 1974


AIR TRANSPORT
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, reverting to the question asked by the right hon. member for Prince Albert and bearing in mind the concern the minister expressed about the difficulties of apprehending and bringing these people to trial, surely all that is involved is the law within Canada relevant to incidents of this kind. Does the minister not agree that what we do in Canada is not dependent upon what is being done abroad and that the answer is a change in the law of Canada for this particular type of heinous crime?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, whether capital punishment should be restored for a crime of this kind is for the House to decide, but to change the law in Canada would not prevent a Turkish airliner from being destroyed in France, resulting in 350 people being killed. Changing the law in Canada is not going to change that, I regret to say.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. In the Speech from the Throne the government stated that it would "cushion consumers against sudden and disruptive price increases in essential commodities". Can the Prime Minister tell the House which member of his cabinet has been given the over-all responsibility for the study and assessment of such price increases?


James Aloysius McGrath: Not the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, that is obvious.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would repeat the position stated by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, which is the position I took last August and September, that if we have to bring in legislation it will be brought in in the name of the government by one of the government ministers.


William Gordon Ritchie: Has the government laid down the general guidelines that will apply to determine what is "disruptive" and what are "essential commodities"? Have these criteria been established with regard to any increases in prices of commodities as of now?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member refers to my statement he will see, I believe, what he calls general guidelines. The nature of the disruption, its magnitude and its effects on the Canadian economy are, of course, matters for political judgment. I hope the opposition party, as well as the government, recognizes, for instance, in the case of oil, that there have been disruptive events which have caused undue rises in the price of oil internationally.
Oral Questions AGRICULTURE


DAIRYING-INCREASES IN PRICES OF FEED GRAIN, SEED, BINDER TWINE AND OTHER FARM NECESSITIES- GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. With the cost of feed grain, seed, binder twine and many other farm necessities rising by 100 per cent to 300 per cent, what steps is the minister proposing to prevent the complete disintegration of the dairy industry in Canada?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I held ongoing meetings with the dairy farmers while parliament was in recess. I have made a submission to my colleagues that will be dealt with shortly, as I promised the dairy farmers of Canada, because I realize the importance of this industry to our nation, as I think all Canadians do.


John Raymond Ellis: I know the minister has been talking about this matter, but will he tell us whether he will support the requested $2 increase in the industrial milk price?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we agreed with the dairy farmers of Canada to submit a ten-year program for the dairy industry, not a year to year program. That is the end toward which we are working.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that at a recent meeting of the federal and provincial health ministers mutual agreement was reached that the compulsory use of seat belts would indeed cut traffic deaths by 700 annually in Canada, could the minister inform the House whether a concrete consensus was reached at that meeting to have such legislation introduced in the provincial legislatures, as I understand that such legislation falls under provincial scope?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there was unanimous agreement among the provincial ministers of health that such a measure would be appropriate. Obviously, this is a matter for the ministers to raise with their provincial colleagues in each cabinet, and it would be up to each provincial government to decide if and when such a measure would be implemented.

March 4, 1974
Oral Questions EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


PROPOSED FLOODING OF SKAGIT RIVER VALLEY- FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL REPRESENTATIONS TO UNITED STATES AUTHORITIES-JOINT POLICY
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister. It involves the Skagit River problem in British Columbia. I have given notice to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister tell the House what federal-provincial negotiations relating to terms of settlement of the Skagit River issue with Seattle have taken place since June, 1973?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, a great deal of negotiations has taken place. I cannot say that negotiations have been completely concluded, but I can say, to reassure those who are concerned about the flooding of the Skagit, that the federal government is presenting before the Federal Power Commission of the United States, before the deadline of March 15, a very substantial brief against the flooding. As of this day I cannot indicate whether or not that will be a brief presented with the support of the government of British Columbia, but the federal government is presenting that brief, regardless. If the hon. member wants to ask a question closer to the deadline, perhaps I may have further news for him regarding the nature of the presentation.


John Allen Fraser: I thank the Prime Minister for his answer. I wonder if he could be a little more definitive in telling us whether, at the present time, any joint federal-provincial policy on a basis of settlement has been achieved?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I suppose it would be fair to say that there is, presumably, agreement on the part of both that the Skagit should not be flooded, but the way in which the representations should be made to the Federal Power Commission has not been agreed on by the government of British Columbia. The position of the federal government is that the two principals in this question are the government of British Columbia, which has received over a period of many years compensation from the city of Seattle in lieu of the flooding in order to pay in advance for the flooding, and the city of Seattle. The federal government is acting particularly as an authority in international dealings. We are attempting to put the case for British Columbia as strongly as we can because we are irrevocably opposed to the flooding. Whether British Columbia wishes to support us in this presentation has not yet been determined.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings has a supplementary to a previous question. He will be recognized for that purpose and the Chair will then see the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


AGRICULTURE
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister

of Agriculture following the question put to him by the hon. member for Hastings. Keeping in mind the statement in the Speech from the Throne with regard to assisting farmers, does the minister anticipate that forgivable loans at low interest rates will be part of the legislative package he will be presenting to Parliament in the near future?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I would be wrong if I said it has not been considered, but it has not been finalized, either.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. In view of the fact that on both December 10 and January 3 the minister said that the necessary steps would be taken so that veterans in receipt of old age security and the guaranteed income supplement on the one hand and the war veterans allowance on the other would get the cost of living increases in both those benefits which were due in January, whereas the order in council permitted them to get the OAS and GIS increase but not the WVA increase, will the minister say whether this question is being reviewed?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, this matter is being reviewed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL-REQUEST FOR INCREASE IN BUDGET EQUIVALENT TO RISE IN COST OF LIVING
Mr. J. R. Holmes (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare and is related to the Medical Research Council. In view of the serious cutbacks in medical research in Canada and in view of the possible brain drain resulting from the lack of funds, will the minister give his assurance that the moneys allocated to the 1974-75 budget of the Medical Research Council will be increased by an amount at least equivalent to the rise in the cost of living, calculated on the total expenditures in 1973-74 including the belated $1 million grant which of course was far too little and too late?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is entitled to his opinion on this matter.
March 4, 1974


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the government's announced grant of $12,000 to Captain David McTaggart of Vancouver to enable him to return the Greenpeace III to Canada, and in view of the minister's statement in the House that he has been pressing the Greenpeace case with the French government, will the minister now tell the House what official action has been taken by the Canadian government to protest the boarding of this Canadian vessel and what has been the response by the government of France?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have made presentations to the foreign minister of France on a number of occasions. My department has made direct representations to the government of France through the embassy. We are now in process of deciding in which way to press our case against the French government and the decision has not been finally made.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the minister responsible for immigration. It is based on the fact that he has produced some important changes in the regulations regarding immigrants. Immigrants are only to be admitted if they have a firm job offer or if they possess a skill needed in Canada. Keeping in mind that there is a task force working on immigration and that the minister has been asking for suggestions from the Canadian people, can the minister tell us why he was in such a rush to bring in these changes? What was the main reason? Has he concluded there will be a higher level of unemployment in Canada this year? What was the main reason?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the interim changes in the points system, which were made by regulation, came about after five or six years of no change in the initial point system as developed, I think, in 1967. We made the decision to make these changes, based on analysis of the pattern of employment and other matters affecting immigrants over the last three or four years. The information has been made available to us recently. We know that there is a higher incidence of unemployment among immigrants who have no occupational skill capabilities. With the increasing number of applications from abroad we thought that this would be the propitious moment to make the change. It does not preclude, of course, further adjustment, as the ongoing, more profound immigration policy review is completed.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Is it the intention of the minister to continue arbitrarily to change the Immigration Act and/or
Oral Questions
the regulations notwithstanding the fact that he has a task force looking into this matter and has requested suggestions from the Canadian people? In other words, has he abandoned the task force and has he concluded that suggestions from the Canadian people are meaningless?


Robert Knight Andras: No, Mr. Speaker. There would be no way in which I could arbitrarily change the legislation even if I so desired, which I do not. It would be subject to the will of the House. The regulation change is, as I said, an interim change. I do not think that we should wait to effect any improvements that have appeared to us to be wise until the task force completes its work and until that results in legislation, which, as I have indicated publicly, will probably not be until 1975. In the meantime, it appeared to be wise to make these changes.


AMOUNT OF FUNDS PROVIDED TO MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that government spending on unemployment insurance is $100 per capita compared with only $2 per capita for the entire medical research program, will the minister say that steps are being taken to avoid the financial crisis situation at the Medical Research Council, as it has been described by medical and scientific organizations across Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will allow the hon. minister to reply. However, it seems that many of the questions members put before the House appear to invite statements from ministers. I respectfully suggest to hon. members that this kind of question should be placed on the order paper. If ministers were to be allowed to respond to this type of question by making general statements, I assume that members to my left and others might protest that we were taking up too much of the time allotted for the question period. The minister should be allowed to indicate whether he proposes to give this information by way of a statement when the rules make it possible for a minister to do so.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity of meeting representatives of the Medical Research Council on several occasions, and, following these meetings, $1 million more than had been provided at the beginning was added to the budget of the Medical Research Council. The council advises me that, as a result of this amount, it will be able to maintain the same level of research as last year.

March 4, 1974
Oral Questions


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mrs. Grace  Mclnnis@Vancouver Kingsway: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the charges of the former chairman of the Canadian Consumer Council that faceless senior civil servants hiding behind the skirts of the minister are effectively varying the idea of a council that would report openly to the public instead of secretly to the minister, does the minister intend that the revived council will protect consumers by open reports or does he intend to set up a body whose opinions will be those of his department?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, its job will certainly be to help the consumer and its opinions will, hopefully, be those of the members of the council. The hon. member will be able to assess the potential of the council when an announcement is made about it in the next couple of weeks.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will be recognized for a supplementary and then the hon. member for Egmont.


Mrs. Maclnnis:: In view of the importance of assessment before the event rather than after, and in view of the fact the minister will be setting up this revived council within two weeks, will he in the meantime make a ministerial statement to the House on the functions and powers of this proposed revived council?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I think the appropriate time to do that will be when the membership of the council is announced.


MANPOWER
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. It is with regard to the letter sent to all members last week concerning the selection of Opportunities for Youth projects this year. In view of the surprising change or reversal from the previous decision-making process both for LIP and OFY where there was involvement of people from each of the constituency areas in the decisions on priorities with regard to projects, will the minister indicate why this reversal took place and whether this will not create an enormous number of problems for his department and, in addition, place Members of Parliament in the position of having to decide the priority of projects, which I think would be most improper?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the practice under Local Initiatives, we gave very great weight to the recommendations of Members of Parliament, although the

finalization in the main was through constituency advisory groups. Quite frankly, we did not set up the advisory groups for OFY this year because of two practical problems. One is the question of time in getting the processing finished. The other is the question of the amount of money spread across the country. However, we will be consulting local people through our departmental officials and we will be consulting Members of Parliament to get their views, although I will take the ultimate responsibility for approval or rejection of any project.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: In order to alleviate the considerable fears among young people that this whole situation will involve a considerable amount of politics, either at the bureaucratic or partisan level, is the minister willing even at this late date to receive submissions from various members with regard to setting up acceptable constituency groups to avoid this kind of influence peddling from in fact taking place?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there will be influence peddling. I would certainly find it very difficult at this stage to readjust to make constituency advisory groups possible. I would be delighted if the hon. member would get in touch with me and give me specific recommendations that can be looked at, although we have to get on with the process of getting these projects under way.


FUNDY TIDAL POWER-AVAILABILITY OF REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT-ALLEGATION BY NOVA SCOTIA PREMIER OF INEXCUSABLE PROCRASTINATION
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Prior to the recess the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources informed me that the re-examination report on Fundy tidal power would be made available shortly after the first ministers' conference, probably about the end of January. Unfortunately the minister is not here today. Following the first ministers' conference the premier of Nova Scotia accused the federal government of inexcusable procrastination as far as the re-examination report is concerned. Will the Prime Minister consult with the premier of Nova Scotia to bring him up to date on the facts in relation to the re-examination report and when it will be made available?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I cannot give the hon. member a date. The House does know that very shortly after the first ministers' conference the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources departed for Washington and then proceeded on a very important tour of the oil producing countries in the Middle East. It is no doubt because of this that the delay has taken place. As to this morning he had a meeting in Montreal and has been delayed by the weather. He is due in the House any moment. I hope he will be able to give the hon. member an answer either later today or some other day.
March 4, 1974


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will be recognized for a supplementary and then the hon. member for Edmonton West.


Robert Carman Coates: In view of the fact it took the premier of Nova Scotia nine months to appoint representatives to the re-examination committee, will the Prime Minister advise whether prior to the premier of Nova Scotia making his statement about inexcusable procrastination he had consultations with the Prime Minister with regard to when this report will be made available?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: None that I know of, Mr. Speaker, but here again I would defer to the minister.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue. In light of reports that some 3,400 recipients of Canada Pension Plan payments are being made the subject of recovery of alleged overpayments based upon examination of income tax returns, will the minister advise why, when the Department of National Revenue is charged with the collection of contributions to the Canada Pension Plan and the Department of National Health and Welfare is responsible for payments, officials of the Canada Pension Plan payment section have access to income tax returns, or will the minister indicate to the House whether information can be obtained from income tax returns by any department of government?


Hon.. Robert Stanbury (Minister of National Revenue):: No, Mr. Speaker. I will be glad to look into the particular problem the hon. member mentions. It has not been brought to my attention, but I will be glad to discuss it with my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that, despite recent demands that producers go into all-out production of grain, many producers are still interested in putting marginal land into grass, can the minister inform the House whether the grasslands incentive program, which was to end this year, will be continued so that farmers can maintain their beef production, a matter of interest to the consumers of Canada as well as to the beef producers?
Oral Questions


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, a decision will be made on this question in a few days.


OIL-MEETINGS BETWEEN PRIME MINISTER AND ALBERTA AND SASKATCHEWAN PREMIERS-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE SAME ARRANGEMENTS WILL BE MADE
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question. Is the Prime Minister meeting the premier of Alberta and the premier of Saskatchewan, and will he be meeting them together? Will he also assure the House and the country that, whatever deal is made with the two producing provinces and with the two premiers representing those provinces, the same deal will be made in view of the fact that Saskatchewan is implementing a special tax which the government of Alberta has not implemented?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the first part of the question, I have been and will be meeting several premiers separately, both from the producing and from the consuming provinces. There has been no attempt to make a deal, as the hon. member suggests; there has been an attempt to work out a solution that would be acceptable to every part of Canada. Every premier as well as myself, of course, will have this very much in mind when we are pursuing our talks.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister give us a little idea, in light of the remarks made by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in which he seemed to approach the matter in an atmosphere of confrontation, what figure he has in mind that every Canadian from sea to sea will pay, apart from the cost of transportation, for Canadian crude oil?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am sure I could give the hon. member a little idea, as he puts it, and I am also sure that he might have a little idea himself. But that is not the essence of the matter. We are meeting to try to reach, not agreement on the federal point of view or on the provincial point of view but an agreement that will reconcile all points of view. That is why I reject the hon. member's suggestion regarding the federal government's approaching this in a spirit of confrontation. At the federal-provincial conference in January and since we have tried to reach an agreement by agreement rather than by confrontation, and this is our spirit still. When we are asked questions, as we often are, like: What will you do if you do not get an agreement, we answer that the federal government will take its responsibility as it should. But it is rather unfair to press us to this hypothetical position and then say that we are looking for a confrontation. We are looking for an agreement.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A number of hon. members are seeking supplementaries but the question period is over. I might mention that to some extent the Chair has given priority to members in the first and second rows to my left today. A number of hon. members have been

March 4, 1974
The Address-Mr. Whelan
seeking the floor, such as the hon. members for Carleton-Charlotte, Victoria, Moose Jaw, Red Deer and Sault Ste. Marie. There is, of course, one prominent member in the second row who was seen but not called on to ask a question today. I thought I would mention that an effort will be made by the Chair tomorrow to see hon. members who have not been seen today.


SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, March 1, 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 by Mr. Stanfield (p. 31).
Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the government in the Speech from the Throne once more recognizes agriculture as an all-important industry in Canada, important to all Canadians. We need a nation of properly nourished people before we can do anything else. But agriculture is also one of the largest industries; it keeps the economy buzzing and keeps thousands of Canadians employed in all Canada. It is also one of the most complex industries. This is particularly true in regard to relations between industry, farmers and all levels of government.
The federal government is taking the lead in establishing a national food policy for farmers, for which farmers have been asking for years and years. The objectives of this policy are the basis of Liberal agricultural policies. The government's food policy has been set, first, to make sure that Canadians continue to have an adequate and dependable supply of wholesome food and, second, to ensure that food continues to be available at prices that are reasonable for the consumer and adequate for the farmer. Canadian consumers should not have to spend an unduly high proportion of their incomes in order to get a sufficient and balanced diet. Spending one-fifth of one's income on food is a very reasonable proportion to spend to keep oneself at a nutritional level that is the best in the world. Canada's record has been outstanding because Canadians spend less of their incomes on food than do consumers in almost any other nation in the world.
However, farmers need reasonable prices to provide adequate returns to encourage continued production on a steady basis of the foods that should be produced in Canada. The record in this regard is improving, but in some cases farm prices for some commodities are once again in the vise of the cost-price squeeze.
The third objective of the government's food policy is to develop a continuing Canadian supply and increasing production of those foods that give Canada a competitive advantage for the home market, for commercial export and for international food aid programs.

There are many programs directed toward achieving these objectives. Farmers' net incomes and returns have improved. The net income of farmers in the last calendar year is estimated to be in the neighbourhood of $3.4 billion, almost twice the net income received in 1972. That is fully 70 per cent better net income than the one record year attained in the Conservative years. Realized net income is expected to increase more than 50 per cent for producers this year over 1973. Production is increasing in many areas. Canadians have a plentiful supply of food and the value of our agricultural exports has been increasing. At the same time, low income families are being helped to meet increased food prices through increased income assistance payments and the indexing of these payments through programs such as increased old age pensions, veterans' allowances, family allowances, and reductions in income tax.
Consumers want assurances of more stable food prices, and producers want increased assurances of adequate and stable incomes. Not all producers have shared in the general improvement in net income. In addition to these basic facts there is also concern about transportation inadequacies, lack of storage and a conscious need for market development and research.
In each of these areas the government has definite plans. We propose to develop new and better price and income stabilization programs for farmers. When farmers have better assurances and guarantees about prices and incomes they are more willing to invest in producing the food that producers want. That, in turn, provides consumers with a more stable supply of food at steadier prices.
The changes that we propose relate support levels to changes in production costs, increase minimum support levels, increase the number of commodities supported, and reduce the length of the base period used in calculating support levels. The farmers of this country are going to be made aware that their labour through a crop season will not have been in vain.
A special national farm income stabilization plan for prairie grain growers will be introduced in times of favourable prices, which for the grain growers is the present time. The fund will be built up by contributions from farmers and the government, and whenever farm income falls below a certain point the farmers will receive payments out of the fund to increase their incomes. The funding operation will smooth the boom and bust cycles that have plagued not only the farmers but the prairie farm economy and the economy of the nation as a whole. I think everyone in all cities in Canada should take note of the fact that when we have a healthy agricultural industry with agricultural prosperity this in turn ensures that the entire nation makes better use of its natural and human resources.
The two-price wheat system on wheat for human consumption in Canada will be in effect for seven years, guaranteeing farmers a market at a set price at a level farmers never dreamed of even two short years ago. At the same time, consumers are being guaranteed a steady supply of flour, bread and wheat at a steady price. Consumers should know that producers are now contributing
March 4, 1974

directly to lower bread prices in Canada by agreeing not to gouge the last dollar per bushel out of Canadian consumers. That is a measure of the willingness of our farmers to help the consumer, being able to recognize a good thing at hand and able to look ahead and weigh the consequences. Some may wonder what I mean. Let me point out that the world price of wheat right now is $1 over what the domestic consumer is paying, so in reality you can say that the farmers are directly subsidizing the consumers by approximately $1 per bushel for all wheat that goes into the production of flour in Canada.


An hon. Member:: Tell that to the western farmer.


Eugene Whelan: I think you are forgetting that there are some of us who farm in western Ontario and other areas who are producing the same grains, with about 90 per cent of that production going to domestic use and only 10 per cent being exported. Therefore, on a per capita basis these farmers are contributing perhaps much more.
The government also intends to change farm credit legislation to make it easier for young farmers to start farming.


An hon. Member:: That is a Conservative policy.


Eugene Whelan: I note that an hon. member suggests this is a Conservative policy. I note that he has been reading some of my speeches and is adopting some of my ideas.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eugene Whelan: Some of them have been made a part of their programs, and I hope the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) will go along with that. He seems to take some pride in lambasting a group of people who are trying to help in the egg marketing field. I have heard him say nothing about other marketing boards, two of which are in his province and have done an excellent job on behalf of fish producers there. They have actually increased the income of fishermen to a level they have never enjoyed before but to which they are entitled. I should like to hear the hon. member say something about that at an early date.
About 62 per cent of Canada's farmers are 45 years of age or older and will reach retirement age during the next 20 years. We often hear Members of Parliament, who should know better, hai'ping about the income farmers are receiving, knowing full well that anyone can still enter agriculture if he wants to work on an average of 77 hours a week and receive less income than those working an average of 33 Vt hours a week. Anyone can still go into agriculture; it is not a closed shop. This is a great part of our society which receives a great deal less in relation to hours of work and the investment.
We need young farmers for the future. Improvements in price and income stabilization will be a great help, and there has been a trend as a result of certain measures for young people to take the step and go back into the agricultural industry.
Young farmers also need long-term credit to set up farm operations that will provide a reasonable level of income. As Minister of Agriculture it is not my intention to recommend that anybody enter agriculture with its high risks
The Address-Mr. Whelan
and the amount of capital investment required without some guarantee of a reasonable level of return.
The government will provide long-term credit under certain conditions. The government is proposing a further three-year extension of the Farm Improvement Loans Act under which farmers can obtain government-guaranteed loans to purchase and modernize equipment. Individual borrowing limits will be raised in keeping with the cost of topnotch machinery and equipment. Parliament will be asked to guarantee greatly increased funds available under this program.
Hon. members know that I believe orderly marketing is a goal that benefits farmers without costing consumers any more in the prices they pay for food. Some people in this House and in this city who are not farmers like myself do not seem to be convinced about this yet. They do not realize that we have the most efficient group of people in the world producing food. That is something they must realize or they cannot expect to have these people continue to produce food for them.
No one can dispute that disorderly marketing causes extreme price fluctuations, strains on storage, disrupts handling, breaks down the operation of transportation facilities and creates a need for surplus processing facilities which then lie idle or under-used for a good part of the year. Meanwhile, much produce is wasted for lack of appropriate handling while some markets and people go short six months later, with prices rising as a result. This is especially true when we do not have Canadian-produced food and our markets and people are dependent upon imports.
We have some economists in this nation, and even some Members of Parliament, who think we should produce until produce is coming out of the farmer's ears and then hope we will find markets for that produce. Such a philosophy does not lend itself toward a guarantee of any kind of production stability, and that is something I will not adopt in respect of the agricultural industry in this nation. Meanwhile, a great deal of produce cannot be marketed, and that is why our storage program is now what it is. I intend to extend our programs in this regard in the coming months.
Everyone knows that I am not a professor of economics.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: Thank God for that. I was recently shown a record an individual kept in respect of the world's best known economists. The astounding fact is that not one of them had ever been right.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: They are all different, so some of them must be right.


Eugene Whelan: The getting in and out of production, the tooling-up of expensive machinery only to let it stand and rust one or two years later, repeated on a large scale from farm producers to the retail shelf, are eventually paid for by the consumer in higher food prices. One does not need a degree in anything to understand that.
We are, therefore, taking measures to improve marketing, among them the cash advance payments system which has worked so well for prairie grain growers. The govern-

March 4, 1974
The Address-Mr. Whelan
ment proposes to increase the cash advance maximum payments per farmer and extend the system itself to all farmers across Canada for storable crops.
To complement this program, the federal government will extend its assistance program for the construction of new storage facilities. In many regions storage facilities are not adequate today, while in other regions storage is outdated and better facilities that have been invented should be constructed. Storage construction assistance is now being provided for specialized fruit and vegetable storage, and this program will be continued and extended to other suitable crops. The farmers of Canada will benefit through better market prices, and consumers will benefit from the increased supply throughout the year, through better quality food kept in topnotch storage facilities. Our research people have proved that some commodities can be placed in proper storage and taken out in just as good condition as they went in, or in some instances even better. This will provide the consumer with more stable prices and more even prices for the producers.
Other measures will be taken to improve our marketing system, including the encouragement of forward contracting and the establishment of marketing agencies to serve export markets. Grain transportation facilities throughout Canada are to be improved through assistance in the repair of existing boxcars, the purchase of more hopper cars, a study of grain freight costs and steps to ensure that existing hopper cars are being used as efficiently as possible.
The Export and Import Permits Act is to be amended to encourage further processing of raw food products here in Canada. The change will mean that, under certain circumstances, the Canadian market will be better protected for certain Canadian products when supplies are not adequate, for the greater benefit of the Canadian economy as a whole.
Dairy producers are having problems because of skyrocketing input costs. It is evident they must receive a price increase for milk soon, and I believe the major portion of that increase must come from the marketplace. Let those who believe that farmers should shoulder the burden of low-priced milk for the families who are less well off than most of us consider, first of all, that it is the duty of all of society to make sure the less fortunate get milk, the most healthy food in the world. Second, if the marketplace price of milk is not increased there will be less and less milk produced. Last year milk production in Canada dropped 4.7 per cent, the sharpest decline since 1920, and in New Zealand, that great dairy country, production is dropping even faster. The same thing is occur-ing round the world. This all amounts to the fact that in order to be a dairy producer one must work seven days a week, on statutory holidays such as Christmas and New Years and even on St. Patrick's day. Many people object to that way of life in return for the little income they receive. Therefore we must rearrange the whole dairy industry in time if we want to produce the most lifegiving substance we have that is the cheapest thing we buy in a bottle, milk, which we take for granted.

The cow is the most amazing machine ever placed on the face of this earth. No scientist or engineer has invented anything as capable as a cow. It can take the plain roughage given to it and produce one of the most healthful foods in the world. The only way Canadian dairy producers have been able to carry on is because of the co-operation of the provincial and federal governments and their breeding programs. The production of one cow in a period of 15 years has increased by nearly three times what it was.
I have a word of caution for Members of Parliament who have been quite vocal in their criticism concerning brucellosis. I have checked the actual figures with respect to brucellosis. Many farmers depend on the livestock export market for their income. Because of the statements made, so far as I am concerned without any real factual evidence, some of the importing countries have been alarmed and have made inquiries about whether or not they should still be buying cattle in this area. I can assure them that the amount of brucellosis in this area is nothing to be alarmed about. It is something to be concerned about and we are concerned about it. However, I repeat that we have the most disease-free animal population of any agricultural nation in the world.
The market for Canadian livestock producers over the past year and again at present is a very uncertain one. Producers were first faced with exorbitant increases in protein costs, then the United States price freeze, now a technical court decision disallowing the prohibition of the use of DES south of the border. Those international influences play havoc with our food production in Canada. I am heartened to hear, Mr. Speaker, that a city slicker like the mover of the reply to the Speech from the Throne, the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Stollery), recognizes the strain under which agriculture is because of high international finance and the international speculators who are having a field day at the expense of the world's consumers of staple goods. I might mention in this regard one of the staple goods, sugar. The price of sugar has gone up approximately 400 per cent in a little over three months. I am sure thdt not very many sugarcane workers in the world will receive very much benefit. There are some people in Canada who think we should get sugar as cheaply as we can regardless of what effect this has on the part of the world from which the sugar comes. I do not believe that. I take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. member for having brought this sore point to the attention of the House so clearly and simply.
The market for meat and livestock products is expanding rapidly not only here in Canada but also abroad. The government is therefore developing a new livestock strategy to guarantee the producers' margin in meat production. We are also pushing ahead with meat research which is being expanded and, with more support, expanded veterinary training facilities.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: I think the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) has a vested interest here. More support is also being given to research. New research programs will be undertaken in over-all food production, quality improvement, product development, mechanization and meat production. The aim is to increase production, lower costs,
March 4, 1974

improve quality and develop new outlets for Canadian produce. History has shown that the money the federal government spends for research benefits both consumers and farmers and, in the long run, consumers benefit the most.
The hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta) asked what the government is prepared to do to cover the increasing input cost of farmers. The direct answer is to provide an atmosphere in which farmers can get maximum cash income to give them record net income returns. Cash income increased by 26 per cent in 1973 and 1972 which itself increased 18 per cent over 1971. Because input costs have increased proportionately less than cash income, we ended up last year with a record net income as I indicated earlier, an income away above anything the opposition members were ever able to produce when they were in government. Net income is expected to increase by another third in 1974 over last year. That will be made possible because we are keeping an eye on the admittedly rapid rising input costs.
Having taken considerable time of the House to explain the Liberal agricultural policy further, I must say I am pleased to note that members of the Conservative Party are ready to adopt the many initiatives this government is putting forward under the Liberal food policy, and so I perceive little difficulty when I present this legislation to the House.
In summary, let me say it is clear Canadian consumers are enjoying the biggest food bargain in the world. They are being served the highest quality food with ever-increasing built-in convenience, and they pay the lowest percentage of their income for food of any people in the world. Canadian farmers have improved their productivity and efficiency faster than our economy as a whole to make that bargain possible.
You know, Mr. Speaker, that other phases of society are not as productive as agriculture. We might consider that less than 7 per cent of our people produce all the food that is produced in Canada. Also, a tremendous amount of this food is exported. All we have to do is compare that with the situation in, China where there are over 840 million people, 80 per cent of whom are engaged in the production of food and yet they do not produce enough for themselves. This is why we must be thankful we have the farmers we have in Canada. We also must be very cautious that we do not do something that would discourage them. I do not think we encourage people by criticizing them and watching what they do. I have some reservations about the Food Prices Review Board in this instance and how that part of society which is the most productive and has made available to society the highest quality food in the world at the most reasonable prices is watched more closely than any other part of society. I think we must be very cautious.
Many Canadian farmers have not received adequate incomes for their work, their investment and their skill, but farm incomes have finally shown a major improvement. The federal government is prepared to take important steps to make sure farmers hold on to that improvement and can lay the groundwork for an even better future. That will depend on the members of this House,
The Address-Mr. Hees
the members of the provincial governments and the farmers of this nation.
The Canadian food bargain can continue in the future but only if farmers receive support from society as a whole and by this parliament. The programs the government has implemented and the ones outlined in the Speech from the Throne offer the government support that is needed.


Mr. Baker:: Mr. Speaker, would the minister be prepared to answer a question with respect to a matter he raised?


Eugene Whelan: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Walter David Baker: I share the minister's concern about brucellosis, and he and I have discussed this, but I also want to point out respectfully to the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member rose for the purpose of asking a question.


Walter David Baker: Has any consideration been given by the government to increasing the compensation payable to farmers whose herds are stricken with brucellosis, and would this action be independent of the provincial government or in concert with the provincial government? Could he answer that question? There are many farmers in my area who are very concerned about the matter, and I am sure the same is true in Mr. Speaker's area.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, last year about this time we doubled the compensation for purebred and grade cattle, fully realizing the extra cost of replacement stock, etc. I have made a submission to increase the compensation paid for cattle and as soon as it is dealt with I will be making an announcement.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by joining the other speakers in the House who have congratulated the mover and seconder of the address, the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Stollery) and the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Pelletier). I was particularly interested in the speech of the hon. member for Spadina because it was in that riding in 1945 that I first offered myself for parliament. At that time I gained great experience but very little else because I was nosed out by a mere 6,000 votes by a man for whom I have the greatest respect and liking, the present Senator David Croll. I was so short of workers that I was out on election day and at the end of it I was supervising the counting of votes in a polling subdivision. When I came back to the main committee room I found I was behind by 2,000 votes, and I never looked back from then on.
In the next few minutes I would like to deal with a subject on which the government has chosen to remain particularly silent over the past two or three years. I refer to the question of inflation which, as we see now only too well, is increasing at an annual rate of more than 9 per cent a year and gives every indication of exceeding 10 per cent during 1974.
Although recent Gallup polls show that the people of Canada have reached the highest consensus of the past 20 years in regarding inflation as the most serious problem facing our country, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and

March 4, 1974
The Address-Mr. Hees
his cabinet refuse even to discuss it, let alone put forward positive policies to deal adequately with it. Thus, because of the state of petrified immobility which the government insists on maintaining it is up to the members of the Official Opposition as usual to put forward positive suggestions for dealing with this serious problem in the hope that the government may be pushed into taking action which is so long overdue.
First of all, what has brought about this steadily increasing inflation which has reached such alarming proportions and gives every indication of getting worse and worse as the years go on? Primarily it is the fact that during the past four years the Bank of Canada, on the instructions of this government, has increased the money supply, which is the amount of currency in circulation plus the deposits held in chartered banks, from $28 billion to $48 billion, an increase of 70 per cent, while real growth in the economy, which is the level of production, has increased by only 23 per cent or less than one-third of that amount. This very large excess of purchasing power over the volume of goods available for sale has been the primary reason why the level of prices has risen at such an alarming rate during that four-year period.
In addition to this demand-pull inflationary pressure on prices, we have also had a cost-push pressure which has been brought about by a very natural demand by workers for higher wages in order to meet the ever-rising prices of the products they have to buy in order to live. Both kinds of pressure have pushed up price levels at an ever-increasing rate with nobody really gaining and those on fixed incomes being hurt very severely.
Although the government last year introduced increases in family allowances and old age pensions in an attempt to ease the burden of those most severely hit by rising prices, we all know very well that these periodic corrections lag far behind price increases and therefore do not deal adequately with the problem. The only real answer to this problem is a reasonably stable price level which does not increase by more than 3 per cent a year, the average yearly increase in the cost of living during the past 75 years, an increase with which we have learned to live both personally and also with regard to our ability to sell our products competitively in the Canadian market against foreign competition and in the export market, on which we rely so heavily, against foreign competition. The most important reason why we must control our rapidly rising prices is that if our price level increases faster than those of our principal trading partners, our products will become less and less competitive with foreign goods being offered in Canada and in the export market, with the very obvious serious results that are bound to follow.
So I think it is clear that we must take very definite steps to keep prices in this country from rising at a greater rate than 3 per cent a year. I think it is also obvious that the only practical way to do this is to bring production up to a level where the demand for and supply of products are approximately equal.
How can this be done? It can only be done by the government offering incentives to industry and agriculture which will persuade producers that it will be worth their while to make the usually heavy expenditures necessary to expand production by the very considerable

amount necessary to do the job. As we know, most producers are reluctant to make these expenditures because of the uncertainties of the future, and they need worthwhile incentives to persuade them to do so. Most producers today will say: Unless you make it worth my while to go out and expand my plant and my equipment and pay the heavy interest charges of today in order to make those expenditures, if later, in two or three years time, I am to find that demand falls off and I am left bolding the bag and cannot pay those high interest charges on machinery and plant that are not being used, then I will not make those expenditures. But, Mr. Speaker, if the government makes it worth while for producers to make those expenditures, then they will be made.
Because we cannot sit idly by and watch the present spiraling inflation continue during the considerable period of time it will take to bring production up to the desired level, controls must be introduced to keep prices within reasonable bounds during that interval. The Official Opposition has urged a 60 to 90 day prices and incomes freeze, during which guidelines will be established for prices and incomes to keep them from rising at a greater rate than that required to hold the cost of living to an annual increase of approximately 3 per cent. It is estimated that these controls will need to be maintained for between 18 months and two years while the government's incentive program for bringing production up to the desired level is bi ought into being and made effective. Once this has been accomplished and production is brought up to or approximately up to the level of purchasing power, then, of course, the control program will no longer be needed and will be discontinued.
Let us ask ourselves what kind of incentive program should the government bring in to induce production to rise to the necessary levels? The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) says that the measure which he introduced in his budget on February 19, 1973, is the incentive that is needed to do the job. That measure, as we know, reduced corporate income taxes for manufacturers and producers from 49 per cent to 40 per cent. But, instead of requiring those who receive this tax benefit to spend it on expanding their operations, the minister greatly reduced the effectiveness of his incentive by allowing the recipients to dispose of it in whatever way they wish. They can expand their operations, put the money into the company's reserve, or pay it out in extra dividends.
The ineffectiveness of the minister's program has been demonstrated by the fact that during the year before the minister introduced his incentive this country imported $4.3 billion more of manufactured products than we exported, but during the year following the introduction of the minister's incentive the country imported $5.9 billion more of manufactured products than we exported. So we see that in one year imports increased by nearly 40 per cent over what they had been during the year before the minister introduced his manufacturing production incentive. We see that other countries have greatly increased their sales of manufactured products to this country while our proportion of sales of these products declined considerably. With that kind of economic planning by govern-
March 4, 1974

ment is it any wonder that this government is incapable of controlling inflation?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: Because of these alternatives for spending the $300 million which lowering taxes to manufacturers and processors cost the remainder of the taxpayers of the country in a single year, the money that the minister has handed out to manufacturers and processors has not been spent in an effective manner and his and the government's objective of increasing production to the desired level has not been achieved. Inflation, as we know only too well, has continued to rise at an ever-accelerating rate.
What is needed to get the economy moving at the necessary accelerated pace to stop this steady increase in inflation? If a government wants businessmen to do something which it believes necessary for the good of the country, it must not simply hand them a gift in the form of a tax reduction and hope that they will make use of that incentive in the way the government would like them to do. That just does not work, and I speak from 20 years' experience as a manufacturer and six years' experience in dealing with businessmen as a member of a government. What a government must do is to tell business what it wants to accomplish, and that it will reward efforts to bring about that aim in direct proportion to the effort that is made.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: To increase production by the very substantial amount necessary to bring it up to the level of today's greatly inflated demand, the government must introduce incentives to bring about five important things. The first is lower labour costs, the second is increased productivity, the third is more research and development, the fourth is more export sales, and the fifth is more processing of primary products here in this country.
I outlined, in some considerable detail, my ideas for introducing practical incentives to induce substantial improvements in these fields when I spoke on this subject at the University of British Columbia on October 11 last, and I sent copies of my detailed suggestions to the press and to the Minister of Finance. The minister was generous enough to tell me that he found them very interesting indeed. Time does not permit me to outline the details of these proposals to the House today, much as I would like to do so, but I would be very glad to send a copy of them to any member who would like to have one.
In conclusion I say to the government and to the minister: either adopt the proposals I have made for increasing production or, if you disagree with those specific proposals, then bring in ones which you consider to be preferable to them. One thing is certain, and that is that inflation will only be cured by the introduction of incentives to bring production up to the level of the greatly increased money supply that the government's policies have brought about. There is no other way to do it. This must be done. If production does not rise to that level, we will simply keep on bidding against each other for the short supply of products available to us and the price level of those products will continue to rise at an exorbitant rate as the bidding goes on and on and on, as it is today.
The Address-Mr. Davis
The time is long overdue for this government to stop gazing with a blank stare at the Canadian economy and professing that nothing can be done, as it has professed for the past two or three years. It is time for the government to deal with the country's No. 1 problem. Mr. Speaker, I say this to the government: if you cannot deal with this problem, then move over, because we most certainly can.


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of the Environment and Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words today about a very important subject, one that has not received the attention it should, especially from Canadians. This is the subject of ocean policy; it is the important subject of the extension seaward of Canada's limits, Canada's opportunities and Canada's responsibility-


James Aloysius McGrath: It has not received much attention from the government so far.


John (Jack) Davis: Coastal states all over the world are making a very good case for the better management of the resources close to their shores. Canada has been leading the charge in this respect. We believe that we have not only made substantial progress in the last few years but will make even greater progress before the end of the seventies.
We are pushing our limits seaward, pushing them to the edge of the continental shelf, to the continental margin, to the margin including the slope. We are extending our resource base and adding to it by between one-quarter and one-third. We are adding immensely to the total area of land and sea for which Canada is responsible. Our area in acreage terms is being increased by 40 per cent over little more than a decade.
This is a remarkable accomplishment. It is remarkable when one realizes that Canada in its land mass is the second largest country in the world. The extension of our area of responsibility on the face of this globe by 40 per cent is a great achievement. It gives rise to many new opportunities in the future and adds immensely to our responsibilities as a member of the United Nations.
Our continental shelf-the shallow waters overlying the shoulders of the shelf, the shoulders of our Canadian land mass-is immense. We have the world's biggest continental shelf and it is the wise management of that continental shelf, both of its renewable resources and its non-renewable or mineral resources, which is vitally important to our future and indeed, to that of all mankind.
Over our continental shelf swim many species of fish, few of which are caught at the present time. We have, off our east coast and our west coast, many of the world's finest fisheries. These must be managed more intelligently. They must be managed on a sustained yield basis and therefore wisely if we are to look after our own food needs, let alone those of countries which need our foodstuffs to survive.
We have only begun to work down the living pyramid of fish resources. We have only been chipping at the tip of the pyramid, taking the most readily catchable species. There are large quantities of fish protein available to us

March 4, 1974
The Address-Mr. Davis
and to other nations if we manage wisely and well, if we fish more economically and harvest more species, and if we use the latest techniques for raising the income of our fishermen.
We have barely scratched our offshore wealth in so far as minerals are concerned. We have the world's biggest continental shelf. We are bound, knowing the geological structures which are favourable, to find a great deal of oil and natural gas close to our shores. So we gain in this area, the area of non-renewable or mineral resources as well.
We are taking over these great resources, making them ours from the management point of view and, indeed, an ownership point of view, with very little effort and very little attention. Most Canadians are oblivious to these important developments because most of them live in half a dozen large cities which are concentrated along the United States boundary. They are not aware of what is going on in our outlying areas, along our coast, in the north Atlantic, in the north Pacific and in the Arctic area as well. Here is where the action is in terms of the extension of our boundaries; here is where we are increasing our resource base fantastically and in a remarkably short period of time.
We have done well to stake our claims early. We have led the charge in establishing the rights as well as the responsibilities of the coastal state. The United Nations has been unable, so far at least, to insist upon the wise management of offshore resources. Until the United Nations, or a regional body, involving many nations, can shoulder this task of wise management of resources, it is up to the coastal state, the nation with the most obvious current interest, the most intimate interest in those resources, to make sure that they are preserved, that they are conserved, that they are managed on a sustained yield basis, that the stocks of fish are not depleted, that the minerals offshore are not ripped quickly from their beds and too much left wastefully for posterity to try to recover.
We have pushed out our limits. In the early sixties our seaward limit was three miles; in the late sixties our fisheries lines were extended 12 miles seaward from our shores and in 1970 we began to draw straight base lines from headland to headland, from major promontory to major promontory. We also drew fisheries closing lines which enclosed all of the Gulf of St. Lawrence and made it Canadian, enclosed all of the Bay of Fundy, all of Queen Charlotte Sound and Hecate Strait on the west coast. By drawing the straight base lines and measuring 12 miles outside, we increased Canada's area of responsibility by more than 15 per cent.
I have said our area of responsibility will be extended by 40 per cent. When our limits are extended to the edge of the continental shelf we shall, physically and economically, be 40 per cent larger than we are now.
Members who are familiar with the needs and problems of our fishing communities will want me to refer briefly to the concept of the 200-mile fisheries limit. Most of the nations, the members of the United Nations which will be convening in Venezuela in August, 1974, will be arguing for a 200-mile fishing limit. Canada's approach, of course,

will be that it favours a 200-mile limit but that our limit should be more than 200 miles wherever the limit of our continental shelf, the extent of our continental margin, is more than 200 miles offshore. The principal area where our continental shelf reaches out more than 200 miles is the Grand Banks. There, our continental shelf, in places, extends as much as 400 miles seaward from Newfoundland. Our basic fisheries policy, therefore, calls for a limit of 200 miles from shore and for more than 200 miles where the edge of the continental shelf is more than 200 miles from land.
This big reach seaward by Canada casts shadows in many directions. By controlling oil drilling rigs, we will better be able to control pollution from gas and oil operations near our shores. By controlling our fishery, that is, the operation of fishing vessels as well as processing plants, we will not only be able to maintain our fish stocks in a healthy state but, as well, discipline those who sail through our fisheries waters and discharge pollutants-I am speaking of pollutants discharged from freighters and tankers-of various kinds. Ocean dumping will be easier for us to control. Oil spills will be less frequent because we will insist on Canadian standards. Ships passing through our more ecologically sensitive areas will be better built, better managed and better operated than ever before.
While I am on the subject of shipping I should add a cautionary note. Ours is a big country. Distance has always been a major problem. It is a big cost factor both from a transportation and a communications point of view.
We must encourage mobility wherever possible. We do not want to hold up shipping unnecessarily. We must not badger our neighbours who sail their ships close to our shores on their way across the Atlantic or across the Pacific. So, we must be reasonably flexible in our thinking. We must push out our limits, especially our resource development limits, limits connected with the fisheries, oil and gas, but we must also conduct our affairs in such a way as to minimize the hindrance to shipping, a hindrance which our laws and regulations would otherwise bring about. Limits applying to the resources and their exploitation, relating to the edge of the continental shelf, to the 200-mile concept with respect to fisheries, and mining must not be seen as applying necessarily to shipping. We must make sure that the shipping industry is careful in its operations and that it is non-polluting. On the other hand, we must not introduce policies, laws and regulations which hinder mobility, which hinder shipping unnecessarily. I am speaking not only of ships visiting Canadian ports but going into United States ports and ports of other countries as well.
I am all for zoning. We are busy zoning our sensitive offshore areas. We are not only securing our outer limits of control, and here I am speaking of the continental shelf, but we are also identifying those parts of the shelf which are unique from the biological point of view. We are pinpointing the sensitive spots. We are describing on detailed maps many thousands of square miles in which offshore drilling must be banned, where certain kinds of fishing should be outlawed, where shipping must either be slowed down or, indeed, prohibited, and where land-based
March 4, 1974

industries must be prevented from discharging their wastes into rivers that flow directly into the sea.
Let us take a typical example, that of the big oil tankers. Like big trucks in a well run municipality, they should be confined to certain shipping lanes, certain express routes, so to speak. They should be kept out of our parks, that is, our offshore parks and our biologically sensitive areas. Trucks are not allowed to blast through residential areas. Following this analogy, these big tankers should stay away from our built-up areas and, certainly, from our high value recreational areas. They should avoid bays, inlets and straits where the value of waterfront property is high. They should certainly avoid those narrow waters where the likelihood of accidents is high.
They should stay out of our precious inland seas where nature on her own has difficulty in dealing with oil spills. They should be confined to certain shipping lanes on the high seas and in approaching a Canadian port they should be guided and controlled by the interests of living things and of living communities. They should bend to the dictates of our living environment, of our wild living things, as well as people who make their homes along our shores. May I call it one o'clock?


Mr. Speaker:: It being one o'clock I do now leave the Chair. The House will resume at two o'clock.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, when the House rose at one o'clock, I was referring to the need to map and zone our offshore areas so to indicate where shipping may or may not pass, where drilling for oil or natural gas can take place and where it cannot take place and to indicate sensitive areas near our shores with a view to prohibiting certain industries from locating near by.
The government has to work closely with industry in this regard. We do not know enough about the effects of pollution on the living resources of the sea. We do not know enough about the effects of oil on ice. We do not know enough about the climatic consequences, even of flying big jets over our northern ice pack at 40,000 feet in the wintertime. Therefore, we have to be very careful. We have to work closely with industry. We have to measure things as they are; in other words, develop baseline data. We must launch pilot projects and measure what their effects are before and not after we allow large-scale operations to proceed.
We are proceeding carefully. For example, we have banned oil drilling from the Georgia Strait on the west coast. We are making sure that the necessary environmental studies are carried out in the Beaufort Sea before drilling can proceed on the north slope off Alaska. There won't be any new chemical industries operating in our coastal communities unless they incorporate the latest technology for keeping their harmful effects to the minimum. There won't be any estuaries paved over for port
The Address-Mr. Davis
development if we can help it. There won't be anything like as many waste products discharged into our rivers and from there into the sea. By far the largest volume of pollutants entering the sea originates with big industries, cities and towns, hence into our rivers and into the sea.
Some hon. members may be skeptical about our determination to zone areas, particularly areas offshore, and make sure that the more sensitive of these areas are protected from the ravages of industry. They may be skeptical about our determination to cut back on land based pollution. They are not sure we can hold on to our continental shelf from the point of view of drilling for oil. They are skeptical about our ability to gain a 200 mile limit for fishing. They do not think we can control shipping, but we must.
I can't understand this defeatism. I am optimistic on this score. I believe that the continental shelf will continue to be ours in so far as oil and gas are concerned. I believe we will have a continental limit for our fisheries and that we will be able to control pollution within the same 200 mile plus zone.
What evidence can I give you to support my optimism? I can point to joint ventures which are now being explored by foreign corporations and in consultation with Canadian companies. Why are these foreign corporations trying to get inside our enlarged Canadian fishing zones, for example? Why are they talking about turning over some of their catches for processing in Canada if they do not believe we will be successful in obtaining greater jurisdiction over the waters and shelf near our shores?
When we drew our long fisheries closing lines across the mouth of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, we set a number of events in train. We gave other fishing nations notice and told them that we would negotiate phasing out agreements. One after another Norway, Denmark, the United Kingdom, France, Portugal and Spain came to terms. Broadly speaking, they agreed to get out of the gulf by 1976. That seemed a long time off in 1971, but it does not seem so long in 1974. We agreed that they could return, or that some of their vessels could return, for five years, while there was some life left in them. They got a period of depreciation which they claimed was customary, but not one year, one month or one week longer.
This phasing out process will undoubtedly occur with respect to our broader continental shelf limit as well. There will be a phasing out period for nations which have fished close to our shores. But as long as they continue to come to our waters they will have to fish according to our rules. They must confine themselves to quotas well within our concept of sustained yield in our waters.
I said that a number of countries are already bowing to the inevitable in this regard. Poland, for example, has been negotiating with a Nova Scotia firm to bring their herring catch in the North Atlantic to Nova Scotia for processing. The Norwegians are negotiating with a Newfoundland company to help catch capelin in the North Atlantic. Their catch will be processed in Newfoundland. Spain is interested in a joint venture on the Grand Banks. The Japanese are also visiting Canada with a view to setting up joint ventures that will allow them to continue to operate for a time in waters that are generally regarded as international

March 4, 1974
The Address-Mr. Davis
waters today but which will become part of Canada's own responsibility tomorrow.
We are prepared to talk to these foreign interests and to enter into pilot projects. But we are not prepared to make long-term commitments say, for more than a year. We are interested in knowing more about their fishing methods, the kind of fish they catch, and the nature of the processing which is required to serve their markets.
We are much more interested in operations that will provide opportunities for employment for Canadians who process on shore. We are also determined, taking the longer view, that Canadians will catch more of these fish, thus phasing out the operation of foreign vessels near our shores. We are determined that our fishing vessels will be built in Canadian yards, and that the fish products caught by Canadians will be processed in Canada as well.
As for foreign ownership, our Canadian fishing industry today is overwhelmingly Canadian: it is 85 per cent Canadian owned and controlled. I should like to see this figure increased, as I am sure many hon. members would. This is why we are insisting on the Canadian ownership of individual vessels. In some of our fisheries, fisheries that have been limited in size because of limited resources, we have adopted a ticket of entry approach. The boat is the ticket of entry. Canadians own those boats, and there is no way in which those boats can be allowed to slip into foreign hands.
Perhaps I should put it another way. Unless a company can prove that it is 75 per cent or more owned by Canadians, that 75 per cent or more of its shares are owned in this country, it will be unable to expand. It will not be able to add to its existing fleet by buying up tickets of entry, Canadian boats. It will not be able to expand its. fishing capacity relative to that of other Canadian companies, firms, partnerships and individuals in this country. It will not be able to catch a larger share of the fish that is available to our own, over-all fishing fleet.
Why do I stress this point, Mr. Speaker? Because a large Japanese firm, Marubeni, recently bought shares in one of our west coast fish packing companies. The Canadian company had 100 boats, or tickets of entry, in our limited west coast salmon fleet. There is no way in which a foreign corporation should be able to take over one of our fisheries. There is no way in which foreigners should be able, in effect, to get inside our new fishing limits, and gain control, in this case exclusive control, of the right to fish in this country.
In the case of that particular west coast fish packing company, 51 per cent Canadian share ownership will not be good enough. It will have to be 75 per cent plus before it is again on the same basis as other Canadian fishing companies. Either that, or they will have to be satisfied with 100 boats in a 6,000 boat fleet. The company will not be able to grow; it can only decline. It cannot expand its fishing operations until it qualifies as a Canadian company again.
I have dwelt on this question of joint ventures for several reasons, Mr. Speaker. First, I wanted to prove that a number of the most aggressive long distance fishing nations now see the 200 mile limit as a reality. Second, I want to tell hon. members what I have already told our

fishing industry a number of times, namely that we have a 75 per cent Canadian ownership rule and that this will be enforced rigorously from now on. We are going to look after our resources on the continental shelf. We are also going to make sure that they are harvested by Canadians in Canadian-owned vessels, and that the products are processed in this country as well.
This is an aggressive approach. It is an aggressive stance to take. But we are moving in the nick of time. We are pushing our limits out before, and not after, the living resources of our continental shelf are over fished and other countries begin to look covetously at our oil. We are moving on the ownership front before we have a foreign ownership problem in Canada, not afterwards. We are pressing out our limits in the interests of conservation. We are insisting that our renewable resources be cropped on a sustained yield basis, not decimated by the foreign fleets as in the past. We are also making sure that the oil companies take the long view in so far as the management of our offshore minerals are concerned.
What other attitude can we take, Mr. Speaker? The coastal state has the biggest stake in the wise management of its renewable resources. The United Nations cannot look after these resources for it. Multinational commissions are often influenced unduly by distant water countries, whose attitude typically is one of moving in quickly, taking everything they can and getting out again. This does not make sense.
I am one of those who believes that economics has its place. Looking far enough ahead, economics will be compatible with sound environmental management. We in Canada must move with the grain of nature. We must move out, among other things, to the edge of the continental shelf. We must insist that the whole of the continental shelf and slope is ours from a management point of view and from a harvesting point of view.
We are in the process of expanding our limits, pushing them out. As I said at the outset, we are increasing our land area out to sea by as much as 40 per cent. We are encompassing great resources, resources that are needed not only by Canadians but by all mankind. I believe that Canadians, in taking these steps, will not only be looking after the needs of future generations of Canadians, but the best interests of all the worlds peoples as well.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to five pieces of legislation which are being brought forward this session. Two pieces of legislation among these were tabled today. These bills will be considered by hon. members and, I trust, passed quickly. Some of them can be passed with little debate because they are simple bills indeed. There is a bill to make guaranteed loans to small fishermen. There is a bill to amend the Fisheries Act, having to do with foreign ownership, among other things. There is a bill to amend the Fisheries Development Act in respect of better storage facilities and increased production of fish. There is a bill called the Environmental Contaminents Act, and ocean dumping legislation. I commend these bills to hon. members and trust they will be passed in this session. Then, we will be on our way toward establishing much wider limits seaward from Canada and taking on more responsible and wise management of these limits for the benefit of mankind.
March 4, 1974


Mr. McKinnon:: Mr. Speaker, would the minister permit a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The hon. member can only ask a question with unanimous consent, since the minister's time has just expired. Will the House allow the hon. member for Victoria to ask the minister a question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I noticed that the minister almost completely ignored his other role in respect of the environment. Will the minister assure the House that when oil spills occur from ships and when the federal government, whose responsibility it is, is unable to identify the source, the federal government will at least pay for the cleanup rather than expecting the municipal governments to assume what could be enormous costs?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think I can assure the hon. member of that. Several years ago amendments were made to the Canada Shipping Act which provided for the collection of large sums of money. That money is available for compensation to those who are affected by oil spills.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Would the minister then explain to the House why the Department of Transport turned down the request of the municipality of Oak Bay for compensation for cleaning up an oil spill there some two months ago on the grounds that they could not identify the ship which spilled the oil?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the hon. member have a chat with me. Perhaps our departmental can do people something about it.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to participate in the throne speech debate, and I wish to associate myself with my leader and other colleagues in extending congratulations to the mover and seconder of the address, the hon. members for Spadina (Mr. Stollery) and Sherbrooke (Mr. Pelletier). Working under very difficult conditions they gave good accounts of themselves, which is a tribute to the constituencies which elected them to parliament.
In the "Tale of Two Cities", by Charles Dickens, we read:
It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness ... it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness .... We have everything before us, we have nothing before us.
I suppose that reasoning could be well applied to the throne speech, depending upon where you sit in this Chamber. One thing is certain, the year 1974 has sent its signals well ahead and it shapes up as one of the most critical years in decades. Even in the best of times, Canadians would find it difficult to get their ship of state back on an even keel after the storm-tossed buffetings of inflation and unemployment in 1973. But, as 1974 unfolds, it becomes apparent that stiff new challenges are facing Canadians in every part of this country.
The Address-Mr. Crouse
Not only is a recession threatening us, but the throne speech, the estimates and the 1974-75 booklet entitled "How Your Tax Dollar is Spent" gives a clear indication to anyone reading them that Canada is in need of a national leader and a national party that has the desire and the willingness to give sound government to this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Rarely in the memory of most Canadians has this country entered a peacetime year under so many stresses and uncertainties. The restrictions placed on the export of oil by some oil exporting countries have eroded the economic stability and economic progress of the United States, while at the same time hamstringing Canada and most of Europe. International alliances are weakening and balance of payments deficits for many nations are reaching awesome levels. A grain shortage in far away Russia has, along with the mismanagement of this government with its bungling administration helped to push up the price of food, especially bread, in our supermarkets to new heights.
Nationally and internationally, 1974 is to be a time of trial. In times like these, it seems to me the commonsense approach to our problems would be for the federal government to provide some leadership to our people, while practising some restraint in its spending programs. However, unfortunately the opposite is true for we see at page 18 of the government's spending program a proposed expenditure for this year of $22,023 million, which is $2,388 million higher than last year's figure, and $12,151 million higher than the figure listed for 1967-68, the year the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) took office. Those are not my figures, Mr. Speaker, those are the figures put forth in the booklet "How Your Tax Dollar is Spent".
During this period of time our population increased by a little more than 2 million people, which indicates the inefficiency of this Liberal administration, and should be viewed with concern by anyone, including Liberals who truly have this country's interest at heart. Nothing that I can say and no figure that I can quote would indicate more clearly the failure of the Trudeau administration in its efforts to govern Canada.
When speaking during the debate on the Speech from the Throne, the Prime Minister stated some very evident truths. He said, as will be found at page 32, that Canadians live in the richest country in the world; that we can grow more on our land than we can eat; we can take from the sea more than enough for our needs; we possess adequate supplies of energy and below the ground we have an abundance of minerals. In fact, he said that we have human and natural resources sufficient to make us the envy of every nation.
I agree with those words of our Prime Minister, but this statement raises some very disturbing questions. Why, in view of our abundance, do the latest figures released by Statistics Canada indicate a progressively deteriorating situation for the Canadian worker? Average weekly earnings for the month of December were down approximately $5 from the month before and were only 6 per cent higher than in December 1972. When compared to a cost of living increase over the same period of more than 9 per cent, it is indeed obvious that whatever the workingman has

March 4, 1974
The Address-Mr. Crouse
managed in salary increases has been more than eroded by inflation.
Why, in view of our abundance, was it necessary to tax those who are working almost $2 billion for unemployment insurance benefits in 1972 and more than $2.2 billion for unemployment insurance benefits in 1973? The increased cost of the program has nearly tripled the cumulative deficit of the employer-employee account and resulted this year in an increase in worker and company contributions to the plan. In fact, in 1974 we must pay $923 million for last year's unemployed, and the same amount is proposed for the year 1974-75. Why is this necessary in a country as rich as Canada?
Why, in view of our abundance, are housing starts declining, and why have housing costs escalated to such absurd heights that our young people, as well as our middle-aged citizens, cannot any longer afford a decent apartment, while the purchase of a home is out of the question without making a lifetime commitment to pay the mortgage? In view of our abundance, why did food prices continue to increase last year by more than 14 per cent, and why is a further 10 per cent increase predicted for 1974 by the President of the Grocery Products Manufacturers of Canada? In view of our abundance, why are feed prices soaring and why is milk production declining? Why are our farmers leaving the land? In view of our abundance why did the ordinary Canadian, who may have set aside a few dollars for his old age, see the purchasing power of those dollars eroded by almost 10 per cent last year, and why should he face another 10 per cent loss in their value this year?
Surely, there must be answers to some of these questions, but obviously we are not going to get them from the apologists for this government who sit to your right on the other side of the House, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister stated when speaking in this House that inflation is not a new problem. He said it was the rate of increase which is new. He went on to say that during the past two years an unprecedented round of price increases and shortages of food as well as industrial raw materials have sent shock waves throughout the entire world economy. It is easy to blame the world for your follies and failures. The world is a very big place. I would point out that international inflation only accounts for approximately one-third of our total inflation. Furthermore, the domestic, self-induced portion of our inflation has been escalating continuously since the last quarter of 1970 when the Prime Minister said "inflation is licked".
This explains the lack of confidence by the majority of Canadians in the Prime Minister's leadership and in his government. It explains the reason we have moved a vote of non-confidence in this government. One of the key reasons for our inflationary spiral can be found in the estimates, and in the booklet "How your tax dollar is spent 74-75". The new estimates show government expenditures at an all-time high and rising rapidly. The same is true for the numbers in the public service, and the amounts that they are paid. In round figures, federal civil servants are now receiving more than $4 3/4 billion a year, a jump of 50 per cent in the last five years. And there are now about
60,000	more of them than when the Prime Minister froze

the growth of the civil service in 1969. If this can happen under a freeze, heaven help us if we ever experience a thaw. Unless the Prime Minister and his cabinet set to work to remove some of this fat from the system, our ship of state will have such a big crew there will be no room for any of the passengers.
The Prime Minister complains in his speech that we, as the official opposition, do not offer any workable solutions to inflation and the many other problems we face as a country. In answer to that charge, Mr. Speaker, we have offered a number of solutions to the government concerning our inflationary problems, but they have apparently been unacceptable, due to the difference between our political concepts and our priorities as compared with those of the government. For example, we have suggested that the government reduce taxes, especially the federal sales tax, on all clothing and the tax on building materials. This would be very helpful to the Canadian textile industry and to the construction industry as well as the potential homeowner. However, in order to cut back on taxes the government would have to curtail its expanding bureaucracy which it states in its 1974-75 booklet stands at
500,000	men and women-and obviously this is something it is not prepared to do. It would have to eliminate Information Canada, something it is not prepared to do. The government is not prepared to cut taxes because the system it is establishing will eventually make all Canadians subservient to the federal government.
From pupil to principal, from pauper to prince, all must come hat in hand to wait and to beg for assistance. Any business developments in Canada today must wait until any changes in transportation policies are made known, must wait until the government's DREE grant policy is established, must wait until the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis) approves of the site, and the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Stanbury) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) determine the taxes to be levied, retained or written off in that particular area. That has resulted in complete stagnation insofar as industrial growth is concerned. This process is costly as evidenced by the increase in estimates. This process is costly in lost production, in lost wages and man hours, but this system gives tremendous power to the government. Every time this power increases, and it is bound to increase under the measures proposed for further government manipulation as stated in the Throne Speech, we as Canadians lose a little more of our basic individual freedom. When we look at this year's estimates, there should be no doubt in anyone's mind that the government's wasteful extravagance and its money supply policy have been the main cause of our inflation. When a government prints money to pay its own bills, and covers that deficit by causing an excessive increase in the money supply, this action triggers inflation.
I would point out also that domestic inflation is created when the rate of credit expansion exceeds the physical capacity of the nation to produce goods and services. This was touched on by my colleague the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees) when he spoke in this debate. The supply of money in Canada increased by more than 70 per cent from 1970 to 1973 which is a jump unparalleled in recent history. The responsibility for this growth in the money supply rests entirely on the shoul-
March 4, 1974

ders of the federal government, and either the Bank of Canada and the Minister of Finance had a complete misunderstanding of what they were doing or they knew runaway inflation would be the end result and they just did not care. Obviously, if the Bank of Canada had maintained a more moderate and constant increase in the money supply and the government had practised spending restraints, the inflationary trend in Canada could have been held to a minimum. It is not too late now to start controlling inflation. I have already indicated some of the steps that could be taken.
In addition to these we must obviously increase supplies of many commodities in order to deal with the shortages which surround us on all sides, and in order to slow down the rapid increases in prices which result from shortages. The soundest way to accomplish this is to pursue policies which will encourage investment in new productive capacity in this country. This is one of the cornerstones of Progressive Conservative policy; it is what we mean when we say we will develop an incentive society in Canada, where initiative is rewarded and where labour may enjoy a greater share of the fruits of their efforts.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: We must recognize that workers look at their take-home pay when they bargain for increased wages. In light of this fact further increases in taxes, especially on our workers, will only create further tax-push inflation. This is why our leader and all members of our party are calling for a decrease in taxes. Surely, the achievement of a stable economic system is not beyond the competence of our free democratic society. What is required is the will to do it. At the present time the government has no anti-inflationary policy. Our ship of state is drifting in a fog of uncertainty. The Prime Minister spoke of marooned sailors, life rafts, great ocean liners and sea captains. Speaking as one who has lived a lifetime by the sea, I would remind the Prime Minister that many a captain has been replaced by the owners if he was found to be incompetent. However, this action is generally taken when the ship comes back to port, so we as Progressive Conservatives are looking forward with considerable anticipation to the day when Captain Trudeau and first-mate David Lewis-or is it the other way around-finally bring their ship to port and the owners, the Canadian people, have a chance to voice their opinion through their vote on the progress of our ship of state.
The Prime Minister knows about our wealth as a nation. He obviously knows about our problems, but what is truly unfortunate is that he does not have an adequate solution to offer for these problems at the present time. The Throne Speech states, among other things, that the government plans a re-assessment of existing programs in the areas of agriculture and fisheries, and that assistance will be provided to those engaged in these primary industries in purchasing or modernizing their equipment. This afternoon when speaking on this matter the Minister of the Environment spoke of Canada's new ocean policy, and said the extension seaward of Canada's responsibilities would add immensely to our mineral reserves and our fishing resources, in an area approximately 40 per cent the size of Canada. The minister said this new area, under our
The Address-Mr. Crouse
control, would provide increased fishing opportunities and enable our fishermen to earn a better living.
Five pieces of legislation are to be brought forward. These will be examined carefully by our party. No one would disagree with the concept announced by the government and the minister, but concern has been expressed by many fishermen over the manner in which these policies are presently being carried out. For example, over the weekend of February 15 and 16, the officials of the Department of the Environment seized the catches of four fishing trawlers and a longliner at Lockeport, Nova Scotia, and charged them with overfishing haddock. Under the regulations as laid down by Order in Council under date January 15, 1974 certain quotas were established for Canadian fishermen under the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Regulations. Among other things the regulations state that a fisherman, operating in a specific area of ocean, may catch and retain fish of a certain species if the quantity does not exceed 5,000 pounds or 10 per cent of the total weight of fish on board his vessel. Furthermore, the regulations state that when fish are seized, the protection officer shall take custody of them and sell them with the proceeds being paid to the Receiver General.
This was the course followed in Lockeport, Nova Scotia. However, the minister must have had second thoughts about holding the money which belonged to the captain and crew, for the following week the gross stock was returned to the owners, while the captains charged were required to post a bond in the amount of $1,250 as a guarantee that they would appear in court for a hearing on March 14. The fishermen had a name for this. They called it federal piracy in port.
This action on the part of the government raises many questions. First of all, the order in council of January 15, 1974 was never brought before parliament, was never submitted to the Fisheries Committee and was never debated or examined by the representatives of the people of Canada. Obviously, it was drawn up by bureaucrats who have never visited the Atlantic coast and who are obviously not aware of the problems faced by our fishermen. For example, it is impossible for our fishermen to carry out their fishing operations on the banks adjacent to Lockeport without catching more than 5,000 pounds of haddock or 10 per cent of their gross stock at this time of the year.
It is also unfair and unjust to draw up a regulation which penalizes the fishermen who work on the deck of a dragger by confiscating their share of the catch. I would point out to you, sir, that these men have no choice in determining the area in which a fishing dragger will carry out fishing operations. They must follow the captain's orders, and if a seaman lawfully engaged on a ship refuses to process the catch, if he is guilty of wilful disobedience to any lawful command, he is liable to imprisonment for a month under the Shipping Act. In view of this fact, the Order in Council of January 15, 1974, chapter 16, part 3, should be amended. In fact, the entire regulations and the penalties imposed for infractions should, in my opinion, be reviewed and no action taken against Canadian fishermen until we are reasonably certain that foreign fishing fleets are abiding by the ICNAF regulations.

March 4, 1974
The Address-Mr. Crouse
When the Canadian fleet was operating on Browns Bank, no less than 13 pair trawlers of other nations were reaping a fishing harvest from the same bank which is an area of the Atlantic coast that is well known for its concentration of haddock. However, we do not have adequate surveillance to police our Canadian fishing grounds, and until this oversight is corrected, I believe we should increase the permissible percentage of haddock per catch for Canadian fishermen. There is no doubt in the minds of many fishermen that our present surveillance, especially of foreign fleets, is inadequate. In order to do this work effectively, we require immediately at least three ships off the coast of Atlantic Canada that are 200 feet in length, drawing a minimum depth of 14 feet.
Looking to the future, they should have ice breaking capabilities, a forward speed of 25 knots, and they should carry a helicopter. They should be able to carry out fishing operations when needed. With these three ships, we could have two on patrol stations at all times for two week periods, and we would then have a better knowledge of the scope of operations of the foreign fleets operating on our continental shelf. These ships would of course be available for coastguard service whenever our own or the ships of other nations were in trouble or distress off our shores.
I hope that the plight of our Canadian fishermen will be given every consideration at this time by the minister and that no action will be taken against them for doing the only thing which they are equipped to do, namely carrying out fishing operations in order to provide for their needs and those of their wives and children.
Like the mover of the address, the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Stollery), I also spent some time during January visiting foreign countries. I have always believed that events which happen externally have a great influence upon our country and our people, and the only way to learn about conditions within a country is to visit that country and speak to its government members and its citizens. One of the countries I visited was Taiwan, and when I landed there on January 6, 1974 along with three colleagues from the House and our wives, we learned that we were the first representatives of the Canadian people to visit this country since October 13, 1970, the date on which the present government in Canada decided to recognize Peking as the government which represents all China. Since October 13, 1970 there has been no contact, other than trade, between any Canadian government officials and the representatives of the government of Taiwan.
Obviously we are turning a blind eye and a deaf ear to the representations made by the government of some 15 million free Chinese. In addition, we are making it extremely difficult for businessmen in Taipei to secure a visa for 30 or 60 days to visit Canada, with applications via our Hong Kong office taking approximately six months. The same businessmen can secure a visa overnight from the American embassy in Taipei if they wish to visit the United States. Naturally, the free Chinese living in Taiwan are asking why the Canadian government has adopted this attitude. They pointed out that the United States has a large embassy in Taipei and a liaison office in Peking, and the United States is trading with both countries. Since Canada has an embassy in Peking, they ask why Canada has not put a liaison office to facilitate trade

in Taipei. This is a question which I believe deserves an answer from our Prime Minister.
The republic of China became one of the world's top trading nations in the past 12 years. In 1962, their foreign trade totalled only $523 million U.S. Last year, it hit an all time high of $8.2 billion, the top trading nation of the developing countries. We sold the Bonaventure to the Republic of China, to be broken up in Kaohsiung, the shipbreaking capital of the world. But I point out to you, that there are other trading opportunities open for Canada in this area if we wish to capitalize on them. They bought $2.3 billion worth of industrial raw materials last year from other countries and more than $600 million worth of electric machinery for electrifying their railway system. In view of our foreign policy, we never even had an opportunity to quote on the needs of these people. We were told by their economic adviser, Mr. Y S Sun that they are interested in buying unlimited quantities of sulphur and potash in order to upgrade their agricultural economy. We have mountains of sulphur available in this country and not too long ago we turned off the production of potash, the reason given was that we were unable to sell it. I believe we should re-examine our foreign policy as it relates to Taiwan. At the present time, an easement of trade restrictions and an exchange of cultural activities are perhaps the best vehicles for improving the situation.
I note, according to an item of expenditure under foreign affairs that the government plans to spend $4 million opening up new missions in Korea, Barbados, Morocco and other countries. Since the free Chinese support a democratic form of government I hope that some thought will be given by this government to opening a trade mission in Taipei.
Having visited India, I was made aware of the fact that, while the energy crisis poses a serious problem for developed countries, for underdeveloped countries such as India, which must import large quantities of oil, it poses the threat of disaster. This is one of the few developing countries which has maintained a democratic parliamentary government over several years and, at the same time, has developed a balanced economy in which both the private and the public sectors have a role to play. With the increase in prices for oil, India's oil bill will be more than double all the foreign aid she receives, and this situation is bound to generate an economic disorder of very serious proportions in that part of the world. That country needs our help and our expertise in the fishing industry to assist it in capitalizing on the immense fishing resources in the Indian Ocean. I hope this suggestion will be given consideration by our Department of External Affairs.
Finally, I also visited Iran, a country which is desirous of expanding its relations with Canada. The leaders of Iran see in Canada with its skills, its level of development and middle power stature, a valuable friend and an unlikely enemy. For our part, Iran should be of growing interest as a market for Canadian goods and services and as a source of oil. As a result of discussions held with Prime Minister Hoveyda, I believe he would welcome an official invitation to visit Canada and I believe that such a visit would be mutually beneficial to both countries. At present we have a huge trade imbalance with Iran, pur-
March 4, 1974

chasing approximately twice as much from that country as it purchases from us.
I was pleased to note that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) recently visited Iran, and I would suggest also that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) consider a trade mission to Iran in order to capitalize on the trading opportunities with Iran's 32 million people. Last year that country ranked fourth among the world's oil producers and is also interested in our fishing expertise. In order to capitalize on the immense shrimp resources in the Persian Gulf, resources which their Prime Minister told me were more valuable than the oil resources, Iran is desirous of using Canadian expertise and equipment, including ships, to develop our type of civilian coastguard as opposed to the military type used by the United States. I was informed that the value of such an arrangement could be worth more than $1 billion to Canada over the next seven years. I hope our officials in the Trade Department will get on with the job. This could be another way to ease unemployment in Canada. It is another suggestion from the Conservative party. It is another way to curb our present inflationary spiral.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Peace, Mr. Speaker. Once again I am happy to be here representing the people of the Northwest Territories and to be making a few remarks in the Throne Speech debate. We, the people in the Northwest Territories, have a strong belief in democracy. In October, 1972, a large number of the people of the Northwest Territories decided they should send a representative to Ottawa who truly represented the north, because in the Northwest Territories two-thirds of the population consists of native people, and one-third nonnative. As a result, they decided to send a representative down here who was two-thirds native and one-third white man.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter (Wally) Firth: I am very proud indeed to be representing the people of the Northwest Territories. I am very happy to be a member of the New Democratic Party of Canada, the socialist party of Canada. I was happy to be brought up as a socialist. Many hon. members of the House must know that this was the true Indian and Eskimo way of life in the past, and still is today in many villages and reserves across the country. There, people live and practice this way of life and, as I say, I am very happy to be part of it. Indeed I was fortunate to be brought up in that system.
I will be brief, Mr. Speaker. I should like to mention some very important matters of concern to my constituents, the people of the Northwest Territories, a hardy group of individuals who, under very difficult conditions, in one of the harshest climates in the world, are working hard to develop the north, to make a good life for themselves and their children. Some 35,000 to 40,000 people, as I have mentioned, mostly Indian, Eskimo and Metis, live in a part of this country where we have the highest cost of living, where we have a cold climate, a drastic housing
The Address-Mr. Firth
shortage, very poor health facilities, and an extremely high cost of communications and transportation.
The average cost of communication by phone, if you should have phone service, is at least $1 a minute. To charter a small aircraft costs in the neighbourhood of one dollar a mile. In many cases we have a complete lack of such services on a regular basis. And to top all this off in this day and age, in 1974, in Canada, we do not have a real democratic government. This is a most deplorable situation. Certainly, we have an administration in the Northwest Territories which is costing $150 million-at least that is the budget for this year. But a very important question is this: are we, the people of the Northwest Territories, willing and able to accept more governmental responsibility? I suggest that the answer is yes.
Another important question is: can we pay our way? I believe we can. In the Northwest Territories today we have two producing gold mines in the Yellowknife area and you, Mr. Speaker, know the price of gold today. We have a silver mine bringing out almost pure silver at Echo Bay Lake, and a lead and zinc mine at Pine Point. We have gas and oil production facilities at Norman Wells which have been operating for the last 30 years. Now, we have natural gas being produced at Pointed Mountain in the Northwest Territories, and a large tungsten mine at Tungsten. There is a large fur trade industry, commercial fishing, and deposits of other minerals. Our potential is many times what we are producing at present. Just to mention fresh water alone, we have 50 per cent of all the fresh water available in Canada, and up there in the Northwest Territories we keep it pure, clear and cold.
I do not suggest that the north should have to buy or pay for democracy. I do not suggest that we in the Northwest Territories are ready for full provincial status. But what I do say is that I believe we are ready to have, and we would like to have, a lot more say about our destiny, about the way in which the north should be developed, and even about whether the north should be developed. That, in itself, is an interesting question. The present situation with a partly elected and partly appointed council which can be over-ruled by an appointed civil servant, is no longer tolerable. I would suggest it is indeed a dangerous situation.
In January of this year, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Deyelopment (Mr. Chretien) spoke at Yellowknife and we were led to believe that some great announcement would be made in the Speech from the Throne. He said something to the effect that in a few months there would be amendments introduced to the Yukon Act and to the Northwest Territories Act, and that the powers of the council would be debated. Mr. Speaker, in the Throne Speech there was no mention of the north or of the native peoples of Canada. This saddens me; it saddens me a great deal.
I should like to give an example of some of the things that can happen when you have a situation which might be called a sort of dictatorship within a democracy. Believe it or not we have here in Ottawa something like an embassy for the Northwest Territories. It was set up here in Ottawa almost a year ago-11 months ago to be exact. It is known as the liaison office, or something like that, for the Northwest Territories. It has been in existence for the
126

March 4, 1974
The Address-Mr. Firth
last 11 months, but in all that time there has been no liaison between it and the only federal member representing that part of Canada, representing one-third of Canada.
That was the situation until about February 28 when at last there was some contact. I, personally, went over to see this office, and for the information of hon. members I will supply them with its phone number and address. The phone number is 992-7289, and it is located at Room 328 in the Centennial Towers on Laurier Avenue West. I went over there and spoke to the director general in charge of this office. He did not seem to be doing very much directing, or liaison work, or anything. I told him that I usually receive a large number of visitors to my office, people seeking information about the Northwest Territories. I asked him if I should not refer some of these visitors to his office to receive such information. He said he really did not encourage that sort of thing.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter (Wally) Firth: What kind of liaison is that? Anyway, hon. members now have his phone number and address, and I hope they will take advantage of that information.
I was saddened to note that there was no mention in the Speech from the Throne about possible legislation regarding the native population of Canada, and in particular regarding the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I have some figures here which hon. members might be interested in, and that I think are important to mention. In the period from 1963 to 1974, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development spent something like $1,813,898,000, on the approximately 250,000 treaty Indians and Eskimo people in Canada. Mr. Speaker, this is approximately $7,252 for each man, woman and child for whom the department is responsible. I think that is a very important point and hon. members should think about it.
But what has been the result of spending this approximately $1,800,000,000? We have some highly paid staff in the department, but for the Indian and Eskimo people in the land there is still extreme poverty. The first citizens of our land are still living in poverty; there is a very high dropout rate in high school; very few people reach university and there is a terrible housing situation in the country, especially in the north. Not long ago I was talking to some people who live under such conditions. Three families live in one two-bedroom house and they have to eat and sleep in shifts. There is no running water or such facilities. The money has not provided a meaningful program to help the native population break out of the poverty cycle and that is something which hon. members should think about very seriously.
I should like to mention something about the Indian Brotherhood in the Northwest Territories. After a meeting between the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the president of the Indian Brotherhood in Yellowknife on January 18, there were some news reports to the effect that the Indian Brotherhood and the government of Canada were now ready, willing and able to sit down and negotiate the land claims of the treaty Indians of the Northwest Territories. These reports were not

exactly true. The fact is that for some time the Northwest Territories Indian Brotherhood has been trying to prepare for such negotiations. However, the Brotherhood does not have the resources to do so. The government has publicly announced support for such meetings to take place, but I say the government has not made sufficient funds available to the Brotherhood to enable them to prepare to negotiate their claims. At the present rate of progress of the negotiations between the Indian Brotherhood and the government of Canada, I would guess that the native people of the Northwest Territories will not be ready to sit down at the negotiating table for another three to five years.
As an example of some of the problems that the Indian Brotherhood runs into, the Wrigley people, a small group on the Mackenzie River, asked the minister for some funds to set up meetings between the out villages along the route of the proposed pipeline or railway or highway or whatever, to discuss the project. They were turned down. Mr. Speaker, I do not think that is negotiation and it will not work.
There is another matter of very great importance to the Northwest Territories-that colonial part of Canada, that underdeveloped part of Canada, that part of Canada which is most important, I think, in terms of natural resources. Because the fact many people are talking about pipelines, railways and whatever, in the field of development, and because there may be a substantial increase in population in the area, serious consideration should be given to more federal representation from the north in this House. There is, indeed, a great need now for more federal representation, but once again there has been no mention of any changes in this throne speech. I believe that the people of the north deserve and have a right to more federal representation. They should have a fair say in what is happening or may happen in the north in the next little while.
Let us just take a few minutes to think about one aspect of the present system of a single member representing the Northwest Territories. Not too long ago this House decided that members may have a constituency office. In a constituency of 1,350,000 square miles with 75 or 80 communities, where would you put that office? This is just one example of the difficulties faced by the people of the north.
Mr. Speaker, I do not have very much more to say. At this time I should like to ask for a ruling from the Chair. There are a few minutes left of the time allotted to me. I do not know exactly what the rules are regarding this, but I should like to ask that, during the remaining time allotted to me, hon. members of this House be allowed to sit and think about some of the points I have made.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. I suppose the Chair should recognize another hon. member. I recognize the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia).


John Edward Broadbent: There is a Liberal getting up. He refuses to think.
March 4, 1974


Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of my remarks, I would like to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Stollery) and the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Pelletier).
Recently, in the House, the member for High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Jelinek) spoke about the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. He had great criticism for the Canadian government position.
Well, I must now use the other official language to be more precise.

Contrary to the allegation made by the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Jelinek), Canada has stuck to its agreement. This fact was recognized in a radio interview some weeks ago with an elected representative of the state of New York who acknowledged that Canada had lived up to its commitments. In more than one way he apologized for the slow and hesitant support that was coming from the American federal government to meet its commitment in the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. Having listened to the kind of charge made by the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley, I feel that if his facts on COJO and ABC are as correct as they were on the question of the Great Lakes, then the people of High Park have a problem on their hands.
We all know that avidity for power plays some strange tricks on people and the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies) who spoke on the same day, was no exception. The hon. member for Don Valley is a great proponent of an incomes policy. He was outraged because the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) suggested that an incomes policy would hurt low income groups. The hon. member for Don Valley disagrees with that statement. Unfortunately, the hon. member for Don Valley does not tell us what kind of incomes policy he has in mind. It involves the question of job security, and similar questions. Despite the political partisan considerations which might be involved in any discussion of this topic, I think he should throw some light on this somewhat difficult question and tell us what he means.
It is well known, outside academic circles at least, that it is relatively easy to control wages and salaries but not so easy to control professional and business incomes. By suggesting his incomes policy, does the hon. member for Don Valley mean that he would intend to ask those earning higher incomes to stop their demands voluntarily or even reduce their incomes, in order to provide an example of restraint? In our society, some earn $4,000 a year, and others earn $80,000. For example, hospital workers are at one end of the scale, and architects are at the other. Does the hon. member for Don Valley, who I am sorry not to see here today, intend to reduce the gap between high and low income groups? If so, perhaps he should tell us how we are to do it, instead of allowing a synthetic rage to get the better of him, as happened on Friday.
In another part of his speech the hon. member for Don Valley said that his imagination boggled at the increase in
The Address-Mr. Caccia
government expenditure. In February, 1973, as recorded in Hansard, page 1559, the hon. member for Don Valley said this about the deficit then being incurred:
... is the deficit large enough to really move this country ahead, to produce the sort of employment that Canadians have every reason to expect and to hope for within the economy. I would argue, that it is not.
The hon. member then went on to talk about the Conservative bag of tricks, namely, removal of certain sales taxes and the program to help small businessmen. He went on to say, as recorded at page 1560 of Hansard for February 22, 1973:
If we had done these things, the deficit we would be running on a national accounts basis would be somewhat over two and one half as much as the deficit which the Minister of Finance suggested. I say to the members of this House that this country at long last needs this sort of stimulation to move ahead in an effective and improved fashion.
Well, with advice of that kind on economic matters, who needs enemies! We learned, the day after the hon. member made that speech, that the real increase in the gross national product for 1973 had run at 7.1 per cent. Does the hon. member for Don Valley mean to suggest that if we had followed policies of the Conservative Party that percentage would have been even higher? I do not know.
Last Thursday the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) solemnly declared in this House that the Conservative Party has not only proposed measures to combat inflation, but has the will to carry them out. The measures suggested were removal of all types of sales taxes. The people of Canada were not told where government expenditures are to be cut in order to offset the loss in revenue. I suppose it is fairly easy to propose the removal of sales taxes but not so easy to say what is going to happen to government revenues. Perhaps the Conservative Party has certain reduced services in mind. If so, it should tell us which kinds of services are to be reduced or removed. On the other hand, if it intends to maintain the same level of expenditures, we should know where the needed revenue is to come from.
The Leader of the Opposition talked of indexing Canada Savings Bonds and of temporary controls, to be followed by some kind of miraculous agreement to be arrived at in this country. In this regard one of our national newspapers carried an editorial last Saturday with the headline, "Expert testimony". According to the editorial, the President of the United States said that,
"The answer to higher prices is not simply controls-controls have been tried and controls have been found wanting.
The answer to higher prices is to get up the supplies. That will bring the price down.
We do not dispute the will of the opposition. Yet not even its best friends can claim that its will is matched by consistency and competence. In times of inflation, the argument for moderation and the slowing down of expectations should be directed at those who command higher incomes in society, not at those at the bottom of the income ladder. It is easy to preach the gospel according to St. Gillies, the gospel of no growth, when your tummy is full and your income high. If those who are successful, who command better incomes, are willing to accept lower fees, lower rents, lower returns and lower profits, then and only then can the dialogue be started towards lower expectations on the basis of solid and tangible results.
27393-9J

March 4, 1974
The Address-Mr. Caccia
In the meantime the government of Canada will need to come to grips with excess profits, difficult to define, I agree, and to tax windfall and excess profits in order to assure the Canadian public that there is justice in our tax system. In 1973 banks and a number of corporations piled up incredibly high profits. The Canadian public considers these profit levels simply intolerable. Something must be done about them.
While prices are increasing, the consumer, in a rather complex market, needs continuous advice and help, both in the form announced in the last session by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Gray) and in the form of community level and neighbourhood help. This sort of help must be made available, particularly in the larger urban centres of Canada. The help centres ought to be staffed by persons who are deeply committed to the public and to the protection of the consumer.
If I may move to another subject, the vast majority of Canadians supported the measures which the government and this Parliament took in controlling foreign takeovers. The recent announcement by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) about the Canadian football league has strengthened that approach. With that in mind, it is disturbing to learn what has been happening, for instance, in connection with M.L.W. Worthington Company of Montreal. That company was stopped by the Worthington Company of New Jersey from exporting locomotives to Cuba. I am inclined to think that the majority of Canadians would like to urge the government to stop the dependence of foreign controlled companies located in Canada on the laws of the country of the foreign corporation. We seem to be making some progress on this question because of the position developed in Argentina by some of the companies that are of a multinational character and which are engaged in a trade negotiation in Cuba as well.
I do not think we should be pressing this measure just because it has been possible for another country to achieve it. We should be pressing it on its own merits, on the question that a multinational corporation operating in Canada operates under the laws of Canada and not under the laws of another country. In the same category of disturbing events which belongs to years past, I would put the special treatment of Time magazine and Readers' Digest, a treatment that is presently accorded under the Income Tax Act. I urge the government to remove this treatment at the time of our next budget.
In the Speech from the Throne, mention is made of the Unemployment Insurance Act and possible amendments. I would like to dwell on this subject for a few moments. The concept of unemployment insurance served a good purpose in its time. It is a concept that is borrowed from the private sector, namely of insuring income in time of need by means of contributions which working Canadians make in the form of premiums while they are employed. It seems, however, that in the seventies this concept is becoming rapidly outdated.
In the seventies we not only have automation of the so-called post-industrial society, but we have people with better education, something we have stressed as being

desirable. We have an increasing number of people who are seeking meaningful jobs in society. They simply reject the idea of working for a large corporation by doing something monotonous and of little significance to their own personality. A symptom of this is the high percentage of absenteeism found in the large automotive plants of this country. Despite the wages that are commanded, the rate of absenteeism is very high.
Other factors are changing in this decade. We have, as a result of experiments through LIP and OFY, discovered a large range of jobs that are non-profit in nature, beneficial to the community and considered to be desirable. For this reason, the time has come to turn the unemployment insurance concept into a positive institution, not one that picks up the fallout of the private sector when it cannot produce new jobs or maintain the existing level of jobs, but one that is of a job creating nature. I will try to outline this idea as quickly as I can.
Under a positive system of employment insurance, if I may call it that, the premiums paid by employed Canadians would go to the creation of jobs for those who are unemployed. We have a better educated labour force. There is an increasing need for services not provided by the private sector, services for senior citizens, retarded children, migrants and immigrants in the large cities as well as the performance of certain works in maritime Canada in the environment and in the forests, in the improvement or redressing of the environment damaged by man.
In the present unemployment insurance fund, there is sufficient wealth to ensure employment instead of simply insuring unemployment as we have been doing up until now. If we were to have an employment creating commission, a person who becomes unemployed would have a few options. As at present, he would be interviewed to see whether he qualifies for Manpower training. If so, he would take the Manpower training route. Another option would be leaving the labour force for a period of time and requesting a payment of benefits. If over the years a person had accumulated the necessary credits, that would be a prior condition, he could just leave the labour force for a certain period of time. The credits for the unemployed person would be in direct proportion to the number of years the person worked in the labour force. The longer one worked, the greater the credit, and that would govern the length of time the person could withdraw from the labour force and be paid by the fund. This could be in the form of a period of time during which a person could better his education, see the world, repair his house or engage in any other kind of activity he had in mind.
The third option open to a person who becomes unemployed, cannot find a job in the private sector, does not qualify for Manpower training and does not have sufficient credits to leave the Labour force for a period of time, would be an offer by the employment commission of a job in the public sector which would be subsidized as the result of the creation of this fund. The fund, by the way, now exists, only for a different purpose. Canadians who are employed would pay premiums to provide jobs for those who are unemployed, do not qualify for Manpower training or do not have the necessary credits to leave the labour force. The jobs created in this way would not be
March 4, 1974

determined by a distant group of officials in the capital, but by a community board, people in the community, who would determine the priorities, needs and, therefore, the jobs that would have to be created as a substantial component of this national scheme.
The salaries to be paid under this approach would be arrived at in consultation with the people whose premiums paid for the creation of the jobs, namely working Canadians. There is nothing wrong with consulting Canadians on this matter. Actually, it would be highly desirable. It would indicate the degree of support for this approach. The government would learn the value Canadians put on those who were willing to take on jobs in the public sector and perform something meaningful to society, not something motivated by profit.
Designing this system would bring us closer to the concept of full employment. Employment in the profit sector, when added to those employed in the public sector embraces the largest percentage of people who are working today. This combination of the two would come pretty close to the ideal that is described in reports of the Economic Council of Canada. A system of this kind would provide opportunity for two groups of people-those who prefer meaningful work and less pay, and those who find themselves temporarily dislocated as a result of fluctuations in the private sector and are willing to accept community or environment-oriented jobs that are offered by the local commissions that would come into existence.
I appreciate the reluctance of anybody to consider new schemes and approaches that are different from ones that have been tested so far. However, it seems to me that it would be a pity if we were to embark on a series of measures to patch up and perhaps make tighter an existing system, one that has proven its service but which is rapidly becoming outdated, rather than look at alternative approaches-there may be others more desirable and valuable than the one I have endeavoured to outline this afternoon-that need these new values that are strongly developing in Canadian society. These approaches would also make profitable use of the experience we have accumulated over the years as well as the very positive and constructive experience that has been made available throughout the country through the concept of LIP.
There are other aspects in which the people of my riding are interested. As you know, Mr. Speaker, Davenport is a downtown riding of an urban nature and is fairly representative of many other ridings in urban Canada today. Very often in public discussions the question of pensions has come up, particularly the Canada Pension Plan. Meetings that have taken place between the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) and his provincial colleagues have been very closely followed. At public meetings people have expressed their very keen interest in seeing changes made to the Canada Pension Plan to permit people who are not employed to contribute the full amount of the premium that is presently paid by employer and employee. These people include those who are at home and others who are not in the labour force. This means that women in particular would eventually be able to look forward to some kind of retirement pension when the time comes. This is not a novel proposal; it has been accepted in
The Address-Mr. Cossitt
other countries of the world as part of their social security systems.
Another possible amendment to the Canada Pension Plan which has been put forward in very strong terms is that people who, for some reason or other, have suffered a serious injury but have not reached the required five-year period for contributions, should qualify for a disability pension. This would include people who suffer from progressive diseases, people who have sustained a serious car accident, and others who are handicapped. The proposal is that this five-year contribution requirement be replaced by something that is more flexible. For example, such persons could receive a pension that is in proportion to their number of years of contribution, rather than continuing the present situation where they do not qualify for a pension even if they have contributed for four years and 11 months. I appreciate the difficulties faced by the minister in implementing this approach, but nevertheless it is an argument that makes sense and which, sooner or later, deserves the attention of the minister. It is at times sad to listen to pathetic people who find themselves cut off from even a very modest disability pension simply because they have not contributed for the magic period of five years.
In the area in which I live another very important issue is developing that may have national proportions, at least in industrial centres. I refer to lead pollution. It seems that no one really knows when lead pollution reaches the danger level to health. It seems to me that there is real scope here for the federal government to come to the aid of the provincial governments and municipalities by determining what limit should be placed on lead pollution before it becomes a danger to health. There was a very interesting program on the CBC recently which brought this whole question to the surface. All hon. members are probably aware of the legal consequences; it is a matter that is very serious and I welcome this opportunity of bringing it to the attention of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. I regret that the time of the hon. member has expired.


Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, like those throughout the rest of Canada, the people who live in my constituency of Leeds wonder why the government has so completely failed to deal with the problem of inflation. Undoubtedly, the galloping cost of living is by far the greatest single problem facing this country today. But the government has literally ignored the situation for months and for years in the apparent hope that it will simply go away.
Any belated death bed repentances that the government dangles under our noses now can scarcely be taken very seriously. We have heard all about magic contingency plans in the past. The Houdinis opposite have often talked about these forthcoming productions to solve our problems, but they have either turned out to be mirages or else they were nothing more than a few temporary pay-offs to the New Democratic Party in the greatest public political prostitution performance in the history of Canada.
In a recent television interview the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) made it clear that he expects living costs to continue the same sharp rise this year as last year. Fur-

March 4, 1974
The Address-Mr. Cossitt
thermore, both he and his government have clearly demonstrated how little they are prepared or how little they are able to do anything about the whole situation. Apparently, Mr. Speaker, this country has a Prime Minister who prefers to gaze with no concern at the Canadian scene through the windows of his $76,000 Cadillac, rather than take some action that would help the disastrous economic shape of Canada. Apparently it is more interesting for him to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxpayers' money on his office or on 24 Sussex Drive than it is to worry about the elderly of this country who are being forced to exist on grossly inadequate pensions and who, in thousands of cases, have not even got a decent place to live. While the people of Canada see their tax dollars filling Sussex Drive with such things as Hepple-white consoles, stereo equipment, fancy crystal and even Persian carpets, not one thing has been done by this government to halt or slow down the cost of living that gallops constantly upward, creating an almost impossible situation for those on low and on fixed incomes.
It would be bad enough if we had a government that had tried to deal with the cost of living and had just not succeeded, but we have something far, far worse than that. We have a government that has not even remotely tried to stop this country from moving down the road to economic disaster. Nothing could express the situation more clearly than the lead editorial in the Toronto Star of February 19, 1974. This editorial bore the most appropriate heading "Our Helpless Prime Minister", and it concluded with these words:
But above all what is needed is a government that can be seen to have the determination and courage to try to act against inflation, the central problem of our time. Trudeau's supine indifference is simply an invitation to all Canadians to accept the inevitability of inflation and do what they can, individually and often against each other, to save themselves as best they can-the road to chaos.
It also invites the conclusion that if Trudeau won't try, then it's time to get somebody in that office who will.
It is not really an exaggeration at all to say that, not only is this government lacking in courage and in policies to meet our country's problems, but also that it is floundering from day to day in the grips of an obsession, the obsession of staying in power by any means whatsoever. Power for the sake of power has become the guiding principle since October 1972 on the part of an administration dominated by an emperor complex rather than dedicated to the principles of Liberalism which it has in reality totally abandoned.
In this House we have witnessed the sad performance of those who apparently are prepared to say almost anything, agree with almost anything and promise almost anything, in the hope that such action will enable them to cling to office. How tragically easy it seems for those on the front benches opposite to sacrifice any beliefs, to change any policies and to espouse any programs, in desperate attempts to cling to their portfolios.
Surely, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), at least now and then, I would hope, must feel twinges of conscience that tell him it would be more admirable for him to speak out firmly and strongly in the interests of the Canadian people rather than lurking coyly in the wings,

willing to swallow almost anything in the interests of being first in line when the emperor vacates the throne. Surely, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) must at least now and then secretly wish that he could be more than a puppet and pursue a real foreign policy for Canada rather than merely following the somewhat muddled and often unfathomable views conveyed to him from the palace on Sussex Drive. Surely there must be moments when the present Solicitor General (Mr. All-mand) asks himself what kind of a department he inherited from his predecessor, and surely on occasion he must be tempted to risk the wrath of the east block by striking a blow on behalf of true Liberalism, which he supposedly represents in this House, by abolishing that totalitarian superpolice group perhaps better known as "Goyer's gumshoes".
A few months ago a respected member of the press gallery-if my memory is correct it was Anthony Westell-compared those on the front benches opposite in one of his articles to a group of extinct volcanoes. With all respect to this writer, it seems to me that such a comparison is not entirely appropriate. To say that those who occupy the seats of power opposite resemble extinct volcanoes is to imply that at least at one time this government amounted to something, no matter how extinct it obviously is today. Without a doubt, Mr. Speaker, the performance of this government since 1968 has clearly shown that it has never been composed of volcanoes, extinct or otherwise. A better description would be mountains of confusion never capable of eruption.
Surely, there must be times when some of those opposite, if not on the front benches at least among the backbenchers, must think seriously and regretfully about a great example of integrity they might well have followed. They once had in their midst on that side of the House a man who cared for the welfare of his country and its people above all else; a man who would never yield to political expedience for personal gain; a man who was Deputy Prime Minister but who, unlike the Minister of Finance, cared more about the problems of the nation than he did about inheriting a crown. How disconcerting it must be to those opposite that this man today still sits in this House with his integrity intact and his principles unsoiled. I refer, of course, to the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer).
I have found many persons in my constituency who seriously question the peculiar foreign policy of this country. What is the reason, they often ask, that this government seems to have turned its back on former friends such as Great Britain or those who live in the countries of western Europe? Why, they often ask, is our Prime Minister prepared to travel to Moscow and to Peking but apparently not interested in visiting Brussels, or Paris or Armsterdam?
No one can justifiably object for a moment to the diplomatic recognition of communist China. It would be unreal to pretend that it does not exist. But should we be so obsessed with the east, so orientally oriented, that we turn, our backs on our diplomatic friends of longstanding in the west? Specifically, what can be said of the government's relationship with England? The words that best describe the situation are "shoddy" and "shameful". This
March 4, 1974

trend began shortly after this government took office in 1968 with that great contribution by the Prime Minister when he travelled all the way to London to accomplish the daring feat of sliding down a bannister.
Then came that blue day in October, 1972, which so terrified the Prime Minister that he grabbed the nearest Union Jack and rushed off to London again. In a show of hypocrisy unequalled in the history of Canada he became overnight a confirmed and ardent monarchist. We have watched an unparalleled display of political expediency since then, as he has slyly displayed himself at every opportunity with outward expressions of loyalty and devotion to the royal family. Such rapid adjustments to fit any situation are hardly surprising to those who have examined the situation in any depth.
It is a very clear fact that we have a government that long ago threw out the window what few principles it had left in favour of doing anything to retain power. That is basically why so many of us left the Liberal party, and that is also why so many who still remain in the Liberal party, despite what they may say or may have to say in public, do not rest easy in their minds. Why should those on the other side of this House rest easy? After all, was it not their present leader who wrote these very words about them in April, 1963: "What idiots they all are". Can they rest easy when they remember that their present leader once referred to them as "the spineless Liberal herd", that he once wrote that the Liberal Party "has never been anything more than a syndicate of the private interests" and that he called the late Prime Minister Pearson such things as "Pope Pearson", "The unfrocked priest of peace"? Can they rest easy when they recall that their present leader urged Canadians to vote NDP while shortly thereafter he was engaged in a manoeuvre that took over the Liberal Party and placed him on Sussex Drive?
And above all, can Canadians as a whole rest easy with a government that can suddenly change its direction as quickly as a chameleon changes colour, a government headed by a Prime Minister who has made very clear that he seeks to master the art of jumping on a horse and rushing off in absolutely every direction at the same time if such will help him stay in office. But despite the government's many window dressing twists and turns since that near disaster of October 1972, it has really not succeeded in hiding its underlying motivation. Despite the fact that the government dressed itself in sackcloth and ashes and the Prime Minister has played his Uriah Heap repentance act to the full, nevertheless the spots of the leopard have in no way really changed.
This is a government impatient with the democratic process, a government with little respect for Parliament. It is an autocratic government so influenced by the technocrats and the eggheads both in it and around it in key positions that it is totally incapable of caring for the problems of individual Canadians. Lost in the heartless mentality of the computer, it does not worry very much about the man who is unemployed. It is not very deeply concerned about inadequate pensions being received by the elderly. It shows no feeling for those on low incomes who can scarcely carry on in the face of the staggering rises in the cost of living. And if ever there was a single
The Address-Mr. Cossitt
incident that clearly showed me how little this government really cares about individual people, it was the case of Ronald Patrick Lippert, a Canadian who was allowed to stay forgotten in a Cuban jail for ten years and to whom the Prime Minister consistently refused to give assistance despite hundreds of requests from all parts of Canada, in particular requests from Mr. Lippert's 80-year old mother who was not well and who longed for a chance to see her son once again. In all the time that I was connected with the Lippert case, I could never understand the incredible and incomprehensible callousness displayed by the government, and particularly by the Prime Minister, toward this man. Persons with any sense of humanity could never have behaved as those in the government did, who were associated with the Lippert case.
The impatience of this government with the democratic process has been amply demonstrated by its attitude toward opposition questions, especially questions placed on the order paper of the House of Commons. In the last few months there has been an obvious effort on the part of the government to discourage such questions. Apparently any questioning is a part of the democratic process that this government wishes did not exist. We have all seen the reaction that occurs when an opposition member draws attention to questions unanswered for a long period of time. We are immediately greeted with loud boasts from the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Reid) about the fantastic percentage of the total questions that have been answered by the government. These boasts, however, have recently been followed by the sinister suggestion that answering opposition questions is too costly with the very obvious threat that those of us placing questions on the order paper had better watch out or we would be branded as squandering the taxpayers money.
I realize this particular government is composed of experts on the subject of squandering taxpayer's money but it has now become quite clear that it has developed into an expert on something else as well, namely the latest methods of stifling legitimate democratic opposition. A few weeks ago the Canadian Press news service carried a report attributed in part to the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) stating that the average cost of answering an order paper question is $3,000 to $5,000. The report then went on to say that one question even cost $75,000 to answer, an obvious attempt by this government to smear by innuendo all members of the opposition who ask questions. This is probably the most questionable government Canada has ever had, so no wonder it tries to stop any penetrating examination by members of the opposition. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the cost figures put out by the government through the lips of the member for Kenora-Rainy River, alias "Dr. No", are nothing more than absolute hogwash. The $9 million total cost figure for the last session is the best baloney sliced in this country in a long time.
Sometime ago I placed questions on the order paper requesting details about those big, fat political pork barrel expenditures of public funds in the form of government advertising contracts, millions and millions of dollars being shamefully shovelled out by this government to its friends in the advertising agency business without the calling of public tenders or the obtaining of competitive

March 4, 1974
The Address-Mr. Cossitt
presentations. Each minister simply dispenses with a free hand this insidious government largesse to those the Liberal Party wishes to reward for previous services rendered or for future favours anticipated. Recently there have been press comments on this subject by such notables as Senator Davey, the author of such questionable political gems in the past as the infamous "truth squad" and the man who the Prime Minister has now brought back from Limbo to see if there is anything left in his little bag of tricks that will keep a sinking ship afloat. The senator and his associates have described some details of the eight-man committee that will handle Liberal Party advertising in the next election campaign. Supposedly by sheer coincidence it happens to be composed of top officials from four advertising agencies which, in turn again by sheer coincidence of course, just happen to be agencies that have somehow received fat government contracts. This is nothing more than scandalous and degrading use of government advertising contracts as a political pay-off to those who will attempt to keep the government in power, presumably with some anticipation of their firms receiving another ride on the gravy train.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that this is not only a deplorable situation but also could be construed as an attempt to get around the limitation on expenses imposed by the new Election Expenses Act. In other words, these eight men, described by the former executive assistant to the Minister of Finance in a rare moment of political candor as "our type of people", will presumably come to the aid of the Liberal Party more or less free of charge and any subsequent fat advertising contracts that might be awarded to their firms by a Liberal government would be absolutely coincidental. Without a doubt, Mr. Speaker, the present system of awarding government advertising contract on the basis of ministerial prerogative is about the worst example that exists of a government doling out political party patronage from public funds. It is essential that steps be taken to remove millions of dollars of government advertising contracts from their present status of nothing more than political slush funds.
I would like to say a few words about the government's sacred cow, namely its methods of instituting bilingualism-and I refer particularly to the methods of institution-in the public service which it has sought to wrap in an aura of untouchableness. It has attempted to create an atmosphere in which it is immediately considered sacrilege for anyone to offer legitimate, justifiable or constructive criticism on the subject. In reality, the bilingual program and the methods of implementing it should be fully and most carefully scrutinized, in the same manner as any other government action. This sacred cow should no longer be viewed through rose-coloured glasses but instead should be completely examined in every detail for the purpose of eliminating its nonsensical aspects and at the same time assuring fair treatment to all person employed in the public service. As a start, I would suggest that Canadians are entitled to a much better performance than they have been getting on this subject from both the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) and the gadfly flitting around of official languages commissioner Keith Spicer of Westmount Rhodesian fame.

It seems to me also that we could do without cocktail circuit bilingualism, as evidenced by the spending of some thousands of dollars to give language lessons to wives of senior public servants in an unwarranted abuse of public funds. Why should the taxpayers pay for language lessons taken by the wife of the governor of the Bank of Canada who makes $75,000 a year, and why should the taxpayers of Canada be paying for language lessons taken by the wife of the president of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation who has been quoted in the press as saying she took language lessons so that she could get along better in French at cocktail parties? Already $85,000 are reported to have been spent on this particular nonsensical aspect of the implementation of bilingualism, and I suggest it should be stopped forthwith. I believe that the implementation of bilingualism in this country, the methods being used by this government, has become a mismanaged monstrosity manipulated for political purposes and that a thorough examination is certainly warranted.
In conclusion, and with regret, I must say that I have found in my constituency, and places elsewhere as well, disillusionment with Canada as it is today. There is a feeling, which I believe is justified, that this country is drifting in a sea of economic and social confusion because there is not a firm hand at the rudder prepared to deal with our problems. Surely, it is time that the interests and problems of Canada and its people were attended to. Surely, it is time for an end to government by emperor complex, for an end to government that classifies democratic opposition as nothing more than nobodies. Indeed, it is time for an end to a government that wants to hold office, not for the prime purpose of doing good things for ordinary people but for the sake of clutching power in the palm of its hand. Canada needs a government that is prepared to come to grips with our social and economic problems. Canadians deserve a government that will fight the cost of living with something more than the inaction and the empty words of recent years.


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I should like, first, to extend my congratulations to our new Governor General and wish him the very best in this most arduous post. I should also like to congratulate the mover and seconder of the Speech from the Throne. Their efforts reflect the great contribution that has been made in this House by the younger, newly elected members, and also the growing concern of the whole House about the poverty which exists in Canada and throughout the world.
In reflecting, after one year in the House, the thing that stands out in my mind is the essential fragility of Canada as a country. We see the great problems with the two languages and the multicultural problems. We see problems in the poor and welfare areas of the country. We see problems between the developed and the undeveloped areas, and we see problems between the provinces and the federal government which result in clashes between them.


Mr. Neil:: And nothing is being done about it.


Paul Edmund McRae: A lot is being done about it and I will come to that in a moment. I see Canada as an essential core with
March 4, 1974

an outer area, and with clashes between the centre and the outer area. This is another of those stresses which we see.
I should like to deal for a few minutes with two or three major problems facing this country to illustrate its fragile nature and to stress what I think is needed, namely, a much stronger federal initiative. We must listen to the provinces, but then we must make our stand.
I should like to deal briefly with the whole matter of our energy policy as it has been laid down and as it is developing. Sometimes when we deal with a topic as large as this it is well perhaps to dig ditches and build bridges. In other words, I would like to stop at a certain point and deal intensively with one matter, then go over other parts rather quickly.
There are three basic elements to our energy policy. The first one is an adequate and secure supply for all of Canada. I think that we must deal with an adequate supply both in the long and in the short run. In the short run, we were very concerned in the latter part of the last session and in this session with the possibility of an emergency this winter. For many reasons this emergency has not occurred, and I hope it will not occur. Of course, the energy allocation bill was the result of that concern. However, I should like to spend a good deal more time on the long-run aspects of our energy policy, because I think the situation is much more grave in the long run. I believe, too, there has been far too little concern about this aspect.
First, I will talk about oil. Early in 1972, the Canadian geological survey indicated that Canada had 135 billion barrels of ultimately recoverable reserves of conventional crude oil. A year later, early in 1973, this figure was reduced to 99 billion barrels, but not because we had used anything like that quantity in that period. In fact, we had used less than a billion barrels, but the figure was reduced because the information that the government had was changed. The information was changed, I think, because the department itself was a little more careful about checking its sources and was doing more work in arriving at these figures.
A year has passed since these figures were published. It is my estimate that the figure now is closer to between 60 and 70 billion barrels. In other words, our estimate of reserves ultimately recoverable of conventional crude oil has gone from about 135 billion to about 60 to 70 billion, or about half of what it was two years ago. Also, I think it is very significant that there have been no significant finds of conventional crude oil in the offshore areas or in the north since this 135 billion barrels figure was posed. So, we are still speculating so far as this is concerned.
Now, we do have a very large source of oil which we know exists. Perhaps the exact quantity is not available, but it is certainly very significant. I refer to the tar sands in Alberta and Saskatchewan. We do not have to spend time to explore or find these tar sands. We know where they are. For instance, we know that perhaps 50 billion to 60 billion barrels could be obtained through strip mining, but there would be great problems associated with it.
We are told that by 1985 Canada will require approximately 2 billion barrels of crude oil per year, and that our conventional western reserves will be used up by that
The Address-Mr. McRae
time. At present, we have about 10 to 12 years of ultimately recoverable conventional western crude in our reserves, and I repeat that by 1985 these reserves will be just about depleted. As a result, we will be dependent on the conventional crude we find in the interval, and on the tar sands. I think it behooves us to realize that the tar sands are the significant area upon which we must concentrate. The problems involved in getting 2 billion barrels per year out of the tar sands will be tremendous. I am told that Canada will require something like 17 extraction plants using a strip mining process which would entail an investment of something like $30 billion.
Even if that amount of money were available, there would still be a problem in bringing the plants into production at a rate much faster than one every year and a half, or one every two years. As a matter of fact, an Alberta government interdepartmental study of the tar sands suggested that four years might be the minimum period for bringing each plant into production. I am told the industry suggests it could be done once every two years or once every year and a half. Obviously, this means that we could not get 17 plants into operation by 1985. As a matter of fact, the small Syncrude plant now in operation will not be on full schedule until 1978. In addition to the job of getting the plants on stream in time there is a significant environmental problem in that the process requires a great deal of water. Water has to be converted into steam, and the steam is then used to extract the oil and gas from the sands.
Considering these factors, it seems to me that the very large body of oil, possibly 200 billion or 300 billion barrels, that is in situ below the area that can be strip mined, is the one that can be of most benefit to us in the long run if we can develop the right extraction processes, particularly in terms of the environmental considerations. But at this particular point in time, no really worthwhile research has been done on how that significant body of oil could be recovered and put on stream.
So far as natural gas is concerned, we can assume that we have about 20 to 25 years supply in normal positions, that is, in areas from which it can be delivered fairly simply, with fair quantities of gas in other areas where its extraction will require tremendous investment. Here I mention the north in particular.
We also have massive reserves of coal. But there are problems attendant on the use of coal in large quantities, environmental problems, sulphur problems, dust problems. As an example, for the community of Thunder Bay, Ontario Hydro is now proposing to erect a thermal plant which would use lignite shipped in from the west. The Thunder Bay residents have expressed strong opposition to this proposal, opposition which I support, because this means that a significant amount of dust will be spread through the atmosphere wherever the coal is landed. Environmental problems will arise also from burning the coal, and these, too, will affect the community.
We are coming to the end of the road in generating electricity from water power. Now we have embarked on projects such as James Bay and South Indian Lake. One possibility which disturbs me very much is that rumours are afloat that work might be undertaken in the future on the Albany River. When such diversions occur, we do
134

March 4, 1974
The Address-Mr. McRae
irreparable damage to the environment of the areas affected. Up to this point I have been dealing mainly with the supply side, and the brightest spot on that side is the nuclear possiblities. The CANDU reactor project has been a most successful one, successful beyond the dreams of the engineers who set it up. I do not think anyone expected the kind of load efficiency attained, which has been something like 95 per cent.
I think a serious look should be taken at the success of the CANDU plant at Pickering to see if it would not be possible to phase out some of the more difficult, more dangerous, and more environmentally expensive parts of the James Bay project in favour of using another CANDU nuclear plant. This is something that should be examined before the James Bay project proceeds much further.
But there is a serious problem associated with the CANDU plant also, particularly if we were to build 200 or 300 of them, and that figure is quite possible when one looks at the demand curves. With such a number we would have problems with heat, with nuclear waste, and with producing heavy water, although lately we have had more success in the latter area.
There are other ways in which energy supply can be increased, but all of them present serious problems. For instance, the gasification of coal is looked upon as something that can be done fairly easily. However, we must remember that this requires huge amounts of water. If the Americans intend to gasify a large quantity of coal-and it is said that they have enough coal to last them for 200 to 300 years-they will require huge amounts of water. Once again we would be placed under a strain. Where would they get the water they require? Approximately 2lA tons of water are needed for each ton of coal in order to produce gas. Of course that water would have to come from somewhere, and the Americans would naturally look to Canada for this water.
The requisite technology is nowhere in place for the development or the recovery of solar energy. Other suggestions such as biomass, and so on, have been put forward, but such developments are a long way off. The technology is not available. But even if by some magic sleight of hand we could develop all the energy we require, I think we would only be compounding our problems. I say this because if we were to increase our supply of energy, then we would use up other resources more quickly and eventually would run out of those. For instance, our supply of zinc would not last long if we decided that all cars should be electric. We would not have enough zinc under the earth to supply batteries for those cars. There are some very great dangers inherent in increasing energy supply at the rate we consider necessary.
Let us look at the demand side. We have looked at the supply side and it is grim. If we continue at a 5 per cent growth rate to the turn of the century-that is 27 years- we would have a factor of four: we would be producing four times the goods and services we are producing now. By 2028 we would be producing 16 times the goods and services we are producing now and would need 16 times the energy if the growth rate were 5 per cent. By 2056 we

would need 64 times the amount of energy we are using today. That is what we call the demand side.
If you take the supply curves and the demand curves and plot them, as has been done by the Energy Board and other groups such as Gulf Oil, you see supply curves that rise fairly gently. In other words, we are only going to increase the energy supply slowly. But you see demand curves that go up almost perpendicular, and by 1978 or 1980 these curves cross. Beyond that point, the demand is ridiculous. I feel that we must take a real good look at the demand side and ask how we can reduce the demand for energy and the demand for natural resources. This is the important issue of the seventies, and if we do not solve it we are not going to make it into the eighties.
I have suggested that if we continue looking at these questions in terms of supply only all other things are going to run out. We have the supply question getting us into messes like the James Bay project, South Indian Lake, the South Albany River, the Mackenzie Valley oil and gas and these kinds of things. We have to find the massive investments required even for the gentle supply curves-$75 billion to $100 billion-in the next ten years and face the distortion that this will create in the economy.
My community is very involved in and dependent upon the pulp and paper industry. If there is an investment of $75 billion to $100 billion in energy alone, then a lot of it is going to come from the United States and other parts of the world. How are these countries that have to spend so much to get their energy, going to buy our pulp and paper? The Canadian dollar has gone up to $1.03 and $1.04 already, so what will be the distortion if we have such massive energy investments?
Inflation is a problem which the opposition has been talking about a great deal lately. One of the reasons for it is that we have a very heated economy with a 7 per cent growth rate. I was talking about 5 per cent when I said that by 2056 we would need 64 times the energy that is used now. In the last year we have been running at a 7 per cent growth rate and this has had a tremendous effect upon inflation. I think we really have to look at the cost of the demand side of our energy pattern.
I was very pleased to hear the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) speak about the demand side in a statement made on New Year's Day, and I should like to quote from it. He said:
All of the resources we now take from the earth come at an enormous price. This price is in effect a distress signal, a warning that thoughtless exploitation can in the end lead only to tragedy. To continue our present rate of consumption would be to deplete in short order the heritage of countless centuries, to squander mankind's only legacy on this small and finite planet.
What we face now is not deprivation, but the challenge of sharing. We need not do without, but we must be good stewards of what we have. To ensure nature's continued bounty, we are not asked to suffer, but we are asked to be reasonable. We are asked to adjust our demands to nature's limitations, to realize that unrestrained consumption by individuals and economic sweepstakes among nations are not acceptable ideals.
I think this is one of the most important statements that have been made in the last two or three years, and there are certain things that flow from it. One is the setting up of a conservation office. I do not think that many of us are
March 4, 1974

aware of this office but it is an important step and every support should be given to it to do the job that is required. Here are some suggestions on what it could do.
An important area in which the consumption of energy could be considerably reduced is interurban transport. As an example, in terms of gross tonnage rail transportation achieves 550 ton miles per gallon as opposed to highway transportation which gives only 38 ton miles per gallon, so there is a tremendous energy saving in using rail transportation. In net tonnage, rail would give 200 ton miles per gallon and movement by truck would give 50 ton miles per gallon, so the implications for piggybacking in this industry are enormous. Building a railway would only take from one-third to one-sixteenth of the energy used to build a highway, and about one-quarter of the space. A railway would use only about one-sixth of the fuel per passenger mile that would be used for air transportation. This has serious implications in terms of Pickering airport. Do we need it in light of the supply of energy and the demand for energy today? Should we not ask if it is a feasible proposition? Is rapid ground transportation not a much more sensible solution to the problem, considering the energy situation? Rapid ground transportation would only use about one-sixth of the energy necessary to move passengers by air. A great deal of consideration should be given to this question.
We should also look at better forms of urban transportation in an effort to keep cars out of our cities. Again, great savings in energy could be achieved by different kinds of housing construction, improved insulation and so on. There might be changes in our life style because we have to restrict our consumption of energy; indeed, such changes are being anticipated.
When we talk about this whole matter of demand, we are talking about a growth rate that is today 5 per cent, 6 per cent or 7 per cent. But that growth rate perhaps should go back to one per cent or 2 per cent if we are to rationalize the demand and supply sides of this problem. Slowing growth involves many difficulties. We must examine the psychology of growth. We know what happens in a bureaucracy. A bureaucrat sees his power, position and income increase in proportion to the number of people working under him. That situation is common to all bureaucracies and is one of the reasons underlying growth. Growth has been the big bogey, so to speak. We have said that it is needed for the creation of new jobs. That being so, we must look at other ways to create jobs, if necessary without growth. Perhaps job sharing and income diversification programs could be considered. Certainly, lowering the rate of growth would have a strong anti-inflationary effect.
When I speak of lowering the growth rate in Canada, I do not mean that there should be no growth, or that we should not redistribute growth. Certain areas, such as the Golden Horseshoe area, where growth is creating all kinds of problems, should be free from growth for some time at least. The mayor of Toronto has been loud in complaining about the growth of the city. He suggests that growth should be diverted to other parts of the country.


An hon. Member:: Send him to Cornwall.
The Address-Mr. Holmes


Paul Edmund McRae: If I may move on, I suggest that our energy policy must involve adequate and secure supplies, and a delivery system capable of delivering those supplies. Those of us who come from northern Ontario, in particular, were happy to hear the government announce that an all-Canadian pipeline will be built by the end of the decade which incidentally would serve northern Ontario.
Our energy policy must also recognize that there are serious problems connected with Canadian ownership and control of our energy industry, particularly in the field of petroleum. We need more control over the industry. By setting up the national petroleum corporation, we shall be able to exercise greater control. Personally, I am in favour of purchasing one of the larger national companies. Certainly, we want to control the industry. In particular, we must gain control of the tar sands, which is where the development will take place in the next 20, 30, 40 or 50 years. It is also important for the national petroleum corporation to involve itself in supporting Canadian independents in exploration and also the Independents involved in the distribution of energy products such as gasoline.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must interrupt the hon. member, to remind him that his time has expired. He can continue if he has the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Paul Edmund McRae: Mr. Speaker, I will wrap up my remarks quickly. I suggest that a single, fair price across the country is also an important consideration. I could speak for another 40 minutes on this topic, and for that reason I will leave it. Nevertheless, the need is there.
May I also touch on transportation. The west faces transportation problems. As we get most of our petroleum and other forms of energy from the western provinces, and I am thinking especially of Alberta, we must make sure there is a quid pro quo, that is a better transportation policy for the west. I suggest that the National Transportation Act ought to be revised completely. We should revise the structure of freight rates. Unless the Act is revised, we will restrict growth to the centre core and keep it from spreading to those other parts of the country where growth is necessary. By using our transport system, we can diversify our manufacturing processes and the location of secondary industry across this country. That, I think, is extremely important.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, although I would love to spend more time on transportation and on agriculture, I suggest as strongly as I can that there is a vital need for a strong federal presence in this country. The federal government must consult with the provinces, but in the long run the federal government must take a strong stand on behalf of all Canadians.


John Robert Holmes: Mr. Speaker, the throne speech has been described as a typical, vague document containing goodies appealing to all regions of Canada and all Canadian citizens. When one reviews the track record of the government in the last session of parliament, that approach is understandable. But, sir, I must emphasize that the Speech from the Throne avoids
27398-10J

March 4, 1974
The Address-Mr. Holmes
dealing with the issue most important to each and every Canadian, his health.
The government's disregard of major health problems, national in scope, will result in needless tragedies in the homes of thousands of Canadian families. During the last session of Parliament numerous proposals were introduced by members of my party, and by other hon. members of this House, which would have contributed effectively, in a positive way, to the health of Canadians; but no action was taken.
During the last session, I clearly enunciated an action oriented program to deal with the major problems of alcohol and drug abuse, and again no action was taken. Only today, during the question period, I raised a very special issue concerning the Medical Research Council, the importance of that particular organization and its interrelationship with health care in Canada. Again, the answer did not suggest that there would be action. I respectfully suggest that if the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), who is not present, spent less time kicking around political footballs and spent more time devoting his energy to the health of Canadian citizens, perhaps the comments which I am about to make would be redundant and programs dealing with health problems would have been included in the throne speech.
May I remind this House, and in particular the government, that with the passage of the Department of National Health and Welfare Act in 1944, establishing the Department of National Health and Welfare, it was clearly defined that the department was charged with the duties, powers and functions extending to and including all matters-I repeat, all matters-relating to the preservation of the health, social security and social welfare of the people of Canada over which the Parliament of Canada has jurisdiction. I cannot emphasize too strongly that this government has not discharged its responsibilities in carrying out these duties, unfortunately to the detriment of countless thousands of Canadians.
Governments must work continually to fulfil their responsibilities of public trust and confidence, but it is also true that individuals must assume personal responsibility for the promotion and maintenance of their own good health. Future federal government health policy must reflect this dualistic approach. More emphasis must be given to disease prevention and to the development of educational programs designed to influence our health habits. We need a change from the present belief that good health and good medicine are synonymous. There is a need for the re-thinking of our manpower and institutional requirements. Our preoccupation to date has been with the health care organization and management which uses approximately 95 per cent of the health dollar. It is clear that the answer to many of the problems in the area of health care management depend upon appropriate federal-provincial consultation and co-operation.
I believe that the financial impasse facing the provinces can be resolved and, in accomplishing this goal, energies can be more effectively directed to health problems. There should be immediate negotiations with the provinces to effect a transfer of tax point payments to provincial jurisdictions. Surely, the provinces facing the ultimate responsibility of controlling costs should have the growth in tax

revenue as a strong base upon which to launch extensive health program reorganization and further development in critical areas of need.
This implies, of course, that the entire management and administration of the health care organizational aspect of health should be transferred to provincial control. In order to do so, it would be necessary for the provinces to accept national uniform standards and guidelines designed to promote a comprehensive, universally accessible, portable system between all provincial jurisdictions, and recognize that the federal government has an important leadership role as well as the responsibility to develop programs designed to attack problems national in scope. In conjunction with the foregoing proposals, the federal government should guarantee that no future forced cost-shared health programs would be introduced without the agreement of the provinces.
A problem of major concern is that related to physician manpower requirements. Inequities have developed in the distribution of physicians throughout Canada. There is a necessity for immediate high level federal-provincial negotiations to achieve the following objectives. We need to define the total health manpower needs. We need to establish specialist requirements in all areas of postgraduate study. We need to determine an appropriate number of specific specialists per unit of population. There is an absolute need to encourage physicians to practice in rural and northern areas by devising methods of incentives. We must, of course, re-evaluate our medical school production capability. One is constantly concerned with the large number of excellent applicants, young people in Canada, who have the ability to become excellent physicians, but are unable to carry on their studies because of the lack of facilities. We must devise methods of encouraging greater entry by students into family medicine.
An area of growing importance is the use of computer technology. There is a need, in concert with the provinces, to update and modernize existent computer technology in Canada. Moreover, the federal government in cooperation with the provinces should undertake the responsibility of developing an ongoing annual health status survey of Canadians. While the privacy of each Canadian would be preserved, the survey would uncover new problems accurately and early. In addition, the survey would allow evaluation and analysis of the impact of various federal and provincial programs.
The possible benefits from regionalization of health care has been enunciated by this party in the past, and will contribute substantially to the rationalization of our present health system. While the ultimate responsibility for implementation remains within the jurisdiction of the provinces, it is the responsibility of the federal government to assist in the establishment of national norms and standards. To accomplish this goal, the federal government should extend the mandate of the community health directorate of the Department of Health and Welfare to assist such areas as the Yukon and the Northwest Territories and individuals such as Indians and Eskimos.
March 4, 1974

Environmental health problems are of particular interest and concern. It is important to recognize such problems may have an adverse affect on the individuals health and yet that individual is powerless to correct or eradicate the problem. It is clear in such situations government must intervene to protect the health of the individual. To achieve the necessary coordination in attaining many diverse ends in the matter of environmental health, the federal government should immediately create a federal interdepartmental committee, chaired by the Department of the Environment, with representatives from other effected departments to coordinate all aspects of proposed action on environmental problems including identification of these areas, full assessment of proposed action, establishment of priorities, setting of objectives, development of standards, support of necessary research, and proposed legislative action.
Emerging as the number one problem affecting the health of Canadians is that of lifestyle. Lifestyle health refers to those aspects of health over which individuals exert decision-making and control. Sadly, it has been the neglected area in our disease-oriented, physician-centred health care system.
In the past, little effort has been advanced by governments and little interest expressed by individuals for change. In part, this lack of personal responsibility has been due to lack of desire and, in particular, lack of knowledge on the part of Canadians to give up immediate pleasure for long-term health benefits. However, it is evident that value-systems of Canadians are undergoing change as demonstrated by a resurging interest in physical fitness, and the federal government should give every possible encouragment to this trend.
The responsibility for co-ordinating and providing leadership in prevention policies in this field should be part of the new duties of the federal department of health. May I again re-emphasize the pre-eminent responsibility of each province in the provision of actual treatment and rehabilitative facilities.
I want to turn to some of the specific problem areas in which there is no evidence of federal leadership and in which it is required. To do that, I will refer to some statistics. Although they are boring, I think they will at least establish the priorities. I wish to refer to the year 1971 for potential years of life lost. That is very simply calculated by taking the age of 70 as the average lifespan. For example, if someone should pass away at age 40, we would calculate there were 30 years of potential life lost.
In 1971, the potential years of life lost were 1,317,651. Of 124,795 deaths, many were preventable. Let me list some of the figures. Heading the list is motor vehicle accidents with 212,925 potential years lost. As the result of ischemic health disease, 193,380 years of life were lost. Other accidents accounted for 178,792 years of life lost. Respiratory diseases and lung cancer were fourth on the list. Fifth on the list was suicide followed by cancer of the breast, uterus and ovaries, strokes, cardio-vascular accidents, gastrointestinal cancer, leukemia and cirrhosis. I am sure these figures indicate where the priorities lie and the need for leadership in these areas is obvious.
I wish to deal with the first group, cardio-vascular disease. At the present time there is no program, national
The Address-Mr. Holmes
in scope, to deal with this most devastating problem. If we are concerned about the health of Canadians, I believe that a major assault must be launched in Canada by the federal government to influence the incidence of cardiovascular disease and the resulting morbid end results of this disease process. The program should at first be preventive in nature by influencing the decisions of individuals to discontinue lifestyle patterns which contribute to the course of cardio-vascular disease.
A national policy is required urgently to promote lifestyle changes in the dietary habits of Canadians. Targets must be established to control obesity as well as levels of consumed saturated fats. These educational programs must be directed not only to the public but as well to all interested professions.
Aggressive programs designed to decrease patterns of cigarette smoking are urgently required. Further, the tobacco industry should be obliged to decrease the levels of nicotine and tars in an effort to reduce the health hazards of smoking.
Lifestyle practices of sedentary living with lack of physical fitness must be overcome. We should extend present federal programs in this area to reach, in particular, men between the ages of 40 and 70.
Immediate negotiations should begin between the federal government and the food processing industry to set standards for the processing of "lean prepackaged meats"; to establish greater use of vegetable fats; to alter the level of saturated fats in some dairy products. Likewise, standards are required for the level of saturated fats in baked goods, and finally, guidelines need to be established for total fat content in all packaged food.
I now wish to turn to another area in which there is no federal leadership or involvement. I refer to cancer and lung disease. There can be little doubt that cigarette smoking patterns play a major role in lung cancer statistics, and not only in statistics relating to lung cancer but statistics relating to chronic bronchitis, emphysema and athsma. Since tobacco is a highly addictive drug, withdrawal is difficult to achieve. Research must be urgently mobilized not only to discover pharmacological substitutes to assist in withdrawal, but also to uncover and demonstrate viable program techniques to assist each individual in organized community programs of withdrawal. Research must be stepped up in the search for low carcinogenic tobacco strains through the collaborative efforts of the Department of National Health and Welfare.
Medical research in the whole area of cancer must be stepped up. The Medical Research Council must be supported with additional funds in this particular endeavour. Of course, delays in transmitting research results to the clinical level must be overcome. In addition to this, public programs advising Canadians of the cancer danger signals must be stepped up.
Let me turn next to the problem of motor vehicle accidents. As I indicated earlier, the potential years of life lost is tops on the list. In 1969, three million hospital days attributable to all accidents were recorded. It is time we looked for driver responsibility in terms of traffic fatalities and accidents.

March 4, 1974
The Address-Mr. Holmes
There are a number of considerations which must be undertaken when working with driver lifestyle factors in automobile accidents. Provincial jurisdictions must reconsider relicensing examinations and education to supplement present driver education programs. Reckless, inconsiderate and fast driving must be stopped through these educational programs. Mental health programs will help cut down on the incidence of suicide in terms of motor vehicle fatalities. Since 50 per cent of traffic fatalities involve use of alcohol, we should seriously consider introducing compulsory breathalyser examinations in all serious accidents and provide stiffer penalties for drunken driving.
In addition, Canadians must be educated as to the effects of legitimate drug use on driving skills, particularly when these drugs are mixed with even small amounts of alcohol. We must also seriously consider making seat belt use mandatory, a matter mentioned recently in the press. The capabilities of the federal departments of health and transport, along with official agencies in this field, should be mobilized to define a strategic set of objectives and priorities.
The next area I want to talk about, in which there is minimal federal involvement and no leadership, is the area of alcohol and drug abuse. There is no other area of health of more concern to our citizens, and in particular to parents, than that of alcohol and drug abuse within our society. I spoke at length in the last session about the necessity for an action oriented program, so I have no intention of reviewing in detail that particular area. May I remind hon. members of the House that the LeDain commission has confirmed the seriousness of the problem and has made many positive recommendations which this government has ignored.
In this area of health, all provinces are at work in the implementation of treatment programs and the development of educational preventive programs. Unfortunately, much of this work is duplicative, fragmented and uncoordinated. Federal leadership is required desperately to assist the provinces and the many voluntary agencies.
Once again I call on the government for the formation of a national institute for drug and alcohol dependencies to serve as the vehicle for the implementation of such a program. Such an institute would provide a framework for federal-provincial co-operation of an unprecedented order. It would be charged with the development of working relationships with all treatment, rehabilitation and prevention agencies.
I want to make a few comments, if I may, about mental health. In no other area of health are the direct and indirect financial costs greater, the tragedies in families more profound, and the personal distress to the patient more agonizing, than in the area of mental health. In no other area is the lack of federal participation in the sharing of costs, and the lack of federal leadership in developing programs, greater than in the area of mental health. I have stated earlier the need for a new cost-sharing formula that is based on the tax point transfer mechanism. This consideration, of course, must include more reasonable participation by the federal government for provincial responsibilities for mental health.

It is also necessary to establish immediately a high priority task force of professionals to identify not only the specific audiences that would benefit from educational approaches, but also the teachers, community and professional personnel who would carry the burden of guidance or counselling. In addition, this task force would identify the research priorities in the whole area.
Canada should and must have a national mental health act. This legislation would promote research into the cause and treatment of mental illness; establish manpower training requirements; set out educational programs for community workers, including teachers, the clergy and interested and concerned parents; and provide for special demonstration projects designed to improve programs of prevention, diagnosis, treatment and rehabilitation.
Finally, after appropriate consultation with the provinces, serious consideration should be given to the formation of a national institute for mental health. The federal and provincial governments, professional agencies, and the universities, as well as consumers, would participate in effectively integrating and co-ordinating all important mental health activities.
Again the federal government has ignored another extremely important area, the special problems of the aged. Older age groups are increasingly subjected to debilitating diseases which require prolonged hospitalization. Once again I think it is very clear where our priorities are in terms of research, prevention, treatment and rehabilitation. While we recognize the importance of a young, energetic work force, it is essential that senior citizens continue to be productive to society and to themselves. There is no doubt that the mental health of our senior citizens can be enhanced through continuing productive participation. Indeed, our senior citizens want to be recognized; they want to be part of our society. Besides, many sectors of our every day economy continue to require part time assistance, consultation and advice from these expert senior age groups.
The aging process is also related to many single discomforts of life that can often be resolved with prompt intervention. For example, nutritional disorders can be linked to buying power or can be linked to the lack of proper fitting dentures. The lack of glasses and hearing aids are major problems. I believe that these problems can be resolved easily through co-ordinated action by the provincial and federal governments, and discussions should be held immediately with the provinces to accomplish this end.
Throughout my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I have been asking for a concerned, compassionate government to assume their responsibilities in attacking major health problems, and I have asked the individual Canadian to join the team to improve the health of all Canadians. To achieve this goal and to enhance the motivational process of all Canadians, I would strongly urge the creation of a national health advisory council. In addition to representation from professional groups, researchers, university administrators and the Department of National Health and Welfare, I propose that membership also include health care consumers with appropriate regional, ethnic and social class representation, as well as specific consumer health interest groups. Recommendations from the mul-
March 4, 1974

titude of government agencies, professional groups, official or voluntary agencies which pertain to major policy decisions to be considered by the government of Canada should be reviewed and assessed by this council with the capacity of making appropriate recommendations to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde).
I should now like to say a word or two, if I may, about health research in Canada. The ultimate goal of all health research is to improve the health of each Canadian. Research is linked intimately to the training of professional manpower and a high quality health care system which is further dependent upon viable research. This government has failed to recognize the fundamental truth that medical and health education, medical and health research, as well as the health care systems are linked inseparably to research and health research problems.
To resolve the numerous research problems, I would urge a bold new approach to total health research in the form of an all-encompassing national health research institute. This institute would represent a partnership between the federal government, universities and individual researchers in all fields of endeavour. The board would consist of representatives from universities, administrators and researchers from government and from consumers of health services. This board would report directly to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and hence to the Cabinet. I can visualize three major components of such an institute: The bio-medical area which is presently under the direction and supervision of the Medical Research Council, and its terms of reference should be expanded; a health care organization to continue the present efforts of the national health grants program, which should be enlarged; and the third area, that of prevention, to include coordination of lifestyle and environmental research components of health.
It is clear that in removing some areas of jurisdiction from government we have effectively asked that universities and the public share the responsibilities for guiding our research destiny. The first task for this new agency would be to establish a national research policy all-encompassing in scope. This body would identify those specific needs and priorities requiring urgent attention, and institute appropriate research programs. Such a body would report to the minister on human and financial resource requirements. Such an agency must promote a higher and more effective dialogue between governments, universities and the public, and there must be periodic evaluation, assessment and recommendations for improvement of the health care system. This agency should link itself in a workable manner with those activities I suggested in respect of a national institute for drug and alcohol dependency. This agency should ensure the academic freedom and present high level of excellence of our researchers, and guarantee stability for those researchers in the health field.
In conclusion, it is the individual Canadian who must capture our concern. When responsive and responsible governments address themselves to health problems and join with an interested and concerned public, as I believe is possible then I have no doubt we can improve the health status of all Canadians.
The Address-Miss Begin



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Before recognizing the hon. member for Saint-Michel (Miss Begin) may I advise the House that pursuant to Standing Order 40 the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Hales)-Industry, Radio Engineering Products Company Limited-inquiry as to sale and recovery of indebtedness to Crown; and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-Veterans Affairs-Recipients of war veterans' allowances, old age security and guaranteed income supplement-Provision of cost of living increases.


SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of th 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).
Miss Monique Begin (Saint-Michel):: Mr. Speaker, before extending the usual wishes, may I convey to the House the pleasure and pride of my fellow citizens of Saint-Michel who have discovered, as it were, our Governor General His Excellency Jules Leger through his interviews on television and have immediately felt drawn to him. As for Mrs. Leger, my colleagues all noted last week that we were so much at ease in the elegant residence of Rideau Hall that I wonder if she did not find it trying when we lingered there.
Mr. Speaker, allow me to convey once again to you and your assistants for that second session of the 29th Parliament, my best wishes in carrying out your very heavy responsibilities.
Before dealing with the main issue, that is the Speech from the Throne, I would like to say a few words on the profession of member of Parliament. On behalf of my colleagues I would like to thank the Speaker and President of the House of Commons of Canada for this co-operation in drafting regulations relating to hon. members' offices within federal constituencies.
The government caucus had laid upon me the responsibility for getting hon. members' opinions on this question and piloting that long awaited project. For the next few minutes I would like to talk a little about hon. member's task at a time when our role is getting greatly discredited, when the importance of the politician in the economic, social and cultural life is more important and real, when there is worry and when it is essential to have a fair

March 4, 1974
The Address-Miss Begin
representation of the people, so that this job may be really open to men and women who are willing and able to serve their fellow citizens and their country, even if they are not rich and are unable to face very high election costs and so that they may not only enter politics but do their job in a serious and sincere way.
It is a common saying in the general public that the member of parliament is some kind of person of standing who is entitled to mysterious privileges, in short, a person of standing who does not work very much and has an easy life. This I say without any resentment, but I think it is important to say here, sixteen months after my election, that this idyllic description has nothing to do with reality, at least for the great number of members I got to know and who have become colleagues and friends of mine.
In our Parliament, a session now lasts 10 or 11 months of the year, five days a week and three entire evenings, besides the tiring hours of work in committees of the House, including hearings held across the country. Added to that the usual work of a member of Parliament on behalf of his constituents and of those who request his help. Such work is a daily task which knows no rest during weekends. I am not mentioning here the caucus meetings, the representation duties, etc.
Last year, at this time, I was directly in charge of the interests of about 150,000 citizens. In one year, this number has been increased by 25,000. Did anyone ever ask what were the working tools of the federal member of Parliament in order to serve his constituents? After a month in office, I was astounded at the telephone bill that was awaiting me! And yet, all these long distance calls were about my work as a newly elected member of Parliament, due to problems brought to my attention by my constituents. A few months earlier, I was one of the 400,000 public servants, a specialist "at the service of the people". Today, I am on the other side of the fence, if I may say so, one of the 264 "general practitioners at the service of the same people". Before, I had at my disposal all the basic tools required. Long distance business calls anywhere in Canada or outside the country were paid of course by the government; any document could be duplicated in record time; travelling expenses and allowances in this country or sometimes even outside the country raised no problem. Green boards, charts, newspaper or magazine subscriptions; telegrams, books, briefcases, overtime staff, translations, were of course available as required. I did not have to pay for my French-English dictionaries, nor for any office equipment-Of course, we had air conditioning; anyway, we were on leave in summertime-
It is certainly not fashionable to try and foster pity for the M.P.'s. However I would like to correct the descriptions of the mass media on this question erroneous as they were, but not malicious I hope. On top of a fixed annual salary and an annual allowance for extra personal expenses caused by a second home and its attendant expenses, allowance which must also cover other expenses of all sorts, the federal M.P. does not receive any other allowance. It should be mentioned that his official mail, as that of all Canadians writing him, is postage free.
Last June, he found himself allowed, for the first time, to use a telephone credit card inside his constituency, and this applies only to the 156 non-urban constituencies in

Canada, and between his constituency and government offices in Ottawa. All other long-distance calls require by our trade are charged to us. And since Christmas this year, thanks to the good offices to the Speaker who, as of January 15, 1974, promulgated standing orders to this effect, each of the 264 federal M.P.'s can open an office to serve his constituents; lease, furniture, maintenance, telephone, taxes, etc., are payed directly to the suppliers by the House of Commons up to a total of $200 a month. The required secretary or secretaries are hired by the House of Commons of Canada at a salary or salaries not exceeding $6,000 per constituency.
The amount of work required from a federal M.P. in his electoral riding is great, considering the increasing complexity of the government apparatus, the different jurisdictions and the constantly increasing number of programs directly aimed at the population.
We are often contacted not only for information-a service which should be normally provided by Information Canada-but also for assistance in drafting community projects, not to mention the great many individual applications for assistance of various types. Actually we are eager to maintain a regular liaison with various groups. I should like to mention that since it takes three elected members to the provincial legislature to carry out similar duties in my own riding, my burden must be three times as heavy as theirs.
It is therefore inacceptable to hear on a CBC news broadcast the following statement;
Mr. Drudy earmarked a reserve of $924,000 ...
-as though in the age of Louis XIV-
... to help elected members maintain an office in their respective ridings, amount which equally shared among the 264 members, would provide every one of them with an additional income of $700 a month, tax-free, of course.
An editorial such as the one published in the November 12, 1973 issue of the Globe and Mail is equally inacceptable. The only purpose is merely to provide each hon. member with a small measure of the resources he needs to serve his constituents.
Before going on to something else, Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank you for having considered recommending that at the opening of the first session of a new parliament, the government refer the regulations concerning these constituency offices to the House Committee on Procedure and Organization for study and recommendations.
This four-party committee, open to the public, will have an opportunity to study the various methods that the members from all parts of the country have tried in order to serve their constituents as well as possible. They will then truly answer for them to Parliament, as they have already answered for them to the public.
I have taken nearly half of the time allotted to me on this single question, Mr. Speaker, because I believe in my duties as member of Parliament and I am well aware that the Canadian people would like to believe more in those who represent them. They want representatives who can do their work with all the ability and means required to
March 4, 1974

understand, for instance, the complexities of the accounting of multinational companies, windfall profits, spiralling food costs, etc. They want representatives who can protect their rights as human beings, consumers and Canadians; representatives who will truly contribute to the drafting and development of the pieces of legislation and administrative measures listed in the speech from the throne for our second session of Parliament.

As I now talk of the thrust of the Speech from the Throne, I ask myself what kind of Canada Canadians want in 1974; what kind of society do we want for our children; how will we achieve this; how v/ill that vertical mosaic stretching from Cape Spear to Mount Elias, a distance of about 3,200 miles, ever help the west and the east re-unite? If this Speech from the Throne seems so important to me it is because of its concerns and effort in offering numerous concrete ways to achieve Canadian unity and reciprocal understanding between all parts of the country. It does so mainly through two approaches. The first is through erasing as much as possible inequalities, such as regional disparities, unequal distribution of natural and financial resources, discrimination based on sex as well as those injustices based on other prejudices. The second is through inviting all Canadians to participate in common enterprises in the making of our country, and in a Canadian identity, such as the development of a national petroleum company, an optimum over-all land use, and the exploitation of the living resources of our fresh waters and seas. In so doing, this government is showing its continuous understanding of what Canadians want. For, Mr. Speaker, Canadian unity cannot be achieved without Canadian identity, and economic growth will not mean a thing to us if it is achieved outside of a frame of social justice.

We have heard all kinds of remarks to the effect that this Liberal government has changed direction. Some people have written that we have gone back to an old-fashioned form of confederalism, others that we have set great principles aside to deal with trifles. It is obviously fashionable to say that the New Democrats are governing this country and not us. To say the truth, and with no ill-feelings towards that party, I would be at a loss to define what is a New Democrat. I think that in Mackenzie King's times, the only known definition was simply to consider them, and I quote, as "Liberals in a hurry".
In fact, seldom has a government been so realistic while following such an absolutely consistent policy, despite the sudden burst of a national crisis: domestic inflationary trends brought about by international uncontrollable situations, and, during 16 months, a genuine minority government.
This government has first dealt in the past decade, with the most critical problem that was bearing heavily on the social conscience of Canadians and I refer to the situation opposing the two founding groups of this country, and concerning their respective rights and status, and their equality of opportunities in taking part in the decisionmaking process of the whole of our Canadian society.
There was, therefore, need to draft and pass without delay the Official Languages Act of 1969. This legislative
The Address-Miss Begin
tool was the most essential basis for any further social measures. Sixteen million English-speaking and six million French-speaking people. Each and every Canadian, especially those who did not know the other official language, had to be guaranteed their rights to their own language.
It was not easy! One need only have witnessed the insults, the exchanges loaded with emotional overtones in the House of Commons during our recent debates reaffirming our policy, in May and June last, and even this afternoon, never to forget them. It was not easy and we still have a long way to go.
No legislation will ever do away with prejudiced attitudes or mentalities. Time only and daily efforts-personal and collective-will enable us in the next few decades to evaluate the progress made and the soundness of that historic initiative. To that initiative, we have added another: the policy of "multiculturalism in a bilingual structure", which was promulgated two and one half years ago.
I was struck, when I had the honour and the responsibility of spending three months with the UN as the Canadian delegate, by the erroneous picture one generally has of our country. I often had to explain that my country was made up of "three thirds": the French, the English, and those who from Germany, Italy, Ukraine, Holland, Poland, Greece, China, Portugal, Scandinavia and elsewhere came to settle in our land, and whose value we appreciate as much as they appreciate what they found in Canada.
The first budget assigned specifically to multiculturalism amounted to $10 million, in additon to the $2 million allotted in January 1972, provided for the distribution of subsidies, about 600 of them, totalling $2.5 million. After a careful study of the description of the recipient projects, it seems clear to me that we are still in the preliminary stages in the formulation of the principles which should guide the application of that program, the nature of which could either sow division, or encourage mutual understanding and tolerance. In that case as well, there was a risk, while specialists are confirming that a world movement towards a strong "linguistic nationalism" and a multiplying of languages in use is being observed, which leads isolated groups to retire even more within themselves.
The last Speech from the Throne of January 4, 1973 complied with its commitments despite the suggestions of the previous speaker, the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. Holmes). Anyone who reads it carefully and compares every item of it with today's reality can but be struck by the numerous and good measures that were taken subsequently. However, I would dare to suggest that in two areas, the legislation that was passed by this House appeared too weak although successful to me-that is, first of all, the balanced maintenance at a high level of incomes, production and employment, and next, the overall initiatives and measures designed to meet the Canadians' wish to control and protect their economy and their resources through direct participation-have become the very basis of the measures put forward in the present Speech from the Throne.

March 4, 1974
The Address-Miss Begin
The inflationary crisis was not as serious, making all due allowance, in Canada as in other developed countries although it involved a heavier burden for certain Canadians than for others. As a matter of fact, three of these groups that are often forgotten by people who live in the cities will be affected by the measures concerning farmers, fishermen and seasonal workers engaged in these sectors of our economy. Do they really have the choice to leave their area for something else? Do they wish to do so? And what would we do without them, as they are the source of food production on which we are entirely dependent and on which-I am referring to huge western grain farms- the balance of payments of Canada and its capacity in international trade operations may depend?
There are about 300,000 farmers, 200,000 farm workers (including the farmers' wives) and 100,000 fishermen in this country. If we take into account all those who depend on them, we get almost 2.5 million people. There is no doubt that they have been, since the war, the poor relatives of an agricultural economy that became an industrial and urban economy.
They in turn will therefore benefit, through imaginative but simple measures, from the assistance already introduced last summer under various forms for the benefit of Canadians who fall within the categories most vulnerable to cost of living increases, that is the unemployed, the pensioners, families living on low or fixed incomes, with children under 18.
Much remains to be done, however, given the appropriate measures since, in spite of increases of 5 per cent in the employment rate and 7 per cent in the national growth rate, the rate of unemployment, although low, nonetheless reached 6 per cent according to Statistics Canada figures.
Still from the point of view of progressive elimination of disparities, I welcome those parts of the Speech from the Throne which deal with the priority status promised to consumers so that they may enjoy reasonable prices, particularly for food.

Regarding regional disparities, all that the federal government can do to improve railway passenger services in urban areas, suburban rapid transit, and to serve the more isolated Canadian communities will be welcomed by Canadians. We hope, also, that fairer proposals concerning rates for the transportation of goods, which was discussed at the western economic opportunities conference, will be forthcoming. In the same vein, small businessmen follow with great hope the setting up of the new federal business development bank and are anxious to see it in full operation as soon as possible.
In conclusion, I say quite bluntly on the question of erasing inequalities that it is about time our country established a federal human rights commission, after at least six years of argument among departments as to who is the most discriminated against, Indians, workers, women or the ethnic minorities, and through which department the commission would report. It is important that such a commission should have jurisdiction in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories and should be directly responsible to parliament and to the territorial councils. Strong powers of investigation and of prosecu-

tion, in addition to the usual powers of such commissions, are essential to give it real value.
As recommended in the report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women in Canada-I think it is recommendation No. 165-I strongly share the opinion that past experiences give all indications that for a limited period of time, say seven to ten years, a distinct division dealing specifically with protection of women's rights is needed. For those hon. colleagues who do not understand what is sous-entendu here, we can have a special multiparty caucus. Unfortunately, the recent report of progress in 1973 on the status of women, published by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro), is completely silent on this very important point. As to the statement that Crown corporations will have to undertake positive action to encourage the assignment and advancement of women, there is no need to stress that the CBC will become for women the very symbol of this effort at simple justice, which should also affect many women employees of the CN and of Air Canada, to single out only the biggest and maybe the most traditional of these public employers.

My time is nearly up, Mr. Speaker, and I have spoken on the first part only of the Speech from the Throne-the phasing out of disparities in this country. There will be other occasions to discuss modern national achievements which meet the aspirations of Canadians and of which the Canadian oil industry is the symbol, as was so well pointed out by the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. McRae).
Finally, we no longer have to feel guilty about being "a natural resources country". However, the fact is that we are a modern, industrialized country and yet underdeveloped, in the hands of international cartels that are now discreetly being called "multinationals". It is suggested that there would be only 15 governments in the world- Canada not included-whose budget would be as big as the budget of those cartels. We started at different paces, depending on the areas of this country, to realize that massive and non-diversified foreign investment not regulated by a "code of ethics" is nearly the opposite of foreign aid.
Still, I would not want to conclude, Mr. Speaker, without endorsing the concern of Canadians for less deve-lopped or poorer countries, as suggested by the mover and the recorder of the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, my colleagues for Spadina and Sherbrooke (Messrs. Stollery and Pelletier).
I think Canadians want "national" achievements but they are also conscious of others and, above all, they want to contribute with them to the development of that "new economic order" wished for in Washington by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp).


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciated the speech of our able and charming colleague from Saint-Michel (Miss Begin) and I would like to have the time to follow through with the arguments and ideas so clearly expressed in her speech. Unfortunately, time is of the essence and I know that she will realize the need for me to make my own
March 4, 1974

speech, but I want to tell her right now how much I appreciated her remarks when she spoke of the will to build a country more united and aware of the requirements of ethnic, female or other minorities in our country, Canada.

Canadians in all walks of life have long been quick to struggle for their interests as producers. As individuals and organized bodies we have fought to get what we consider our share of the country's increasing wealth. This continuing competitive struggle is one of the most timeconsuming activities of our lives, and one of the most divisive so far as people are concerned. Only now are we discovering the importance attached to the fact that we are also consumers-not some of us, but all. The Stevens price spreads inquiry was probably our first parliamentary recognition of this discovery. Then, more than 30 years later, we had the 1967 inquiry into prices, mainly prices of food, as a result of which the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs was established.
We have a number of House of Commons standing committees to handle the special needs of various sectors of our economy, many of them being directly concerned with production. But it is interesting to note that up to this point all our efforts to get a consumer affairs committee have failed, in spite of the fact that all of the opposition parties and all the members of the food prices committee, even those on the government side of the House, strongly favour such a committee. I trust that we shall not go too far into this session of parliament before we get it.
The rising tide of indignation and despair from the consuming public regarding the spiralling cost of living is at last convincing the government that it is time to talk about the cost of living in the Speech from the Throne. In fact, the government has admitted by this throne speech that the issues of oil and food are the two most crucial ones so far as the consumer is concerned. I am not going to talk about the cost of oil or about the supply of oil; a number of my colleagues will be doing that. I am going to concentrate on the need for action with respect to the supply of food and the price of food. I want to say right now that no amount of talk in the throne speech will convince the consumers that they are going to be looked after unless the government very shortly introduces measures to do so.
In the Speech from the Throne we have this kind of talk:
The producer must be ensured a fair income for his work ...
The consumer must be ensured a fair value from his dollar.
Those are fine words. In his speech on the address in reply, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) did a lot of tough talking. He said:
We will not allow corporate profiteers and gougers to pile up unearned windfall profits at the expense of the people of Canada.
I suggest that no amount of tough talk is going to exorcise the demon of rising food prices in this country. We must have tougher measures than we have had to date to deal with food prices. Just this afternoon my colleague from Toronto-Lakeshore pointed out that the government, having had a look at the Food Prices Review Board's report which found that the Bakery Council's projected increase for bread prices was unjustified and recommend-
The Address-Mrs. Maclnnis
ed that it be kept down to between one and two cents a loaf, is still unwilling to act and to do anything about it. The government is still going to stall by having more evidence brought before the Food Prices Review Board.
In view of the fact that the Food Prices Review Board has made its final report and the evidence is now in, it seems to me that this government has to explain to the people why the Prime Minister comes out with such tough talk about not allowing corporate profiteers and gougers to pile up unearned windfall profits at the expense of the people of Canada. Why does he talk like that if he is afraid to keep the price of a loaf of bread down by 2 cents?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, the consumer is not stupid. He or she may be a little slow to catch on, but they are learning fast and will be quick to notice the discrepancy. They will demand that the Prime Minister do more than talk a tough fight. It is time to fight where it is needed.
We in this party are glad to see that the government dealt with food in the Speech from the Throne. We are even more glad of all the measures this government has detailed to help the farmer increase the supply of food for this country and at the same time to gain a fair income for himself and his family. We are glad of those measures. Let nobody say that any of us is out to see that the consumer is allowed to profit at the expense of the farmer. But I speak as a consumer. Farmers and their families are also consumers of many things besides tractors, tractor fuel and farm supplies. They have to eat, just as city folk do. What is the use of the government just going far enough to protect the supply of food, to ensure a good supply of food and farm income, if it does not carry out the other part of what it says in the Speech from the Throne: the consumer must be assured of fair value for his dollar.
I have gone over the Speech from the Throne a number of times with a fine-tooth comb and can find nothing that will protect the consumer from being gouged and exploited along the links of the food chain which stand between the farm gate and the consumer. I find nothing whatsoever to protect the consumer in this regard. I do not think the consumer should be led astray on this point.
What is the point of ensuring that we get a continuously larger supply of food in this country, if at the same time the government is doing nothing to stop prices rising? The Prime Minister himself has indicated that prices are going to rise. The head of the Grocery Products Manufacturing Association says that prices will rise by 10 per cent in the coming year; the packagers are saying the same kind of thing, and so are the processors. What is the sense of taking measures to produce more food on the farm if nothing is done to protect the consumer from being gouged all the way from the farm gate to the table? What is the sense of taking measures to produce more food if nothing is being done to prevent that food being shipped to other countries in any amount simply because those who control it-I do not mean the primary producers-can get a higher price abroad than at home? I have the evidence from my own province to prove that.

March 4, 1974
The Address-Mrs. Maclnnis
In British Columbia, where canned and fresh salmon have been a primary source of protein, last year the two companies which dominate and control 85 per cent to 90 per cent of all west coast fishing shipped vast quantities of salmon mostly to Britain and Japan because they could get a higher price there. They created a shortage here and raised the price to the Canadian consumer. The price went up and up, and it recently went up again. Before anybody tells me that the companies had to do that, let me tell them that over a 39-week period ending June 17, B.C. Packers had a 25 per cent increase in sales and an increase in profits of 124 per cent. That is gouging at its best.


Mr. Cullen:: What was the return on investment?


Winona Grace MacInnis: The government is doing nothing about that, and there was no forecast in the Speech from the Throne. I know the chairman of the Food Prices Review Board would have liked to see stronger measures in there and is wishing that he had them, but there is nothing there. There is nothing in the throne speech that deals with this sort of thing.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Please make it the committee, not the board.


An hon. Member:: He has not been elevated yet.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Letters are now coming in, and I have been shown about two dozen from one of the smaller Ontario cities where there is a good, steady payroll. They say things like this:
Isn't there anything you can do to stop the increases in all prices? All companies and stores seem to have great profits when they give out their figures. The feeds are going up for animals, fertilizers also. This means the farmer can't afford to keep a farm, and with many of them going out of business we in a few years will have a lot less food. We have potatoes in the Valley and other areas, and when they go into our stores they charge the same that they charge for P.E.I. or N.B. potatoes. How can the prices be the same? I've spoken to some farmers and they say they don't get the difference, so where does it go? Milk went up from 22 cents a can to 26 cents. Sugar has gone up from $1.59 to $2.69 for ten pounds. These are just a few, and it's getting worse all the time.
Here is another letter from the same place:
Sugar has gone up terribly, white beans, spaghetti and eggs. Good heavens, I am sure all these don't depend on anchovies off the Peruvian coast.
I am sure, too, and I think it is high time we did something about this. The Prime Minister can talk tough, but I would mention again the particular situation where after careful investigation the Food Prices Review Board said that bakeries in Canada are not justified in wanting to raise the price of a loaf of bread to three cents or four cents and that their direct cost increases are, instead, in the neighbourhood of one cent to 1 Vt cents per 24-ounce loaf. How about getting in there, Mr. Prime Minister, if you want to stop the gougers and corporate profiteers from piling up unearned windfall profits?
Turning to the matter of subsidies, I find that we will be paying about $129.5 million in subsidies for manufactured milk products this year. In spite of that, we are now told that the price of cheese will rise by ten cents per pound. Who is getting the difference between what the producer of milk is paid and what the consumer is charged? Unfortunately, the Kraft corporation does not publish profit figures. That fact is something at which the Prime Minis-

ter could shoot. I think the profit figures of Kraft would be tremendously interesting to a lot of consumers across the country.
Then what about salmon? Is the government considering export controls or a two-price system for salmon? I know that in spite of the profits the companies have made, the fishermen this year are going to get about 52 cents per pound for their catch. This has been the situation while the consumer has had to pay $2.49 a pound for whole salmon in the stores. I wish the Prime Minister were here so that he could hear more about the complaints of consumers.
Let us consider sugar. As my leader said the other day, the three sugar companies making up the sugar cartel, which were tried and fined in the courts ten years ago, are now being tried again under the Combines Investigation Act. How about imposing fines suitable for criminals, or how about jail terms as a means of bringing home to some of these criminals what they are doing to the people of the country when they raise prices? Such action, I think, would be excellent. These companies have taken $125 million from the pockets of consumers in the last decade. If you took that much in a robbery or hold-up, you would probably go to jail for 100 years and everyone would hope that you would live that long and serve the sentence. Something must be done.


Mr. Peters:: What is more, the money would probably have to be returned.


Winona Grace MacInnis: As my colleague says, the money would probably have to be returned. In the face of this, it is no good saying that a crop failure in Patagonia, Timbuktu or Outer Mongolia caused the shortage. We, in this country, produce some of all the products necessary for a good, balanced, nutritious diet. Agnes Higgins of the Montreal diet dispensary says that if we were willing to spend $100 on good pre-natal nutrition for pregnant women, we might later save the community $200,000 in the cost of caring for those who are being damaged now because of bad pre-natal diet.
Why does the government not go after that program instead of giving us fine sounding speeches from the throne, and Mrs. Plumptre as the head of a Food Prices Review Board without teeth or the power to act? Do not forget who voted against the idea of a selective Food Prices Review Board. Do not forget that the Conservatives opposed the idea. They made it impossible for us to get a selective Food Prices Review Board, something which the consumer must have. It is clear that consumers have rejected their stand, just as it is clear that people in Britain rejected the Tory government, there very largely because the cost of living had gone so high.
We reject the stupid idea, put forward by the opposition, of sitting down for 90 days to contemplate our navels, and then, hopefully coming up with the answers to the problems of inflation. We have the food in this country. We reject the system proposed by the official opposition, which boils down to restraint for the poor and opportunity for the affluent.
March 4, 1974


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I think the hon. member for Saint-Michel (Miss Begin) is rising on a point of order.


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member allow me to put a question?


Winona Grace MacInnis: Perhaps the hon. member can ask her question at the end of my speech, because I do not have very much time.


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, I merely want to know where we grow sugar and how much we grow in Canada.


William Arnold Peters: We grow quite a bit.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Please do not hold me up. That brings me to something I forgot to mention in connection with sugar. I think this government should take the initiative in renewing the international sugar agreement which lapsed in 1971. We need international planning in the field of sugar so that the consumers of this country will be protected.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Has the hon. member forgotten anything else?


Winona Grace MacInnis: Please do not remind me of anything else; I do not have very much time. First, we need a Food Prices Review Board with power to act and power to apply selective controls on the basis of nutritional need. That means a subsidy where necessary and justified. I am thinking of bread and milk. If such a policy is to be adopted, it means there would need to be a two-price system for certain commodities, such as there is in the case of wheat. There would need to be export controls for other things, such as have been imposed with regard to oil. Do not say this cannot be done. It has been done. It will mean rollbacks in price. The price of bread should be rolled back without further fuss, in view of what the minister and the Food Prices Review Board have found.
Second, the government ought to pass legislation giving the Food Prices Review Board power to compel the books of the big food chains and other parts of the food distribution system to be opened. The board should have power to lay bare the industrial and financial connections of the food chains. Do not tell me we will not find anything, when George Weston profits in 1973, over 1972, were up 86 per cent, when the profits of Canada Packers in a 39-week period were up 36 per cent, and when the profits of B.C. Packers for a 24-week period last year were up by 124 per cent. We will find something, without any doubt.
Third, we need court action where indicated. I am glad that at the request of the federal government the Alberta Supreme Court has prevented Canada Safeway Limited, which is completely under American ownership and control, from acquiring many more stores in Calgary in the next few years. The court has limited very rigorously the number of stores that chain will be able to build and the restrictions it can impose on competitors. I am glad this has been done. We need more initiatives like that.
The Address-Mr. Whittaker
Fourth, the government should consider imposing an excess profits tax on any sector of the food industry where it is found, after investigation, that such a tax is warranted. Fifth, as I have mentioned before, the government should take the initiative in bringing about international agreements. I am thinking not only of sugar. We need an international grains agreement again so that the consumer as well as the farmer can benefit.
Sixth, we need to consider alternative approaches to merchandising. We need to encourage the formation of co-operatives as one means of standing up to the big giants and other merchandisers. We need to do a lot of these things, Mr. Speaker. Mistakes, no doubt big ones, will be made if we go along this way. But we need to do something along these lines. We can make only one unforgivable mistake, the mistake of not trying.
These problems will not go away. Consumers cannot be fobbed off with talk. I wish the government would realize that consumers know the Food Prices Review Board as presently constituted is as a weak reed in a violent storm. That is all it is. They also know that the Food Prices Review Board is a toothless wonder and that it is not effective in the field of the cost of living. My remarks are directed primarily to the subject of food prices because high food prices are the biggest single problem facing Canadian consumers at this time. Why do I mention food? You must begin somewhere, and all of us must eat in order to survive. That is why I have begun by dealing with food.
In conclusion, let me say that although the Prime Minister in the Speech from the Throne outlined all sorts of beautiful things and talked in a tough voice about protecting the consumer, my party is going to have its work cut out this session to make the Prime Minister and the government come through with regard to the programs I have outlined, just as we had our work cut out in the previous session to make them come through with pensions and other things which the people of this country needed. We are going to do it. The matter of food prices is an unfinished piece of business so far as I am concerned, and I warn the government that we are going to do our utmost to make them come through and fulfil their promises to protect both the producer and the consumer in the field of food.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will see the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Whittaker) when the House resumes at eight o'clock. It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure this evening to enter into the debate on the Speech from the Throne, especially being the first of the official opposition from the great western province of British Columbia to do so.

March 4, 1974
The Address-Mr. Whittaker
The constituency of Okanagan Boundary in beautiful British Columbia is so named because it takes in a large part of the sunny Okanagan Valley and extends some 150 miles along the American border, hence the name Boundary. The sunny Okanagan Valley and, indeed, most of the area in the riding, is semi-desert with a limited rainfall per year. Because we enjoy the best climate in Canada, it has over the years been discovered by many Canadians as a wonderful place to live. We have many retired people, people who have pioneered this great country of ours. Living in our valley, these people have come from all parts of Canada; especially from the three prairie provinces.
The very lifeblood of this area is, of course, water. The valley floors are studded with lakes and flowing rivers. Okanagan Lake, 80 miles long and some two miles wide, is the main one, but there are others, all of which are fed from the snowfall and the rains of the surrounding mountains. Most lakes in the mountains are dammed and used for irrigation; they also abound with fish. Some 50 good fishing lakes within 25 miles of the valley floor can also be found in the area.
Inflation hits the retired people very hard. They see the value of their dollar going down and they are on fixed income without any, or very little chance of insulating themselves against this. These people who have worked hard to build Canada, and in many cases pioneered Canada, are quick to see through the indifferent attitude of this federal government. They get very little break from income tax which they feel is being used to some extent to create a society of non-workers, something they were not able to enjoy when they were younger. They are concerned that Canada should not be allowed to deteriorate into a country of only hewers of wood and drawers of water.
The most noticeable thing about the Speech from the Throne is not what is in it, but its deficiencies. There is no provision for an immediate anti-inflationary program. There is no mention of curtailment of government spending, no mention of reduction in personal income tax, no mention of reduction or elimination of federal sales tax on all clothing and building supplies, no mention or provision for a full public inquiry into the Unemployment Insurance Commission and its distribution of unemployment benefits.
In the Speech from the Throne we do not see anything about a new industrial strategy for Canada. There is nothing in it about a resource policy, and even less about solving the most important problem we have in Canada today. As the member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies) so ably pointed out when he referred to inflation, this is a major issue, as well as the increased cost of living. There is no way we can solve any of our other problems until we get inflation under control. I do not think we can do anything about the housing problem in Canada until we have dealt with inflation. I also do not believe we can solve the problem of regional disparities of income until inflation is lowered. Does anyone really believe we can solve the problem of redistribution of wealth before the problem of inflation is solved or before the aspect of poverty level is alleviated?
The critical thing is to come to grips with the problem of Canada's inflation now. I am afraid if we do not do so, and

it keeps on at the rate of 10 per cent, our society and economic system will not survive. Imagine what is happening to the life savings of people who are faced with the erosion of the dollar at 10 per cent per year.
What are the people of Canada to think of a government that says inflation cannot be contained, that does not provide measures which appear to be useful in the short term and only proposes ad hoc or band-aid measures which are a piecemeal approach? What are the people of Canada to think of a government that is not prepared to deal appropriately with all these problems?
A great many people in my riding believe that much of the inflation is caused by government spending. It is ironic that the government of the day, after the Speech from the Throne, should bring in the estimates for next year's government expenditures which are up a whopping 20 per cent over the past year. To increase government spending that much in an inflationary period makes no sense at all. We have had in this country during the past few years a fantastic expansionary domestic monetary policy. The increase we have had in the money supply guarantees that we are going to have increased inflation. As long as the government can, and does, print money and continues to spend in such an extravagant manner, we are bound to have inflation. Wasteful spending in government must be eliminated in order to deal effectively with the chaotic situation facing us today.
Many of us have been asking why we are trading for trade's sake. Is this really what we should be doing in this changing world? The government says it will try to solve the inflation problem in Canada over the long run by some type of supply policies. If the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) is really concerned with supply problems, why does he not do something about our supply problems now? Why does he not slow down the export of some of our raw materials, or have them processed in our own country? Why do we not have a supply policy right now?
Of great concern to the people in my riding is the question of the environment. We have in the valley floors a series of lakes and rivers which are of good quality now but which must be protected for future generations to enjoy as we have in the past. I am disappointed that the government is not taking more notice of and becoming more involved in the preservation of our delicate environment. There was very little mention of this in the Speech from the Throne. It is vital to revise the sewage assistance program to give assistance to the upgrading of existing sewage plants and, even beyond this, to give every assistance to help remove sewage outfall from our lakes and rivers. Programs such as these are, in my opinion, much better than giveaway programs that help teach people how not to work and which remove any incentive to work.
There are many other proposals in the Speech from the Throne that people in my riding have been concerned about. Many are unhappy with the performance of the Unemployment Insurance Commission, and additional ad hoc and band-aid measures will not satisfy them. The majority of people who pay into UIC and never intend to collect from it, those people who hear stories and rumours, also see what they believe to be abuses going on and they
March 4, 1974

will not be satisfied with anything less than a full investigation into UIC and manpower.
It was encouraging to see so much of the Speech from the Throne devoted to agriculture. This has not happened in the past even though the leaders in the fruit and vegetable industry have over the years been predicting trouble. The former cheap food policy of the Liberal government, which relied on cheap food from other parts of the world, was headed for disaster. The prediction made at the time, that the beef growers would eventually be in trouble, even came true. Look at the situation they are in today. We have heard many of these proposals for agriculture before; let us hope something will be done, and done soon, and that at best these proposals will be long-term. Production cannot be increased in many agricultural fields overnight; it takes time.
The most significant part for the producer is for him to be provided with a return adequate to encourage production and to restore his confidence in long-term market opportunities. These proposals will have to be incorporated into legislation, otherwise farmers will completely lose faith. For instance, even though this government talks about helping farmers to increase supply, last year when I made a plea for assistance to help the cattle ranchers in my riding buy feed to tide them over the winter because of the drastic loss of feed due to an unprecedented drought, all that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) did was pay half of the support given by the provincial government, a mere $15 per ton. Instead of putting up only $7.50. a ton, he should have matched their offer or made it $30 per ton. I am sure it would have helped the ranchers keep their basic herd intact, and this would have ensured an immediate upkeep of supply to be extended in future years.
The proposals in the Speech from the Throne with regard to transportation were particularly weak in light of what we in the opposition have been telling the government over the past year about the shortage of railway cars for many products in Canada. Producers of apples in the Okanagan Valley have lost a considerable number of sales of their product because of shortage of cars. Grain producers who have found themselves in similar circumstances are fortunate not to have lost their market or sales, although this is no excuse for keeping ships waiting in harbour to be loaded. This does not happen in the fruit industry. Producers from other areas, namely Washington state, can get cars to fill the vacuum. Thus we find an abundance of United States apples in eastern Canada while the B.C. producers have to divert good products to processors for less money. What a way to run a country!
It is well known that lumber mills have been continually plagued with car shortages to ship their products. The government must take a firm stand with the railways. This kind of performance cannot be tolerated if we are to continue to build Canada and retain a low unemployment rate.
No mention was made of legislation to ensure that veterans with overseas service will not be discriminated against when applying for their old age pension, as the minister promised. Because of this I have submitted a private member's bill which I hope this House will pass very quickly. It has been brought to my attention, and I
The Address-Mr. Whittaker
believe rightly so, that retired armed service personnel were discriminated against when pensions were raised last year. I speak for those who have not reached the magical formula of 85, even though many of these people were forced to retire. Measures should certainly be taken to rectify this discrimination.
It is heartening to hear that the government intends to do something about equal rights for women. I firmly believe they should have the same rights as men. They should not have to form organizations to fight for those rights; their legitimate requests should have been granted. Here again, I am sure these women's organizations will not give up until they have obtained the status of equality which they seek. It is too bad they have had to go through the frustrating work and the efforts they have made in order to obtain these rights.
I would be remiss if I did not bring to this House the feeling of many of my constituents regarding the lack of CBC outlets and adequate television coverage. Dealing first with television, unfortunately many areas in my constituency have at best borderline television. Although we live on or very close to the United States border, we just cannot get good Canadian television coverage. We are among the 5 per cent class who in Canada have poor or no reception, and although the minister responsible for the CBC keeps saying that money is to be spent to give us good television service, very little is done in my riding in this regard. These complaints are justified, and I hope we can get some action soon, rather than just promises.
Although there are three excellent private radio stations in the Okanagan Valley, we have been asking for years for a CBC outlet because we feel we should not be denied a public outlet when almost all of the rest of Canada has one. After all, we are helping to pay for CBC. Here again, although there has been much talk, correspondence and many petitions, we are only told to be patient and we will get extended coverage in time. This has been the case to the point that it is becoming increasingly frustrating. Many people who have moved to my riding to retire have been used to listening to CBC. We have a large population that wants such an outlet, and their request should not be denied.
One of the complaints I receive most frequently in my riding has to do with mail delivery service. I have been told by businessmen, and they have submitted proof, that since the assured mail program has come into existence the time it takes to receive a letter from Vancouver in the Okanagan has perhaps doubled. Every time I go on the open line program, and almost every day when I open my mail, I receive complaints about our postal services. I believe these complaints are justified; there appears in many instances to be an almost chaotic situation. I urge the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) to do whatever he can to solve this problem. There is no competition in respect of mail services, and the people are very aware of the situation; they know the service is operated by the federal government and is subsidized, and they therefore feel they should be able to obtain the services they deserve.

March 4, 1974
The Address-Mr. M. Roy
In conclusion, I urge this Liberal government to take immediate action to control the problems of inflation facing this country. I hope it will introduce shortly some concrete and positive measures in this regard.


Mr. Marcel Roy (Laval):: Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of the second session of the 29th Parliament I wish to congratulate His Excellency the Governor General and Mrs. Leger on their appointment. On behalf of my Laval electors, I offer them my best wishes.
The government could not have found a better counsellor than His Excellency to assume the heavy responsibility of Governor General, which shows a desire to keep on working for the Canadian people even after having served during three decades in official duties outside as well as inside this country.
I also wish to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Stollery) and the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Pelletier). Those two members have broadened the scope of debates by reminding us of the principles of the Liberal philosophy, by making us aware of human problems at the world level, by appealing to the sound reasoning of privileged people who benefited from the industrial progress through the political structure within which every citizen was able to develop himself in the social as well as the economical field.
We cannot remain indifferent to the cries for help of the underprivileged, unfortunate or oppressed people or of children disabled in their body or mind. On behalf of all the Canadian people, the government has played a part during the last twenty years in the case of those victims of an unjust fate by steadily increasing credits to third-world countries through CIDA whose budget was raised by 15 per cent this year and which now stands at $565 million.
It is not the responsibility of the Canadian Parliament to provide everyone of us with means of subsistence, however it must give all of us an opportunity for self-fulfilment if we are willing to contribute to our economic development. Ideally one should not care about what he can get from his country, but rather what he can do for it. If we consider the excellent record of the Liberal government during the first session, we realize that 50 bills were passed, all aimed at improving the quality of life of the Canadian people, while ensuring them a better future. When considering that 1973 record of achievements with regard to welfare, housing and farming, consumers and business people, we can see that the economic growth of Canada since 1968 has greatly increased, considering that the gross national product has gone up by 49 per cent during the past five years from $71,388,000 to $118,678,000 and that it has increased by 10 per cent in 1973. This is what we have achieved together and we have every right to be proud citizens of a young and vast country most richly endowed with natural resources.
I was reading recently the editorial in the January 27 issue of the weekly magazine Express. The editor, Mrs. Frangoise Giroud, started her editorial as follows:

Power in France is breaking up. In the United States, it is disintegrating. In Germany, it is weakening. In Great Britain, it is giving out.
and tonight we heard that the Conservative Party had handed its resignation to the Queen. It is obvious that this party has also failed.
For various reasons, but reasons which unfortunately coincide in time, the leaders of the western, industrialized, or developed world, or whatever you want to call it, the leaders of the world to which we belong, seem to have exhausted their resources.
These are comments that help us to better appreciate our situation and want to proclaim throughout the world our pride as Canadians and congratulate the right hon. prime minister (Mr. Trudeau), who is in charge of our country and has not exhausted his resources. When we hear some of the speeches made by members of the official opposition, we may well wonder if we are sitting in the same House and if we belong to the same country.
Evidence of pride which can be heard throughout the country, in the United States and even in the European Economic Community countries are the same. Everybody looks toward Canada. The only group which disagrees and which acts as a scaremonger, is the one that takes a gloomy view of things, like the frog at the bottom of the well. Because it sees a cloud through the well aperture, it thinks that the whole sky is cloudy and that a storm is coming up. Its expectations are storms and bad situations. This prejudicial attitude on the part of some hon. members opposite do not reflect the objectivity that any right-minded politician willing to work for the good of the country should have.
Last Saturday, Mr. Speaker, during the program "Les affaires de l'Etat", I was listening to the hon. member for St-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) who spoke about social justice. He said that the Speech from the Throne did not mention at all this social justice. He stated that we completely ignored regional disparities. Well, I would suggest to the hon. member for St-Hyacinthe that he should first have the courage to read the Speech from the Throne and second the earnestness to explain it as it should be.
We can hear many compliments on the part of the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe. I still remember when he was a judge. I wonder what kind of social justice we would have when one considers his performance, in Quebec city, when he bought, during a historical event in Quebec, an "armoured" truck, at a cost at that time, I think, of about $48,000, and which was sold later at an auction sale for $2,000, with about 200 miles on the speedometer! I do not think that this is the kind of social justice that the Canadian people want to see in this country. Still concerning the performance of the Liberal government in the field of job creating, we have once again set a record compared to other industrial countries. Since 1968, as many as 1,222,000 new jobs have been created. Again this year, the contents of the Speech from the Throne shows to what extent the government wants to tackle economic problems. We see the government laying down a strategy designed to tackle not only the effects of inflation, including the rise of food prices, but also the causes of inflation through some vigorous measures in the field of agriculture and also through a national energy policy.
March 4, 1974

The world-wide scarcity of food and the oil crisis are the main causes of inflation, and we are aware of it. It is difficult for us to contain inflation due to external factors, but we will make every effort to alleviate its effects through measures likely to control that inflationary spiral.
To approach the problem in a simplistic way, as suggested by the opposition, would fail, judging by the results achieved in other countries. We saw what has just happened in England because of the measures advocated by the Conservative party. We saw the results of such a policy. As the hon. member for Bonaventures-Iles de la Madeleine (Mr. Bechard) pointed out, the same situation prevails in the United States.
We already know the results of those formulas advocated by Progressive Conservatives with respect to price controls.
The Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) keeps on playing the same record across the country, that consumer prices must be frozen for 90 days, but without telling us for that matter what will happen on the 91*' day.
It is also easy to say that farm production must be increased. Farm production is increased, and everything is fine. Food prices will come down significantly. That is another simplistic solution advocated by men who think that as in other industries, in the field of agriculture one can turn on the valve and shut it off when one feels like it. Agriculture is not an industry like the shoe industry. There are production and follow cycles. The hon. member who spoke before me, the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Whittaker) mentioned earlier that with beef production there is a cycle of at least three and a half years.
So one cannot put toward simplistic solutions like turning on the valve and shutting it off as needed. We should rather ask ourselves why farm producers neglected their production. Our governments forgot at times that the improved standard of living brought about by technological development was not shared by our farmers to the same extent as in other areas of industry. Farming must be given all the consideration it deserves and farmers must receive a fair retribution for their work. To that end, aggressive measures for the marketing of farm products are needed. We realize today that the agrifood industry is an important area of the Canadian economy.
I congratulate the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) on the agricultural impact in the speech from the throne. A food policy designed to increase the production of food products could make a fine headline in any daily paper. But if we go over all the agricultural measures the House will be asked to consider concerning grains and farm credit, guaranteed loans designed to update farm equipment, with regard to the transportation and marketing of farm products, the construction of cold storage facilities and concerning amendments to the legislation on the import and export of farm products, we realize the importance of that situation.
Our agricultural program is very clear in the speech from the throne, and I quote:
The Address-Mr. M. Roy
It is clear that this country's production must be increased. The Government is developing a policy on food based on the following objectives:
-an adequate and dependable supply of quality food for a growing population in Canada enjoying a rising standard of living;
-reasonable food prices:
-for the consumer, in not requiring an undue proportion of income for Canadians to secure a sufficient and balanced diet;
That is the objective of the Agricultural Products Marketing Act. The duty of the National Farm Products Marketing Council is to try to ensure farm producers a reasonable income to keep the investments in their industry and to avoid those sharp changes in price which the consumers are facing today.
Mr. Speaker, 18 months have gone by before the passing of that legislation because the Progressive Conservative party was then filibustering.
In the Speech from the Throne, we can read and I quote: -for the producer, in providing a return adequate to encourage production of food items which can be economically and efficiently produced in Canada;
-a continuing supply and-
There is the importance that was given to the agricultural situation and when we listen to the speeches of hon. members opposite we see that they have not even had either the courage or the decency to be objective concerning the farming industry.
Agriculture is engaged in an accelerated modernization process and it has reached a stage where old prejudices are out of place as well as the indifference or the ignorance of city dwellers who sometimes worry about the appropriations granted to the department of Agriculture.
But because farmers were not making any profits on their investments in this field, they abandoned the farm. Quebec statistics prove it since in the last four years,
10,000	producers a year quit farming because they could no longer live off the farm.
Therefore, the advent of industrial farming, characterized by large size farms and the integration of a real farm production plant constitutes an inheritance that the new generation of farmers will accept with all the more enthusiasm that it will feel better understood by the other classes of society.
It must never be forgotten that agriculture is an important area of social and economic life; it is a dynamic factor which contributes to development and provides resources for it is at the same time producer and consumer.
In the area of urban affairs, as a representative of a riding in the second largest city in Quebec, I would not forgive myself for not speaking of the part of the Speech from the Throne dealing with urban policy and I quote:
... the Government is playing a vital role to achieve a more balanced pattern of urban growth and to increase the quality of life in our cities in co-operation with the provinces and municipalities. Improved means of public transportation are indispensable to the achievement of these urban goals ...
Public transportation is a financial burden for all municipalities which cannot balance their budget, and I refer here to the Ottawa-Hull Regional Commission, the Laval Transportation Commission, and the Montreal Interurban Commission. Deficits pile up annually under

March 4, 1974
The Address-Mr. Laprise
the public transportation item, because transportation costs are not covered by the user.
The Speech from the Throne proposes measures and I quote:
... to establish a National Urban Transportation Development Corporation to coordinate and market the development of required new technology in this field.
This consideration of public transportation is a policy which should please all the municipalities in the throes of this problem.
I wish to congratulate the architect of the Speech from the Throne, the right hon. prime minister (Mr. Trudeau), all the members of the Cabinet and more specifically the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald). I am proud to be a member of the liberal caucus which will have the responsibility of explaining the content of the Speech from the Throne to the people and of participating, in the various committees, in giving body through legislation to the basic principles set down for the coming session.
In closing, may I add that the statesman works for future generations but the politician, thirsting for power, works solely for the time at hand, applying band-aid solutions and short term solutions, aiming at a short-term objective, that of winning elections.
We are here, in this august chamber, to develop the human potential of all Canadians, to discover and exploit all the possibilities of our natural resources in the field of energy, mines and agriculture. It is in that perspective, Mr. Speaker, that I shall continue to work with my colleagues of the liberal caucus, in this House, in the various committees, and thus serve, and if need be, fight for the interests of my country.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate our new Governor General and Mrs. Leger on their appointment.
A few months ago, Mr. Speaker, as I was driving around in my car, someone over the radio was inviting the general public to telephone the station to give their opinion and make suggestions on a replacement of the Governor General of Canada. A number of persons having made some excellent suggestions, I realized that there were in Canada-and especially in French Canada, for it was the turn of a French Canadian to be appointed-that there were in French Canada quite a large number of prominent people worthy of an appointment to this position. He who had to make the choice which has now been made public and consider several highly competent people, appointed a man who, for the next five years, will carry out these difficult and very important duties for our country.
I should also like to congratulate the hon. members for Spadina and Sherbrooke (Messrs. Stollery and Pelletier), the mover and seconder of the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne who carried out their assignments with much diplomacy. This does not mean, Mr. Speaker, that everything they said must be accepted, but because they carried out their assignments well, I feel they deserve congratulations.

Over the past few days, we have heard various comments on the achievements of this government, especially on the first year of its new administration. As usual, the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne has caused much interest in every quarters. Some, as were expected, stated that they were quite satisfied with the gist of the Speech from the Throne, while others would have preferred the problems they, as elected representatives of the people, have to face to be considered from a different point of view.
Just a few moments ago, I was listening to the previous speaker, the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Roy), who has spoken highly of the content of the Speech from the Throne. At a certain point, he dealt with the increase of the gross national product. In my opinion, the hon. member for Laval has forgotten to tell us about some things; it might be an unintentional omission, but I think this should be rectified.
He said that the gross national product, if I recall the exact figures he quoted, has increased from $71 billion in 1968 to $118 billion in 1973. Those figures are certainly right and it is not on that I do not agree with him. But the hon. member for Laval has failed to mention that this increase took place at the market's price level.
This does not mean that there has been a real increase in the gross national product. I have here the commercial newsletter published annually by the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, in which a distinction is made between the GNP in current dollars and the GNP in constant dollars of 1961. And there is quite a difference.
The table I have covers the period from 1963 to 1972. In 1963, the current dollar GNP was $45,978 million against $103,407 million in 1972. But it is quite different if we use the constant dollars of 1961. In 1963, the constant dollar GNP was $44,531 million instead of $45,978 million. In 1972, it reached $71,722 million in constant dollars instead of $103,407 million in current dollars. There is quit a difference-$31,685 million.
The present inflation taken into account, of course, the gross national product is rising at a fairly rapid rate, but if we consider the real gross national product, in terms of tangible or consumer goods, things are quite different.
The same distinction could be made regarding, for example, the gross national product per capita. Once again, we obtain the same difference in dollars; at 1963 market prices, that is $2,429 per capita, but in 1961 constant dollars, the figure is $2,352 per capita. The 1972 GNP at market prices was $4,737 per capita, while in 1961 constant dollars, it was $3,285 per capita or $1,452 less.
Mr. Speaker, it is important to establish this difference and see what is the real growth of the GNP in terms of tangible goods available to the Canadian people. But because prices have been rising year after year, inflation is somehow gypping individuals out of part of their revenue, in reducing their purchasing power and denying them retribution for their labour.
Mr. Speaker, I thought it necessary to clarify this point to make this distinction clear to all those who are listening to me and those who will read the debate concerning the Address on reply to the Speech from the Throne.
March 4, 1974

We have heard several proposals which have been honestly suggested to deal with the problems which worry Canadians. They get impatient and ask for increasingly faster action to improve the unfortunate situation which they are now facing.
The population is worried about the hesitation and false steps of the government. The right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is going to succeed in standardizing unsatisfaction throughout Canada. Since last fall we witnessed the biggest fraud of modern times as far as our energy supplies are concerned, particularly in the oil area. Like other governments depending on oil trusts, the Canadian government tried to create a climate of panic in order to get higher oil product prices readily accepted. He know perfectly well that these increases in oil prices would considerably add to the price rise of all consumer goods but he knew too that all increases in consumer product costs and salaries also boost government revenues through higher indirect income and sales taxes. We just have to study the revenues of the three government levels to see that in the last ten years, their revenues have almost trebled. As a matter of fact, their total revenues jumped from $12,491,000 in 1962 to $39,179,000 in 1972. The rise in the price index is not due only to industry or trade, but to a large extent to the craving of governments for money and the consumers are certainly the losers.
It is normal for any citizen to seek to increase his income and thus improve his standard of living but inflation erodes his purchasing power and quite often the individual becomes frustrated, loses all initiative or becomes impressed by the violence of his environment and loses all confidence in the capitalist system. For example, we have only to look at the figures still provided in this commercial letter I mentioned a while ago to realize that if we take the 1961 dollar as a basis, this dollar was worth only 97.1 cents in 1963 and only 68.2 cents in 1973. That is to say, Mr. Speaker, that the Canadian manual labourer, the small storekeeper, the small businessman, as well as the individual stuck with a fixed income as are our pensioners, for example, those who have retired or who must live on public welfare are penalized by this shrinking purchasing power. Even if they are occasionally granted an increase in salary or in pension, their lower purchasing power does away with what they hoped would improve their situation.
The same thing goes, Mr. Speaker, for the individual who has the opportunity or the advantage of saving money. Because of this increase in prices, and this reduction in the purchasing power, the receipt on whatever savings may have been accumulated are cancelled and it becomes futile to think of saving money for the days when such savings may be necessary.
Mr. Speaker, when we examine the pattern of our administrative system in the last decade, we soon realize that the capitalist system is sick and seriously so. In the belief that the capitalist system is superior to communism or any form of socialism, Social Crediters persist in offering economic and social measures to remedy the weaknesses of the system because weaknesses there are. The government has long since given up before the increasingly powerful monopolies which have too often dictated laws which gives it even more power and ascendancy over
The Address-Mr. Laprise
the life of the citizens of our country. The government is not the people's servant any more, it is now at the service of the mighty and does not conceal it. Can the capitalist system ensure a sufficient production and distribution of consumer goods to guarantee all Canadians a standard of living high enough to provide for themselves and their families the goods which are necessary to meet their needs and live properly? The elements of an acceptable standard of living are essentially the following: a daily nutrition which is sufficient to replace the energy spent to live and to work, enough clothes to enable body cleanliness and to protect the individual against bad weather, a house which gives a healty and hygienic shelter, sanitary facilities and medical care protecting the individual against illness and its consequences.
Two others can be added to these vital needs: protection against theft or violence, against the loss of the possibility to work, against poverty coming from illness or old age and the means enabling each man, woman or child to develop his or her talents and skills to the maximum.
These are, Mr. Speaker, the main elements necessary in order to ensure Canadians a decent standard of living. I know of the immense natural resources we have in Canada, and I also know of the will and the abilities of Canadians to work and to produce goods and services in sufficient quantities to ensure everyone a decent standard of living. We do not understand why so many families and people face financial difficulties because the cost of living exceeds all expectations.
In order to calm the anger of some categories of people who felt deprived of their incomes or their assets, because of the lower purchasing power, the government agreed to raise old age pensions and family allowances. Up to now, however, they forgot to take action with the provinces in order to improve the condition of disabled and blind people we find in all our communities and who also, and maybe more than anybody else, suffer from the impact of inflation. This is why the government, together with the provinces, should have as a priority to establish a sufficiently high level of assistance to allow these persons, who are underprivileged, to enjoy an acceptable way of living.
Unfortunately, we see that for each increase in salary or welfare assistance, inflation carries away the hopes we had for a better standard of living for ourselves and our families. The wife receives more family allowances, but the husband has to pay more income taxes. There has also been an increase in family allowances for those on welfare, but their welfare cheque has been reduced accordingly by the province of Quebec, my province. The same has happened to the elderly who are living in senior citizens homes. One is proud to give something with the right hand, but takes it back with the left one. The left hand knows what the right hand has given, and takes back what has been given.
Mr. Speaker, as soon as possible during this session, the government should take the necessary steps to lower the age of entitlement to old age security pension. As a result of the various transfers brought about by technology in the field of employment, the individual who loses his job

March 4, 1974
The Address-Mr. David MacDonald at a certain age finds it hard to find another one before reaching retirement age which is now set at 65. Sixty years of age should be recognized as the age of entitlement to old age security pension and in all fairness, we should also consider paying that pension to the spouse as soon as either one reaches retirement age. I have already raised the question in this House. A motion to that effect standing in my name has appeared on the Order Paper and I expect to have the chance of dealing with it more fully during this session and make my point.
I would like to draw your attention to another matter. The problem of family housing should be solved immediately. We note that there is a decreasing number of available housing units and increasing the number of housing starts is considered but it is to be expected in the first instance that the builder will find it hard to obtain within a reasonable delay some of the construction materials and deliver his units without undue delay; otherwise he may have to bear heavier financing costs. The future home owners on the other hand will be faced with higher prices when buying their houses as well as ever increasing interest rates. A great number of Canadians and their families will find it impossible to buy houses and will have to go on living in premises belonging to other people.
The sales tax on all building materials shouldd be removed immediately in order to lower the price of materials, and the government should set up a special fund designed to lend money to all buyers of single family units at very low interest rates, and grant mortgage interest deductions for income tax purposes and municipal and school tax exemptions to all owners of single family dwellings.
Some of my colleagues have already, and others will be doing so later, dealt with issues which the Social Credit Party of Canada would like to see discussed and with legislative action, that they wish to see adopted and we shall do everything in our power to move the government and the population toward a more realistic policy which would be better suited to the needs of Canadians.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not at the outset comment briefly on the moving and the seconding of the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne which took place earlier in this debate by two of the newer government members of the House. One thing that struck me about their remarks was the degree with which they approached problems that we face in Canada on the basis of their relationship to the worldwide perspective. I think an interesting facet of the evolution of the parliamentary process in this country over the past 20 or 30 years is the increasing preoccupation of all members, past and present, with events that take place outside our borders.
I believe an appraisal was made not many years ago which showed that there were more questions asked about activities outside Canada than those within our borders. I do not know whether this reflects some kind of unnatural preoccupation with foreign affairs or just a frank realization that our country does not exist by itself, does not exist even within its totality, within its North American framework, but is very much a part of the whole international community. In saying that, I am not about to launch

into some well known thoughts on foreign affairs as I have had the opportunity to do in the past.
I will focus my attention this evening on something that has from our beginning as a nation been a domestic preoccupation. It is interesting to note that I am making my comments following the introduction of the new national television program, first aired last night, "The National Dream", which is a re-creation of two books by Pierre Berton, "The National Dream" and "The Last Spike". These books chronicle the linking-up of Canada, particularly the area west of Ontario, by the railway and show how the railway made Canada one nation. It is ironic to think that when the railway was being built and when the vision of this country was turned westward, things were happening to this country in its eastern parts which were diminishing in importance and effectiveness the economic and social fabric of this newly constituted country.
For the past 100 years a succession of members of parliament and governments federal and provincial have wrestled with economic and social disparities within Canada. I want to bring the attention of members back to this problem this evening, first because it is still a major issue with which we must wrestle and, second, because I am disappointed with the Speech from the Throne. On this issue the government apparently has taken a "stand pat" approach.
The government says majestically, in the first paragraph of the Speech from the Throne, that it attaches great importance to regional development. Then it goes on to say that many of the measures to be introduced during the session were discussed at the western economic opportunities conference and will be of benefit to all areas of Canada. Then the speech refers briefly to transportation, mentioning it briefly as a key factor in regional development, and it talks about the necessity for developing a comprehensive port structure for Canada. Speaking as a member who represents a part of the country which has wrestled with the discrimination involved in our national transportation policy, I do not for one moment want to play down the importance of the transportation issue as an element in regional development policy.
One cannot be heartened by either the commitment or concern of the government in this regard, because as late as in today's question period, if my memory serves me correctly, a member asked when we are to get from the railroads accurate figures or accurate appraisals regarding freight rates to western Canada. That information was earnestly requested by the four western premiers recently and has not been made available, as I understand it, by the railways either to the Canadian Transport Commission or to the four western governments. If such action is any measure of responsibility with regard to the fundamental question of transportation, no amount of shuffling of amendments or high-flown talk in Speeches from the Throne will make much impact on the difficult issues to do with national transportation.
So far as port development is concerned, if we could hear the premier of Nova Scotia or the premier of New Brunswick speaking, they would tell us about the recurring difficulties they have experienced in coming to
March 4, 1974

Ottawa and asking for deep-water ports. Development both in Nova Scotia and in New Brunswick has been given little impetus on that particular front.
What then, is the government saying about regional development? Some of the things the minister has been saving-1 am sorry he is not here this evening to hear my speech, but I am sure he and his officials will read it-are very good. There have been occasions when all members of the House, I think, would like to rise in collective applause because the minister has accurately gauged a number of difficulties which have existed over the last 4 Vi dozen years with regard to the administration of regional development policies.
What is disturbing is not the minister's rhetoric but the limited response of the department and the conflicting signals which increasingly have come out of the department. For more than a year we have heard that one of the vital steps to be taken in implementing new regional development policies involves the decentralization of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. The concept of decentralization is close to the heart of most of the provinces of this country, certainly those at our country's extremities. It was announced with great fanfare that decentralization would take place, that instead of 70 per cent of the federal department being in Ottawa and 30 per cent being in the field, the ratios would be reversed and 30 per cent of the work force of the department would remain in Ottawa while 70 per cent would be dispersed across Canada.
However, we have heard disquieting stories month after month to the effect that senior, key officials are unwilling to leave Ottawa for a variety of reasons. I do not want to focus attention on any individual. The general impression that has been left is that the department is not strongly committed to the idea that this would be a tremendous departure and an important new step in the implementation of new development policies. Also, there were far too many stories to be discounted totally as rumours, to the effect that morale within the department had sagged to an alarming degree. We are hearing far too many reports saying that creative input within the department is either being frozen out or stifled.
Without taking issue with any of the personalities involved, I suggest that the fact that the most important man in the department next to the minister, the deputy minister, is described as the acting deputy minister, is revealing. There are always good reasons for employing people in a temporary capacity. A department might go through a transition period lasting a few weeks or even a few months. But one does not permanently describe a man filling a permanent position as "acting". Neither the government nor the department have indicated why this should be so. So, Mr. Speaker, the government, by saying in the Speech from the Throne that it attaches great importance to regional development, is apparently ready to accept its commitment. On the other hand it is, on other fronts, sending out conflicting and disturbing signals.
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on the matter of regional development as a composite part of the government's responsibility. That is also a responsibility of all members of this House. It is particularly timely that I should raise this topic because earlier today, in prepara-
The Address-Mr. David MacDonald tion for the national meeting of our party which will take place later this month, there was released a background paper on regional development. It represents the thoughts of some members of this House as well as the thoughts of those who work with the party in attempting to formulate party policy positions on a number of fronts. I shall refer to this report in a few moments because I think it outlines some of those things which we feel are crucial to the development of an effective policy and program of regional development.
I think it is beyond question that Canada in its very essence is a vast, beautiful and, as we have learned again, resource-filled country. By an accident of birth, however, great numbers of people live in areas or regions of Canada which share only marginally in the social and economic development of this country. Attempts to reduce interregional economic disparities and to equalize economic opportunities facing Canadians have been carried on with increasing concern during the past few decades. Indeed, attempts in this connection date back to the very beginnings of this century when Sir Wilfrid Laurier, as prime minister, in 1906 called a resource conference. It was actually a conference sponsored by the Canadian Forestry Association which led to the formation in 1910 of a commission of conservation. Many years later-far too many, I would think-a second resource conference was held in Canada. That was in 1954. It was sponsored by the Canadian Institute of Forestry, the Agricultural Institute of Canada, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and the Engineering Institute of Canada.
The focusing of regional development as a basic responsibility of the federal government in this country began dramatically in the sixties with the holding of the resources for tomorrow conference in 1961 under the leadership of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). That conference was geared specifically to the study of the integrated, multiple use of renewable resources. It was jointly sponsored by the federal and provincial governments. Surely in the course of the past 13 years we should have learned that if we are going to wrestle satisfactorily with regional development, it can only be done as we recognize the important input of other levels of government, as well as the private sector. Far too often, short-sighted and limited attempts in regional development activity have been put forth which did not take into account the important co-operation of and relationship to other effective inputs in the economic and social sectors.
It is interesting to note that at the 1961 resources for tomorrow conference, 18 papers were presented on all aspects of regional development. From that period through to the late sixties there were a number of programs which flowed out of the kind of momentum which developed from that national conference. It was like alphabet soup: we had AIDA, ADB, FRED and ARDA. In 1969, in a mandate which it said was vital, the present government set up the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. I think that move was basically in the right direction, attempting to integrate and pull together a variety of programs that were spread across a whole group of departments. Some programs were actually working against each

March 4, 1974
The Address-Mr. David MacDonald other. One of the rather saddening facts is even with pulling these together, we still see a major amount of economic and social activity engaged in by the government in other departments. This works in opposition to and undermines the important work being attempted by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion.
When we consider the present activities of the department and its move toward decentralization, we are faced with some difficult questions. Some of these questions have already been publicized by some of the smaller and poorer provinces. They are, in effect, asking what decentralization is going to mean. Is it going to mean another level of administration and bureaucracy which a provincial government will have to deal with before eventually coming to terms with the decision-makers in Ottawa? The minister and some of his officials have assured us that this is not to be the case. However, the process of decentralization is taking a much longer time to be implemented than originally forecast, and it is still difficult to predict.
The kind of complexities that will exist with regard to both regional and provincial offices have not yet been fully clarified. In spite of the fact we were told last year that general development agreements would be signed by all provinces with the exception of Prince Edward Island before the end of the year, to my knowledge only three have been signed to this point in time.
What, then, are we to expect from this process of decentralization? Is there going to be an equivalent decentralization of policy decision-making? Is there going to be an effective integration of this decision-making with provincial or regional groups? How is the policy with regard to the various grant or development programs to be developed in this regard? Surprisingly for such a major departure, we have been told publicly very little about that is to be involved and how it is to work in actual practice.
One of the more disquieting aspects is that one wonders how effective it can be in terms of co-ordination of provincial DREE activity with certain key agencies that do not exist on a decentralized basis except for some aspects of administration. Whether you are considering Public Works, CMHC, National Defence, Supply and Services or a host or others, no clear picture has yet developed as to how there is to be any effective relationship.
We know that this year the Department of Regional Economic Expansion will administer over $500 million. In addition, we know that $20 billion, 40 times that amount, will be administered on a general basis by the government of Canada. It is one thing to spend so many millions of dollars for specific developmental projects within a province or region; it is quite another to forecast the expenditure of hundreds of millions, or billions of dollars which may be totally unrelated to the specific functions taking place under regional development policies.
Unless some clear picture is given by the minister as to how this decentralized department will relate to all other departments of the federal government, let alone the provincial agencies, we may enter into an even more chaotic and, I shudder to suggest it, even more demoralizing period with regard to federal department regional development activity. However, my main concern this evening is not with regard to what is currently taking place in terms of decentralization; I am much more anx-

ious to discuss the approach of regional development within the national concept of how we are developing Canada as a whole.
As any good businessman, or indeed anyone who sets out to do a job, will tell you, before one begins any task three things must be nailed down. First, a goal has to be attempted. The second is the framework or guidelines within which the goal will be accomplished. Third is the strategy, or the steps to accomplish the goal. Here I come to what continues to be my fundamental criticism of the government's present involvement and commitment to regional development activity.
The major weakness of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion as established by this government is that it has not asked itself or the Canadian people, putting it in a way in which the provinces and the various people can respond: where do we want to go; how do we want to get there; what will be the framework for this operation? I am reminded of the old song to the effect that if you don't know where you are going, you are generally bound to end up somewhere else.
I suggest, therefore, that in formulating policies which will respond actively and creatively to regional disparities, the following must be kept in mind. We must start out, in my estimation, with the elaboration of a goal that is generally accepted. One of the proposals that has been placed in the public domain today by our party is the suggestion that there be, in the first instance, national consultation on economic and social priorities.
I do not believe, Mr. Speaker, that it is possible to establish any kind of short-term or long-term goals in regional economic development unless we are able, in the first instance, to relate these to the national goal. I think one of the reasons that the government has actively lowered its profile in regional development is the resistance that was beginning to develop or, if you like to use a stronger word, the resentment that has occurred in the high-growth areas over what it was costing to implement regional development policies.
It seems to me that if we are to move beyond our present situation, if we are to make the necessary decisions which will, in effect, close the income gap, the unemployment gap, or any kind of descriptive term you wish to use to describe the have-not or altogether too economically and socially depressed areas, then we must have some kind of national consensus. I think far too often programs have been put on the table on a kind of "take it or leave it" basis to the provinces, suggesting that if they are not prepared to respond in some fashion or other to what has been placed before them, then the provinces can go and peddle their papers elsewhere.
I believe that if we are to have an effective policy of regional development in this country, there has to be some national consensus as to what our short-term and longterm goals are. I do not think this can be achieved unless there is some kind of public consultation. I am not thinking here of some kind of one-shot affair where the provinces and the federal government sit down for a couple of days at the national conference centre under the glare of television lights and in full public view to confront each
March 4, 1974

other on some of the well known slogans and shibboleths that have been fired back and forth over the ages. What I am suggesting is a thoroughgoing process that would involve all levels of government-and in that I include major municipalities-as well as substantial input from the private sector.
From time to time reference has been made by a variety of governments to the participation of the people. Far too often this has been more a kind of rhetorical slogan than an actualization. I believe we will not lose substantially to alter the present regions, whether they be groups of provinces, as is the case in eastern Canada, or parts of Canada, as is the case in western and central Canada, unless there can be a public commitment to both the kind of process and the cost of the process necessary to close the gaps that exist in this country.
I could quote again this evening, Mr. Speaker-I will not because I do not have the time-the considerable social difficulties that exist among people living in the four eastern provinces. We face the fact that, regardless of the hundreds of millions of dollars that have been spent in the last ten years to correct the situation, the standard of living in the maritimes has been adjusted only marginally in relationship to that of the nation generally. I could also indicate that the unemployment figure for the Atlantic provinces has consistently over the last 20 years been double that of the province of Ontario, and sometimes almost double that of the whole country. But these are statistics that are well known and perhaps do not represent the realities of hardship and loss of opportunity and potential that confront the hundreds of thousands of people who make up this country.
What we need, therefore, is a kind of national awareness, followed by a national commitment, followed by a national strategy. But having said that, we must envisage a way in which this can be carried out. Whe have had, in the person both of the previous minister of regional economic expansion and the present minister, men of powerful persuasion. But their persuasion seems to have been, quite frankly, limited.
In the early period there was great talk about how this department was going to co-ordinate the impact of the activities of other departments with respect to regional economic development. But we know that in general this has not been the case. We know that interdepartmental committees or interdepartmental activity, where it has been established, has basically not functioned effectively. Therefore, any concept of carrying out an effective regional development policy will have to include the new concept of ministry, the concept of support, and one that has been put on the table for consideration today, the concept of a supervising ministry. By that I mean a ministry which, very frankly, would be supervisory in relation to the general activities of the federal government in a variety of economic fields. It would also provide a level of involvement-co-ordination, if you like-not only of other federal departments but other levels of government that often make basic decisions within their own province or region.
Without an effective vehicle for co-ordination we will simply repeat the numerous errors that have become altogether too obvious over the past few years, where a
The Address-Mr. J. P. Guay
grant or a program is established to promote development while at the same time a major decision is taken by another federal department which totally undercuts the effectiveness that it is hoped to achieve.
Further to that, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that we have to deal in specific terms with a number of the opportunities that lie before us. One of the tragedies for those who live in regions that are regarded as slow-growth or underdeveloped is that many, if not most, of these regions, objectively speaking, should be not at the bottom but at the top of the list. The Atlantic provinces, parts of western Canada and the north have tremendous potential.
We consider transportation in the Atlantic provinces to be a problem. Yet in fact we are sitting on the doorstep of two of the greatest markets in the world, that of Europe and the eastern seaboard of the United States. Why have we not exploited in our national policies, both regarding transportation as well as marketing, the opportunity that this proximity offers? Deep-water port development and improved highway and rail transit would be an obvious avenue here. But without the commitment of the department that is specifically involved, no amount of grants, no amount of shoring-up inefficient industries will achieve this kind of effectiveness.
We must develop, as well, the entrepreneurial skills existing in our region. But again we have had a kind of passive approach to the fact that in many cases there is need to develop institutions that will give us these skills.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired. Does he have unanimous consent to conclude his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I shall not intrude too long upon the time of the House; I know it has been customary in this debate to maintain the 30-minute time limit. There were a number of other items that I would have liked to discuss with respect both to long-range planning and the integration of industry, but these are matters that I am sure I will be able to return to at another time.
May I say in conclusion that I hope the government will realize that there is no necessity to freeze, on a continuing basis, the kind of pattern of disparity that is all too well known in this country. We have the potential, we have the resources, and I believe we have the opportunity. All we really need is both the will and the commitment.


Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to address this House and bring into the open the concerns of the voters of St. Boniface constituency.
May I add that the member for St. Boniface, no matter who he is, is always interested in all of Western Canada. It is a well known fact that, generally, it is believed that the most representative elements of Canadian reality are found in the province of Manitoba, and more specifically in the riding of St. Boniface.

March 4, 1974
The Address-Mr. J. P. Guay
Mr. Speaker, before addressing myself to the Speech from the Throne, I should like first of all to congratulate those who spoke before me. I enjoyed the speeches delivered by the mover (Mr. Stollery) and the seconder (Mr. Pelletier (Sherbrooke)). Needless to say, I also appreciated the comments of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), and I listened carefully to the remarks made by the other leaders.
Having spent some time in my constituency, I am coming back to the House convinced that the Canadian people expect us to keep on discharging our duty, to pass measures to their benefit.
There surely exists a credibility crisis that we must solve through debates and serious work. As for me, Mr. Speaker, I am determined to work steadily so that we may make good headway.

Mr. Speaker, my I begin by addressing myself to the problems and aspirations of western Canadians. Never before has so much been written and said about the west. At last eastern Canadians, so-called, are beginning to realize that there exists in the prairie provinces and on the west coast a large body of Canadians who share a different perspective of Canada if only because theirs is a young region, one with a great deal of potential. But it is precisely this potential that concerns western Canadians, because they are concerned about the uses that will be made of their human and natural resources.
Let me say here, Mr. Speaker-and I wish to speak very clearly-that there is no cause for separatism in the west. I for one do not like talk about western separatism. Let me say bluntly that the term does not apply to us. Western Canadians are Canadians first. They want to be Canadians first. Indeed, it is foolish to say even that western Canadians are alienated from the rest of Canada. I believe, instead, that the rest of Canada is alienated from western Canada. Let me go further and say that I believe certain parts of Canada are alienated from the rest of the country. It is true that we who are from western Canada feel that what is commonly referred to as central or eastern Canada is alienated from the rest of Canada.
You know as well as I do, Mr. Speaker, that beliefs are realities and that if, indeed, western Canadians feel the Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto axis is the one which has discriminated against western Canada and, indeed, against the maritimes and our far north, there must be some truth to it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: There must be some foundation for that belief, but I do not believe the fault lies with us. The fault clearly lies with those who have persisted in the belief that all good in Canada comes from the great centres of population. The fault lies with those who cannot, and will not, see beyond the boundaries of their own world. The fault lies with those who are not prepared to move forward, seeking out new paths and new objectives for Canada.
Let me assure the House that western Canadians want their fellow countrymen to realize that their region holds great potential for development. Now is the time for us to

tell young Canadians that they should go west. Now is the time for us to provide the opportunity for young Canadians who want to participate in the expansion and growth of western Canada. Yes, there have been significant developments in the last five years. This government has taken significant steps to increase federal decentralization in favour of western Canada. I welcome decentralization policies as they apply to regional economic expansion and similar programs, but that is only a beginning. Do not believe for one minute that western Canadians can be appeased or that they will be satisfied with a few handouts. That is not our objective. Nor, may I add, are we merely interested in obtaining some grants and favourable programs to fatten ourselves and to line our pockets. Those who would say that do not understand the profound feelings that exist in western Canada.


An hon. Member:: That's not what your government says.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: You are one of those individuals. It is very obvious that even after the years of experience acquired by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), he does not understand western Canadians; that is indicated by what he just said a few minutes ago.


An hon. Member:: How about mushrooms?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I will talk to you in a moment if you keep on interrupting. Western Canadians want all other Canadians to understand that Canada's future must lie outside the concentration of wealth, resources and population centres which have until now preoccupied us. We want Canadians to strike out into new avenues, to open up new centres, to expand and benefit from the tremendous wealth of other regions.


An hon. Member:: Tell that to your Prime Minister.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: We want Canadians to accept the principle that the expansion of Canada into new ventures must not proceed on the basis of per capita grants or subsidies. What we want is a new departure, a new national policy which will go beyond immediate cost-benefit principles. If our predecessors had limited themselves to expenditures based on narrow bookkeeping principles, there would not have been significant development of the far-flung regions of Canada.
What we must do is open up our potential by striking out boldly. For example, it is time we proceeded with vigor in the construction of a second trans-Canada highway right across our north. This is especially crucial to us in western Canada. It would lead to important investments in the northern area of Canada and create jobs for our young people, helping them by giving them the opportunity to live in the far north and to enjoy that part of our country.
Mr. Speaker, one of the major frustrations existing in Western Canada is to realize the opportunities that we are offered and especially to know that we do not have the
March 4, 1974

means to achieve them. I already stressed in this House our lack of influence and certain evil consequences that would be brought about in Western Canada by a loss of representation to Parliament.
What we fear above all, Mr. Speaker, is that people not knowing well Western Canada would make decisions closely affecting us. We are afraid that members representing other areas throughout Canada be the ones to actually pass measures that would not always be for the good of Canada as a whole but too often for the good of their constituency or their area only.
I can understand the immediate problems that exist in their case but I entreat them today, Mr. Speaker, to look towards the future. I add that those who would fear too great an influence from Western Canada have nothing to be afraid of in that regard.
We are not opposed to representation by population, but we believe that it is time to recognize that they are other criteria. We must not leave to a large number of members who do not represent a region, too much influence on the natural resources of another region.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, find unacceptable I that we from Southern Canada, should decide upon the future of the North-West Territories while too many of us know very little about that region. That is how colonialism takes place. That is what turns one region against another. Mr. Speaker, I hope that we will have the opportunity during this session deal with this important problem.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to continue to outline the problems of western Canada. The Speech from the Throne is very positive in respect of our concerns. There are proposals in it to take advantage of the potential of western Canada in the area of food production. I welcome proposals to increase the supply of food. I welcome proposals to encourage young farmers to become established and to avoid placing them in a debtor situation. If we are to encourage these young people, we must give them an opportunity to live without having to repay large capital loans which carry high interest charges. I hope to say more about this matter during the current session.
There are other positive proposals in this throne speech which apply to western Canada. But let me give you a warning, Mr. Speaker: let me tell you that we must not adopt these measures as a means of holding western Canada in a dependent situation. Let us not simply favour food production in the interest of Canadian consumers. In my view, we must complement this positive policy by ensuring that increased food production on the prairies leads to the establishment of secondary industries to process the crops grown in western Canada.
Here we have the nub of the question. This is what I am talking about when I say that we must expand the economic base of western Canada. If western Canadians knew they were not simply to grow food for the benefit of consumers, but also for the benefit of their young people who would like to remain on the prairies, which they know best, that would go a long way toward making western Canadians feel that others are concerned about them. Let me add that not enough Canadians understand this desire. Not enough Canadians, especially the policy-
The Address-Mr. J. P. Guay
makers and those in a position to do something about it, are prepared to reverse the population drain from the prairies by creating secondary industries in western Canada. This is one area in which the natural advantages of the prairies must be seen and acted upon.
Mr. Speaker, let me address myself to other matters of concern to western Canada. May I begin by congratulating the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) for calling the first western economic opportunities conference which was held in Calgary last July.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Schumacher:: What has happened to it?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: If it were worth while to give an answer to the hon. member, I would do so; but I do not consider it worth while. I say the "first" conference because I hope there will be other such conferences. A number of meetings of this kind will be required to ensure that this government and the prairie governments understand each other clearly. But this first conference demonstrated to the citizens of western Canada that this government-and I am not speaking here necessarily in partisan terms-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: -is sensitive to the concerns of western Canadians. This initiative must continue and must be followed up. I am surprised that the hon. member for Palliser (Mr. Schumacher), a western Canadian, would make the comments he has been making while I speak about the benefit to western Canadians. I am surprised that a man coming from Alberta, even though a Conservative, would choose to interfere when another member is placing before the House the case for western Canadians. It is known that he has sung the same swan-song as his leader. They use double-talk. They do things in an attempt to trip somebody else, but they are not sincere in respect of the people whom they represent. I am surprised, Mr. Speaker; I felt the hon. member would be sincere in representing his people, because there are no Liberal members from Alberta. I thought we could depend on him to represent the people, but I am afraid he is not doing so. When he makes the type of comments he has been making, he does not help anybody in western Canada.
May I repeat that I congratulate the Prime Minister and the government for calling this first western economic opportunities conference which has been of benefit to western Canada. I repeat that it must be followed by other such conferences.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but it is ten o'clock.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I just want to make clear that I am calling it ten o'clock. I have not completed my remarks.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The Chair noted that the hon. member has the floor, and he will still have the floor tomorrow.
158

March 4, 1974
Adjournment Debate



[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, in this first adjournment proceeding in the new session it is an honour to be the first member to participate. I do so to seek further answers and more detailed information on a question I asked of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) dealing with Radio Engineering Products Company Limited.
The main thrust of my intervention at this time is to find out why the Department of Supply and Services, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Department of National Revenue through sloppy administration allowed their departments to go into debt to the amount of $4.5 million, a sum of money owed to the Crown by Radio Engineering Products Limited. In order to redeem themselves and in the hope of retrieving this money, they found it necessary to buy out this company. The last financial statement of the company showed they had lost $5.4 million in 1972, and it had to have injected into its cash flow in 1973 another $975,000. This is the position in which the Crown finds itself today.
This company manufactures communications equipment in Campbellton, New Brunswick, and has an office in Montreal. In 1965, the Fisher brothers who held the controlling stock of this public company entered into an agreement with the government to share equally the cost of developing communications equipment. This was arranged by the Department of Supply and Services and the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and a loan of $522,000 was made to the company. Several irregularities occurred along the way. First, in 1968, when the debt of $522,000 became due to the Crown, with the approval of Treasury Board the agreement was amended and the loan forgiven provided the company would put the money into further development. This was later revoked and the $522,000 remained a debt to the Crown.
Then the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce erred twice in the life of the contract with regard to the sharing ratio. The same department failed to issue reports to the interdepartmental committee between April, 1967, and April, 1969. For two years no reports were made to the committee. Also, the department issued a cheque on the very last day on which they were allowed to issue cheques in the governmental year, that is, April 30, 1968, but it was not released until July and the department charged it to the year in which the cheque was issued, not the year in which the work was done. This strictly contravened the Financial Administration Act. Added to all these irregularities by the government, the major shareholders, Fisher brothers, sold their 70 per cent controlling interest
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel).]
to a U.S. corporation. In April, 1970, when the department put the heat on to collect the $522,000, they were told that the company could not pay because all their cash resources of $3.6 million had been lent to the parent U.S. company.
While all this was going on in 1968 and 1969 the company had two exceedingly good years. They made tremendous profits and they owed income tax to the tune of $4 million. As we operate on a self-assessment policy for paying income tax, I would like to know why the Fisher brothers did not declare their tax. I would also like to know why the Department of National Revenue did not collect the income tax. We know that any member of this House, or any Canadian who owes income tax, has to pay it and pay it smartly, but here we have a company that owed $4 million and was not made to pay it. Now we find ourselves with a company that has few assets, that is not making any profit, and the only hope of collecting this money would be if the Crown sold the company which it itself had to buy.
I would like to know why the Fisher brothers were not made to pay this income tax. I would like to know why they were kept on staff and paid a good salary, plus 12 Vi per cent each of the aggregate net profits before taxes. It turned out that this was a pretty poor decision because recently the contract for their services was terminated. I would like to know from the department whether this company has been sold. If it has not been sold, what steps is the department taking to sell it so that we, the Canadian taxpayers, can have this debt paid to the Crown? Why was the income tax not collected? I suppose it is not being collected now because the federal government owns the company; but why was it not collected before the change of ownership?
I would like to know why the 1973 financial statement, which was due in July, has not been tabled to date, seven months later? This is a very unusual piece of business between the Crown and a public company. It raises a lot of questions to be answered and I hope the department will come forth with answers to some of my questions.


Mr. Rayrvald Guay (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, when the government decided to take over Radio Engineering Products Company Limited in July, 1972, this company and its subsidiary in the United States were facing serious financial problems.
When he announced this take over, on July 14, 1972, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) stated among other things, and I quote:
This take over will enable this company, which is advanced in its field, to carry on its operations, and it will enable the maintenance of about 1,502 jobs.
The company will continue to develop and manufacture specialized multiplex equipment for the international market.
The take over of the company by the government is a short-range measure and we expect that shares will be sold back when the company is in a more stable financial situation.
While the company was government property, very serious efforts have been made and the company's business as well as the level of employment did improve. The company that had specialized almost exclusively in the field of defence equipment is getting its first commercial contracts which should help ensure greater stability. It
March 4, 1974

employs about 200 people in Montreal and Campbellton, New Brunswick, and this is beyond expectations. As the situation continues to improve, it will become more and more interesting for potential buyers to take over the company. If and when it is sold, the government intends to use the proceeds from the sale to write-off the debt balance to the Crown.
Because of the limited liquid assets of the company, it has not been deemed advisable to recover the indebtedness until the present time.
When the company was government controlled, the department kept in close touch with the New Brunswick provincial authorities of concerning the future of the company which is an important factor in the industrial structure of the Northern part of this province. Provincial authorities continue to support the Federal government action in this matter and take part in the financial effort required for the smooth running of this firm.


VETERANS AFFAIRS-RECIPIENTS OF WAR VETERANS ALLOWANCES, OLD AGE SECURITY AND GUARANTEED INCOME SUPPLEMENT-PROVISION OF COST OF LIVING INCREASES
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, if we must get down to one last minister of the present government, I am happy to settle for the one who is here tonight, the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald). As the minister will recall, I put to him on Monday, December 10, 1973, as recorded in Hansard for that date at page 8562, this question:
As there are to be increases in January in old age security and the guaranteed income supplement on the one hand and in the war veterans allowance on the other, are the necessary steps being taken so that veterans who are on both will receive both and not have one set off against the other?
The next entry in Hansard is as follows:


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, those necessary steps are being taken.
A few weeks later, in fact on Thursday, January 3, 1974, as recorded in Hansard for that date at page 9010,1 put this question to the minister:
Can the minister say whether the necessary steps have now been taken so that veterans who are receiving both old age security and the guaranteed income supplement on the one hand, and war veterans allowance on the other, will receive the cost of living increases that take place in both those payments this month?
The Hansard entry again is as follows:


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: The answer is yes, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that my questions on those two days were the ultimate in clarity. So were the minister's answers. I asked very clearly about the two separate cost of living increases that were to take place in January, one on old age security and the guaranteed income supplement, the other on the war veterans allowance. I asked the minister on both occasions if veterans receiving both of those benefits would get both increases, and on both occasions the minister's answer was yes.
In the meantime, on December 18, 1973, two orders in council were passed. They are companion pieces, one
Adjournment Debate
having to do with the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act, the other having to do with the War Veterans Allowance Act. I won't take the time, in fact there is not time, to give all the details of the order in council with respect to the War Veterans Allowance Act, but the effect of it was to raise the permissible income of a war veterans allowance recipient, who is 65 years of age or over, by a certain amount. The amount by which that ceiling was raised for war veterans allowance recipients, 65 years of age or over, was $4.83 single, $9.22 married. Those are the precise amounts by which old age security and the guaranteed income supplement were escalated in January, $4.83 single, $9.22 married.
The result of the order in council to which I referred is that veterans 65 or over who are on the war veterans allowance got a total increase in January of only $4.83 if they were single, and of only $9.22 if they were married. In these cases we are assuming that the wife is over 65 years of age as well.
But, Mr. Speaker, in January there was also an increase, due to the cost of living, in the war veterans allowance of $10.13 single, and $17.23 married. Veterans under 65 who are on the war veterans allowance got these increases. There is no question about it. The whole point of my remarks on December 10 and January 13 was this: I wanted to make a plea that I thought would be given a favourable response. I thought, this time, that veterans on the war veterans allowance and on the Old Age Security and guaranteed income supplement would get both. Somewhere in the cabinet, and I see the minister is the only one here to answer for the whole cabinet, is someone who frustrated the clear statement of the minister.
There is no doubt in my mind where the Minister of Veterans Affairs stands on this matter. I think he confirmed that when I asked him this morning if this matter is being reviewed. He said that it is, and I hope that even by now that review has got somewhere.
When you escalate, because of the rise in the cost of living, a person's income, you do not really do it if you escalate only part of that income. If the cost of living has gone up by 4 per cent or 5 per cent, and you escalate part of the income by 4 per cent or 5 per cent but do not escalate the other part, you have nullified the whole idea of escalating one's income according to the rise in the cost of living. If there is one group of citizens to which this ought not to be done, it is the veterans. I think the minister agrees with me. In particular, this ought nof to be done to veterans who are on the war veterans allowance, or the burnt out pension.
I make a plea to the minister, Mr. Speaker. It is more than a plea; it is an offer of support. I think he needs support in that cabinet. His statement to me was as clear as could be, and yet the order in council does not back it. Advertisements that have appeard in veterans' publications make it clear that he has not been supported. I will be through after one more sentence, Mr. Speaker. I wish to assure the Minister of Veterans Affairs that in his continued review of this matter with his colleagues he has the support of all parties of this House for what he promised on December 10 and January 3; he said that those veterans who are over 65 are entitled to and should get both of
27398-11*

March 4, 1974
Adjournment Debate
these cost of living adjustments, and this is what all of us support.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this matter. Eligibility to receive war veterans allowance depends, among other things, upon the income of the applicant or recipient. The amount of allowance awarded in any allowance year, when combined with the recipient's total assessable income from other sources, may not exceed the relevant annual income ceiling as specified in the schedule to the War Veterans Allowance Act.
Section 19.1 of the War Veterans Allowance Act provides that the allowance rates shall be adjusted annually in accordance with the increase in the consumer price index. Hence, as of January 1, 1974, war veterans allowance rates were increased by 6.7 per cent. I appreciate that old age security pension and guaranteed income supplement benefits were also increased on that same date. However, in no case will a war veterans allowance recipient, also receiving old age security and guaranteed income supplement benefits, have his war veterans allowance reduced. In all cases a recipient's total income from all sources will be increased.
With respect to recipients of disability pension under the terms of the Pension Act also in receipt of war veterans allowance benefits, they in all cases received an increase of at least $10.13 single and $17.23 married, from all sources. Where the increase in pension was less than $10.13 or $17.23, as the case may be, the difference was made up in war veterans allowance dollars.
In cases where the escalation under the terms of the Pension Act was more than the war veterans allowance escalation, the recipient benefited up to the level of the war veterans allowance ceiling. Where the pension escalation raised the assessable income higher than the new war veterans allowance ceiling, the recipient's war veterans allowance was cancelled. Nonetheless, I should like to underline the fact that in every case a war veterans allowance recipient benefited by no less than $10.13 or $17.23, from all sources.
The steps which have been taken to ensure continued improvement in the allowances paid to war veterans allowance and civilian war allowance recipients is further indication of this government's concern for the well-being of our veterans and their dependants. As indicated in the annex to the Speech from the Throne, there will be further amendments brought to the War Veterans Allowance Act which will further enhance benefits to veterans.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10:23 p.m.

Tuesday, March S, 1974