1974-03-08

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a short report to the House on some meetings I had yesterday, together with officials of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, with representatives of provincial Metis and nonstatus Indian organizations and the Native Council of Canada.
During the course of those meetings I outlined to them the elements of a federal rural and native people's housing policy. I am happy to report that these plans were very well received. I should like to inform the House about these consultations and the important new policy initiatives which we are proposing to meet the housing needs of people in the rural areas of Canada.
Before I go further, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that I had instructed that copies of this statement be distributed in the usual way to members opposite. I understand there has been some complication and members obviously have not received copies of the statement, for which I apologize. If they will look at my behaviour in this regard in the past they will remember that I have assiduously tried to observe that courtesy.


Mr. Stanfield:: It must be the Post Office.


Stanley Ronald Basford: While there are still some aspects of implementation and administration to be discussed, the native people's organizations have indicated to me in a general way that they welcome the initiatives we are taking. We emphasize, however, Mr. Speaker, that this policy and its programs will serve all people in isolated and rural Canada according to need or according to income and without regard to race or ancestry. Hon. members will recognize, however, that such a policy could not be successful if it did not also meet the particular needs of native people who, in many areas, require new housing on a priority basis.
The goal of this policy will be to build or acquire up to 50,000 housing units for rural and native families in the next five years.
We will invite the provinces, and I have consulted with them, to participate in achieving this goal through a federal-provincial partnership arrangement under section 40 of
the National Housing Act which provides for sharing of capital costs, 75 per cent by the federal government and 25 per cent by the province. By this technique we can provide housing in rural and isolated areas for purchase at monthly payments directly related to income which, in many cases, is extremely low or non-existent.
With provincial concurrence, we will also extend the benefits of the new residential rehabilitation assistance program to rural settlements, in cases where people's needs can best be met by permanently improving the dwellings they already occupy.
In addition, the federal emergency repair program which began three years ago will, as requested, be continued for a few more years for those native families living in substandard dwellings until new units are available.
CMHC will give special assistance to rural people to ensure that they are able to make the greatest possible use of the whole range of NHA programs, including assisted home ownership, non-profit and co-operative housing.
Special standards of residential construction will be developed to accommodate the special needs of rural and native communities.
Wherever possible, we will see that housing projects provide not only shelter but opportunities for employment of local people, job training and local economic development. All federal programs which can have an effect on the health, welfare and social and economic well-being of the people concerned will be integrated with the housing activity. This will involve such federal departments as Manpower and Immigration, Indian Affairs and Northern Development, National Health and Welfare, Regional Economic Expansion, Finance and Secretary of State. To this end an interdepartmental and intergovernmental committee will be formed in each province in Canada.
A key factor in the success of the program will be the direct involvement of the people themselves in the planning, implementation and administration of the programs. Native people's organizations in particular have been very successful in recent years in developing self-help projects and we will continue to provide financial support for these organizations and for any others who are willing and able to take this kind of initiative. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, as requested, will take immediate steps to recruit and train people at corporation offices and to set up other short-term training programs to increase the skill and knowledge of those involved in native housing organizations and housing programs, in order that they can take full advantage of the legislation and the budget. In addition to strengthening the head office staff which deals with native housing matters, the Corporation will second

March 8, 1974
Housing
staff to provincial native organizations where their skills may be required.
As I have already indicated to the House, Mr. Speaker, assistance in training and development, like all other aspects of the policy, is equally available to all rural people.
Hon. members will recognize that the rural and native people's housing policy, in several of its aspects, provides an opportunity for provincial government participation. I had already, before Christmas, consulted with my provincial counterparts and formally advised the provincial ministers yesterday of this fact, and I will be arranging to meet with them in the next few weeks to enlist their formal co-operation. Following these consultations, I will be meeting again with the native people's organizations and I am confident that, for the 1974 construction season, we will be well launched on an aggressive campaign of native and rural housing programs.
I am happy to report these details to the House. By any standard, Mr. Speaker, we are one of the best housed peoples in the world. We are also a rich, successful society. But in that society, in the rural and isolated areas, we have some of the worst housing of any people in the world, much of it inhabited by people of native origin. These proposals which the government has made to the native organizations will, in my view, promote a major replacing of that housing. It will require an immense amount of work by those of us in the federal and provincial governments and in the native organizations themselves, but I hope all three groups are ready to begin to implement these proposals immediately.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, my first words, of course, will be to congratulate the minister and hope that the program will be as successful as he suggested it will be. I did not really expect him to make this statement today. I read about the program in the newspaper last evening but received a copy of the statement just now. That may have been due to accident or some other reason.
Without having read the statement, I think I can comment because I know something about the native people of Canada, those who live on reservations and those who do not. I noticed one omission in the statement. Nothing was said about the native peoples living in the two northern territories of Canada.
In the statement the minister dealt at some length with federal and provincial arrangements for co-operation in housing. When we deal with housing for the native peoples of Canada who live either on reserves or off, we must consider the conditions under which they live. Anyone who has visited native people living on reservations will be aware of these conditions. I have personal knowledge of the conditions under which they live in western Canada because I had the honour for a number of years to represent the people of the former constituency of Bow River prior to redistribution.
In that constituency are two reservations, the Blackfoot Reservation and the Morley Reservation. I also know something about the people in the area where the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) lives, having practised law there for some time. I am

aware of the conditions under which native people live in northern Saskatchewan. I say, and I think all hon. members will agree with me, that the conditions under which native people have been forced to live, either by the Indian Act or by governments in the past, stand as a monument to our inhumanity, of our inhuman attitude toward these people.
On many occasions we have read in the newspapers about the poor housing to which these people have been subjected over the years. They are forced to burn energy other than natural gas or oil. Many times there have been fires and families have been destroyed along with their houses. These people have been forced to live under such conditions for a number of years. Therefore I wish the minister success in this program.
The minister talked about 50,000 houses. If there could be a crash program and these 50,000 houses could be built immediately, it would certainly relieve much of the present suffering and inhumanity.
I hope the minister will also take a hard look at another fact that is all too often forgotten. Schools and hospitals have been closed on reservations and the children are forced to go to school elsewhere. These people should be able to enjoy a high standard of hospitalization within their own region.
It was my fortune this morning to meet with a group of native people in connection with their oil rights on certain Indian reservations, particularly with regard to the surtax being creamed off in the sale of Canadian crude petroleum. These people were promised certain things by their treaties. They should be entitled to share in that tax so that their living standards can be upgraded not only with regard to housing but other basic needs such as food for their families. One need only visit those families and see the manner in which they live to realize they are badly in need of assistance.
I again wish the minister every success in this program. I hope it is a crash program and that it will get off the ground and not just be a matter of words.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, the other day I read in the newspaper that Mr. Lawrence Gladu had been appointed to the Native Housing Committee of Central Housing and Mortgage Corporation by Mr. Teron. I am pleased to see that some attempt is finally being made to involve native people formally in the activities of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Mr. Gladu, along with others, will be a great asset with regard to native housing needs.
The statement made by the minister today is long overdue. It would have had much more impact three, four or five years ago. It would have been much more valuable at that time. Nevertheless, it is welcome. I am sure the native people will feel that some recognition is finally being given to the deplorable conditions under which they have had to live for many years.
When the forces of society can be organized and developed and the wealth of society used to assist those who are disadvantaged, it is a credit to the political system of this nation and, indeed, to society itself. There should not be any question about our endorsement of that philosophy.
March 8, 1974

We regret that we did not get a copy of the statement until the minister was delivering it in the House. If we had had an opportunity to look at it earlier, my colleague, the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth), would have replied because he has been concerned about this subject matter long before becoming a member of the House. He is concerned, and I am sure others are about the lack of any reference in the minister's statement to involvement of people in both the Yukon and the Northwest Territories in participation in this program. The minister talks about a 75-25 per cent division of capital costs between the federal government and the provinces, but nowhere does he make reference to what is to be done about the territories. I hope this was an oversight on his part, that in the rush to put things on paper it just slipped his mind, that it is not really a slip in policy but that there will be some involvement of a comparable nature respecting native people in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon who far too often are left out of consideration in matters dealt with by this government.
The native people generally have been at the bottom of the economic level for as long as we can remember. They have been the single most disadvantaged group in Canada in educational opportunities, in social development, in rapport with the rest of society, in the degree of recognition extended to them by parliament and the legislatures. While this program is welcome, it is just a slight step in the direction of society paying attention to the single most disadvantaged group we have had in this country over the years and still have.
There are two groups of native people in terms of legal definition, which is unfortunate. First, there are those who are registered as members of a band and classified as such, registered Indians and, second those who fall in the general classification of being Metis or as not having Indian status. In the statement, or that part I have been able to read since it reached us, the minister talks of native people who do not live on reserves. I think this is a sad situation that should not be perpetuated. We should not think in terms of a division between people, of reserve housing and housing which is not on reserves; we should think in a total sense about this matter.
The minister talks in terms of rural areas and I am sure neither the minister nor the native people would want to see a situation where once again native people are singled out as a particular group entitled to a particular quality and type of housing in rural areas where non-native people encounter the same difficulties in respect of sewage facilities, septic tank facilities, water facilities, electrical energy facilities and all those other things. The program should not be promoted as an idea that would be divisive within a community but, rather, all-encompassing.
There were a couple of other failings in the minister's statement which need to be looked at. I refer to interest rates and land assembly costs, the cost of land and the cost of money. These are the two greatest factors in the escalating cost of housing in this nation. If this housing program is going to proceed as envisaged by the minister, and if it turns out later that the people who rent these homes or seek to buy them find that their economic position in life is insufficient for them to be able to pay the interest rates
Combines
or the land costs, then a few years from now they will be in no better relative position than they are now. Unless the problems of interest rates and land costs are tackled, things may come to an end sadder than anticipated by the minister in his glowing statement. Apart from that, this is a welcome move and, I hope, just a commencement.


Mr. Gilles Caouette (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I heard with pleasure the statement of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) this morning because I represent, in fact, an area or a constituency which includes the two areas mentioned in his statement, Indian reserves and rural regions.
The questions which come to my mind and which will have to be brought to the attention of the minister for explanations are, undoubtedly, the provisions concerning loans with regard to the cost of these buildings. I have had the chance to visit personally the reserves in question where homes already supplied with the help of the government were in some way adequate for the needs of the moment. But the same help for Canadians in rural areas is far from satisfactory. I sincerely hope that this new policy will properly allow underprivileged residents of rural areas to gain justice in the field of housing.
On the other hand, the minister stated that special standards for home construction will be formulated. I sincerely hope that the minister will properly revise the standards that were used by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation these last few years, especially in the Quebec region. According to the standards of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, buildings were found with two inches of ice in wardrobes. Therefore, it is nearly time that these standards be better formulated and especially that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation inspectors do some positive work.
I hope that the minister will revise not only his policy but also the standards and their enforcement by his department to give justice to the whole population and, especially, as intended in this motion, for people in rural areas.


COMBINES
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 43 to seek the consent of the House to move a motion in a case of urgent and pressing necessity. The Combines Investigation Act was designed to protect consumers against the voracious appetite of corporations for profits and to deal with such matters as price fixing, predatory pricing and the like. The urgent situation that has developed is that the potential for protecting the consuming public is being stifled by the government through its refusal to appoint the appropriate officers. Therefore, I move-

March 8, 1974
Transportation


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before the hon. member presents his motion, I think I have the obligation to remind him and again to remind the House that the practice is well established in relation to motions under Standing Order 43. Hon. members are allowed under the Standing Order to propose such a motion, which is not debatable, because it is suggested that the matter is one of urgency.
In view of the fact there is no possibility under the rules for someone on behalf of the government or on behalf of another party to reply to allegations or charges made in the explanatory preambles to such motions, I would invite hon. members to refrain as much as possible from making charges or allegations which can only give rise to debate. I suggest to hon. members that they limit their motions as much as possible to the motion itself. I apologize to the hon. member if I interrupted him just at the moment he was going to make his motion.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to Your Honour for causing you to rise, but the subject matter necessitated some kind of comment prior to moving the motion. If the hon. member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) were in the House I am sure he would second the motion, but since he is not, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas):
That this House is of the opinion that a more effective administration of the Combines Investigation Act on behalf of the consumers of Canada can be brought about if the government will exercise the authority given to it by section 5, subsection 1 of the Combines Investigation Act, and appoint immediately a director of investigation and research.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Skeena under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


TRANSPORT
Mr. John Harney (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to seek leave of the House to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that the Toronto transportation plan review, in recommending against the Scarborough expressway, proposed a light rapid transit system, and since the rolling equipment for such systems is now available in the United States only, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow):
That the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) consult with his counterparts at the provincial level for the purpose of working out a

program for the production in Canada of the rolling stock that will be needed for light rapid transit systems.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.


HOUSING
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on what I suggest is a matter of real pressing necessity. In view of the fact there is inordinate speculation in real estate throughout Canada, particularly in the metropolitan Toronto area, and that a lot of this speculation is financed directly or indirectly by lending institutions, I move, seconded by the hon. member for York East (Mr. Arrol):
That this House direct the government to use its powers over banking and interest rates to prevent lending institutions advancing money directly or indirectly on debt instruments registered or unregistered that affect the financing of vacant land or developed land and buildings where the land value represents in the valuation more than one-third the total of the value of land and buildings combined.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion is proposed under the terms of Standing Order 43. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister. In the budget speech of last year the Minister of Finance said that the government was determined to exercise restraint in spending. In light of the spending estimates, will the Prime Minister indicate very briefly to the House what the government's restraint program is and whether it is being implemented in the government's opinion?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, this is an ongoing concern of the government, which always looks at each program as it comes up, estimates its value and determines the effect of it on the
March 8, 1974

citizens, particularly the needy ones, and chooses between a whole set of priorities which are constantly before the government, some of which even met with the approval of the opposition last spring. We are constantly making these assessments and obviously trying to spend as little money as possible as we are not interested in raising taxes unless we have to.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, has the Prime Minister issued any specific instructions or guidelines to his ministers directing them to institute any restraint or discipline in respect of the operations of their departments?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, quite frequently, Mr. Speaker, and generally I have the strong support of the President of the Treasury Board.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: The old rug ranker again.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, in view of the growth in the Public Service by nearly 25 per cent over the last two years and the growth in the use and cost of outside consultants from about $300 million when the right hon. gentleman took office to nearly $800 million next year, is there any explanation for this, particularly in view of the accepted fact that it is the poor who pay a bigger proportion of their income in taxes than any other group in our society, so this expansion in Public Service expenditures is really on the backs of the poor?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the concern for the poor shown by the Leader of the Opposition is a concern shared by all of us. That is why in the last budget the Minister of Finance brought in tax reductions which were particularly helpful to the poor.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce in the absence of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the fact that seven major suppliers of cement in the province of British Columbia have pleaded guilty under the Combines Investigation Act to conspiring to cut competition in that industry over a 14-year period, and in view of the fact that those companies control some 90 per cent of the cement market, would the minister advise whether any investigation has been completed or conducted as to the extent by which cement prices were artificially increased as a result of this conspiracy?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take notice of that question and refer it to my colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Oral Questions


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Public Works, to whom I have given some notice. In view of the fact that over this 14-year period of conspiracy in the cement industry in British Columbia the federal government was involved in the construction of the Vancouver International Airport, the CBC building, the Van-Term cargo terminal amounting to some $22 million, and many other major federal projects, would the minister advise the House what steps the government intends to take to recover the loss the public has suffered as a result of this conspiracy?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member does acknowledge the building construction that goes on in his province by my department. However, I am not aware of any conspiracy and I do not recall having received any notice from the hon. member on that topic.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, in view of the last answer my further supplementary will be redirected to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of this type of case where the public obviously has been overcharged in respect of major projects, and in view of the obvious failure on the part of the government to control this kind of thing, will the minister consider introducing legislation of a class action type so the public can protect itself when the government fails to do so?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I think the particular abuses the hon. member has alleged or referred to are covered by the laws of this country as passed by the House.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Jean-Marie Boisvert (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture.
Last week, in his answer to one of the questions I had a chance to ask in this House, the minister's parliamentary secretary declared that the minister would announce a new policy for the dairy industry a few days after. I would first like to know whether this policy will be made public today or tomorrow, since it was declared it would be announced soon.


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, by law it has to be announced before April 1 or by that date, and it will be.


THREAT OF GRASSHOPPER INFESTATION IN SASKATCHEWAN THIS SPRING-GOVERNMENT PLANS FOR CONTROL
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the potential threat of a severe grasshopper infestation of a large area of Saskatchewan this coming spring, and in view of the fact that if there is a large hatch it will severely reduce grain production in the area, will the minister advise what plans

March 8, 1974
Oral Questions
he has to combat this threat and, in particular, has he met, or does he intend to meet with respresentatives of the municipalities involved, and is it the government's intention to release dieldron as a chemical to combat this threat?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, to answer the last question first, at the present time we have no intention of releasing dieldron. Our officials have had ongoing meetings with some of the concerned people in western Canada, and I hope to have some meetings with them myself. We are making as sure as we can that we have all the other chemicals we feel are proper to use in that they will have no damaging effects with regard to either animal or human consumption and no carry-over effects in the end product. We are doing everything we possibly can to make sure of this, but it is anybody's guess how many grasshoppers there will be this year.


SUBMISSION BY CERTAIN INDIAN BANDS FOR SHARE OF RETURNS FROM OIL EXPORT TAX
Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Is he aware of the submissions made to his department by oil producing Indian bands regarding the export tax, and has his department made any decision as to the return of that export tax?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, indeed we have received submissions of that kind, and we will discuss this matter with both the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Department of Finance.


An hon. Member:: How about the Indians?


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and is based on his reply to the question of the Leader of the Official Opposition regarding spending guidelines. May I ask the Prime Minister if the guidelines have been directed to government departments whose budgets are not concerned with transfer payments in order to ensure that the cut-down in their budgets will accommodate those higher budgets that include transfer payments?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, not necessarily. Some departments do not have transfer payments but, for example, in the case of External Affairs which has a general budgetary responsibility

for CIDA we have indicated we would not cut back on foreign aid. There are many examples where we do not necessarily effect this type of guideline. We look at each case on its own merits.


DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FORECAST EXPENDITURES AND ESTIMATES AS TABLED
Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the great difference between the forecast of estimates and the actual estimates that have been submitted, which I think indicate a possible increase of 50 per cent, can the minister give an explanation why the forecast was so far out of line with the actual expenditures indicated in the estimates?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure what the hon. gentleman means by the forecasts being out of line with the estimates. The estimates are the plans based on forecasts. If the forecasts are out of line, obviously the plans would be out of line also.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member might be recognized for a further supplementary, following which the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Speaker, I might indicate that in the estimates which were tabled there is a footnote stating that the forecast is as of December 31, 1973, and then the actual estimates which were tabled are actually over 50 per cent above the forecast. I was asking why the actual expenditures or estimates are so far above the forecast that was made in December?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I understand now. I think that if the hon. gentleman will compare the forecast presented in the main estimates and the total expenditures in the current fiscal year based on the December forecast, because that is when the estimates have to go to the printer, he will find they are substantially the same as the main estimates plus all the supplementary estimates with the exception, however, of one major item, the proposed payments in relation to compensation for the oil freeze. That was not included in any way in the December forecast.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Could the minister tell this House what action he proposes to take in view of the announcement made by the Canadian Johns-Manville Co. Ltd. of Asbestos, a region well known to the Prime Minister, that it will increase its prices by 10 per cent starting April 1? This increase follows one of 8 to 16 per cent enforced on January 1 which
March 8, 1974

had on the Canadian economy consequences quite easy to figure out.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I would be very pleased to look into the situation referred to by the hon. member. I think I should make clear, however, that although none of us favours the kind of increases we have seen recently on the part of industry, industry too is faced with rising costs including rising material costs.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the deep concern and the need of many Canadians between the ages of 60 and 65, and in view of the wide support in Canada for the proposition that pensions should be available at age 60, may I ask the minister whether the government is giving consideration to proposing amendments to the Old Age Security Act and the Canada Pension Plan to establish pensions at age 60 on a voluntary basis?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to remind the hon. member that there are many people below age 60 who are also in need of support. The policy of the government is to provide income supplementation and some form of guaranteed income to all those people in need in this country without regard to age. Therefore I do not plan to introduce a piecemeal amendment of the type the hon. member is proposing.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister if his professed concern for all those in need includes concern for those between the ages of 60 and 65?


Marc Lalonde: Obviously, Mr. Speaker. That is what I said. There are a lot of people in need in this country of all ages and our concern and that of the House, I would think, would be with all those people in need and not just a particular group.


PRICE OF HEATING OIL PURCHASED BY GOVERNMENT-RESULT OF TRANSACTION
Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Supply and Services. Last Wednesday I asked the minister what price the government had paid for the middle distillate it purchased late last year. He indicated that he did not have the informa-
Oral Questions
tion at that time. Can the minister tell the House today what price was paid for that heating oil?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, it is the same situation I have outlined last week.


Harvie Andre: In view of information given to me that the price paid for this heating oil was in fact 52 cents a gallon compared with the retail price of 33 cents a gallon, would the minister indicate what plans his department has for selling this oil, upon which they are now paying storage costs, and disposing of it so as to limit the losses which are already in excess of $5 million?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the hon. member's premises, but we are now looking into various possibilities regarding the use of this surplus oil, due to the fact, as I have already mentioned, that our winter was quite mild.


FINANCE
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the President of the Treasury Board.
Does he intend to ask for the millions of dollars owing by provincial governments for services rendered by the Canadian Armed Forces and which are mentioned in the Auditor General's report of February 28, 1973?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


HOUSING
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Is the minister aware that houses in the Toronto area are now increasing in price at a rate in excess of $50 per day, seven days a week including Sundays, and is the government prepared to take any action whatsoever to curb the speculation and gouging now taking place in housing prices?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, that was outlined in a speech I made in the House two days ago in which I indicated that in the capital allocations of Central Mortgage and Housing areas such as Toronto and Vancouver, where there are either very low vacancy rates or high escalation of costs, would receive priority attention.

March 8, 1974
Oral Questions


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, since I cannot get anywhere with the minister and since he does not seem to understand that there is speculation, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that a great deal of the problem is caused by lending institutions financing mortgages or loans on vacant land where the vacant land cost is more than one-third the value of the land and building together? Will the Prime Minister use his influence with the lending institutions to get them to control the speculation in land that is taking place so that the price of housing, at least to some extent, will be controlled against such speculation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to pass on the recommendation to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Hastings.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: A supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has recognized the hon. member for Hastings who has been trying to ask a question for a few days. Perhaps he should be given the opportunity. I will recognize the hon. member afterwards for a supplementary, but I would hope hon. members would limit supplementaries in order that we may satisfy as many questioners as possible this morning.
 * *


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister responsible for the Unemployment Insurance Commission. In light of the comment by the hon. member for Verdun yesterday that information flows freely from the Unemployment Insurance Commission, will the minister tell me why he found it necessary to instal a special extra strong and heavy duty lock at the Belleville Regional Pay Centre worth over $600, and has he found it necessary to do this at all other centres?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, until I read the hon. member's speech in Hansard a few minutes ago I was not aware of the installation of this lock. That is a matter for the administration of the commission. I have confidence in the judgment of the commission and I would assume it was done for a very good reason. Perhaps the hon. member could give a better reason than I could, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Mississauga and will then recognize the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway.


HOUSING
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr, Speaker, my question is again directed to the Prime Minister. I am afraid he does not understand that the Minister of State for Urban Affairs is concerned only about social housing and does not think about the ordinary guy who wants to buy a house.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please, the hon. member has been recognized in order to ask a supplementary. Perhaps he might "streak" to the point.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Is the Prime Minister aware that the increase in the supply of credit by the banking system, finance companies and mortgage companies is financing speculation in private housing? It has nothing to do with the Minister of State for Urban Affairs and his responsibilities. It is the Prime Minister's responsibility to govern the credit institutions.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway.


RECALL OF REGENT CHOCOLATE COMPANY PRODUCTS
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has the Department of National Health and Welfare uncovered any recent additional quantities of chocolates produced by the Regent company of Saint-Hyacinthe that are contaminated by Salmonella? If so, is the department ordering the immediate recall of these chocolates?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, all the chocolate produced by Regent has been recalled and production has stopped.


Winona Grace MacInnis: For the protection of the public, will the government immediately publish the names of firms and retail outlets selling these chocolates, and the brand names under which they are being sold?


Marc Lalonde: As I have said, we have published the brand names of those-

We published the names of the products sold by Regent Chocolates Ltd. and all its other products were also recalled. In the next issue of the bulletin fix, a list of the contaminated products will be published.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Is this recall purely voluntary or is it an order by the department?
March 8, 1974


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the company has agreed to recall all its products. I do not know whether it did so voluntarily or whether it was ordered to do so, but it agreed to recall its products. At our request, the company agreed to do so.


SPECIAL EFFORT TO MOVE TOUGH AND DAMP GRAIN FROM COUNTRY TO TERMINAL ELEVATORS
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. In light of the fact that a survey would indicate there is a considerable amount of tough and damp grain in country elevators, particularly in the northern parts of the three prairie provinces, has any special effort been made to move this tough and damp grain to terminal elevators, which are only half full at the present time, particularly with the prospect of the Seaway opening in a few weeks? Is there any such attempt being made at this time?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, a very special effort has been undertaken by the Canadian Wheat Board, in co-operation with the railways and the elevator companies, to move the damp and tough grain that exists throughout much of the northern prairies to the terminals as fast as the terminal cleaning and drying facilities can handle the grain. Good progress is being made in that direction.


Stanley James Korchinski: May I ask the minister, in light of the results he has had so far with the railways, whether he or the Minister of Transport intends to introduce legislation to force the railways to accommodate the farmers, particularly during the next two weeks before the Seaway opens?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the effort that has gone on has been to make use of the available cars as fast as they can be turned around in order to move this tough and damp grain. This has meant in certain cases that places with grain in good condition have gone somewhat short of service because of the over-all shortage of cars that resulted from the operation of the system this winter.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of Transport a question concerning the airplane crash which occurred last week at the Frobisher Bay Airport.
Could the minister indicate to the House whether the electronic or visual beacons in Frobisher Bay were fully
Oral Questions
operating during the critical period, that is at the time of the landing?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the House is unfortunately aware that a Sabre Liner crashed near Frobisher Bay and that, when the accident occurred, one of the electronic indicators, commonly called beacons, had apparently not been operating for 75 minutes.
Investigators are at the site of the accident. I have received various reports concerning it. Some say that this beacon was not essential and that other means available could have been used. However I prefer to reserve my judgment pending the reception of the investigators' report.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, will the minister disclose the findings of this investigation, once it has been completed.


Jean Marchand: With pleasure, Mr. Speaker.


MANPOWER
Mr. William C. Frank (Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Because of the fact that small businesses in particular are desperate for skilled and semiskilled labour, and in view of the fact that the general success of the adult retraining program has helped to fill this need, can the minister inform the House why Manpower has decided to reduce the recipients by 13 per cent, or an actual 61 students, attending such a program at Fanshawe College in London, or is this reduction a general Manpower policy in all community colleges across the country?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, such training is, of course, purchased with the co-operation of and through the provincial governments. There has been considerable escalation in the cost of such training which, applied to a general restraint on the budget of Manpower, does result in some reduction in the number of days of training. I am not aware of the particular technical college to which the hon. member refers, but I will certainly examine his remarks in Hansard and try to get him a specific answer in that case.


William Charles Frank: Do I understand the minister to be saying that the provincial governments may be cutting down their budgets? If that is the case, why is there a new school being built in Cornwall when existing facilities are already available in London?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the selection of a particular school is sometimes based on the kind of course that school gives compared with another school. I will check into the details of both situations and will get back to the hon. member. I did not say that provincial governments

March 8, 1974
Oral Questions
were necessarily reducing their budgets. I said that the total dollar expenditure is somewhat increased but because costs are going up the number of days of training is slightly reduced.


TRANSPORT
John Paul Harney: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport who may appreciate the change of subject from boxcars to street cars. In view of the fact that the Metro Toronto transportation plan review recommends a light rapid transit system for eastern Metro Toronto, using rights of way of the CNR and the CPR, will the minister state whether he intends to instruct the railways to bend all efforts to make these rights of way available for light urban rapid transit at nominal cost?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, we will soon-the date may be set sometime next week-meet representatives of the Ontario government to study those problems, including the report I tabled in the House a few days ago. In fact, I am not aware of the formal request the hon. member is referring to.


PROPOSED LIGHT RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM FOR TORONTO- POSSIBILITY OF CONSTRUCTION OF ROLLING STOCK IN CANADA
John Paul Harney: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether his department has been making plans to provide for the construction in Canada of the rolling stock which will be used in such light urban rapid transit systems, considering the fact that such stock is now only available in the United States and its purchase would involve an outlay of tens of millions of dollars in Canadian funds?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter we are studying closely. No decision has yet been made.
We are attempting to set up a general policy which will include not only the city of Toronto but all major centres in Canada.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Communications.
In view of the recent statement by the Quebec Minister of Communications that the essence of the Confederation itself is at stake as concerns a record such as that of communications, that the basic issue concerns the conflicting powers of the provinces and the federal government, and that in order to progress we must work outside the federal concept, does the hon. minister believe that it is now time to review the policy of his department on this matter?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, the opinions of the Quebec Minister of Communications are his own and I do not share them.
I believe that they reflect an alarmist attitude which does not correspond to reality.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. It concerns a deportation order served on a former Canadian citizen, a native-born Newfoundlander, Mrs. Dorothy Hertzberg, while an inmate in the mental institution in St. John's, Newfoundland. Can the minister tell the House if that deportation order has been withdrawn and, if so, for what period?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, this kind of case is a very unhappy situation, and I am aware of it. I do not like the responsibility it places upon us. I think that technically there was no question that she was in violation of the Immigration Act as it stands now, and that means there was no jurisdiction to change the deportation order or to withdraw it. Having said that, however, and as I have said publicly, I intend to do everything in my power to try to alleviate, in some fashion but within the law, the distress that this causes.


Walter C. Carter: Would the minister give the House the assurance that this lady will not be deported while a patient at the mental institution in which she is now confined?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I cannot meet my responsibility and give a guarantee that the deportation order will not be carried out because the law requires me to see that it is carried out. We are, however, in contact and liaison with the medical advisers and we certainly do not intend to precipitate anything that would cause greater difficulties, but it is my responsibility to carry out the deportation order.
March 8, 1974


VALIDITY OF DEPORTATION ORDER AGAINST MRS. DOROTHY HERTZBERG IN VIEW OF MENTAL CONDITION
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fair-weather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I wonder how the minister expects the deportation order to be effective if the woman upon whom it is served is incapacitated mentally?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I am fully aware of the difficulties there, and we are judging them in taking advice and in consultation with the medical authorities.


HARBOURS
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact the National Harbours Board has been trying to reclassify certain corporations at Centennial, Ballantyne and Lapointe piers, so that the city of Vancouver will lose about half a million dollars annually in municipal taxation, can the minister advise the House whether this somewhat shifty manoeuvre was done with the knowledge and support of his department? The minister has notice of my question.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the notice. Under the law the National Harbours Board can pay grants in lieu of taxes. When there is disagreement between the city and the National Harbours Board, as in this case, there is a right of appeal to the provincial assessment board. This is the place to go in order to have the decision changed.


John Allen Fraser: Can the minister assure the House that he is personally looking into this matter which is of considerable concern to the city of Vancouver? The situation has arisen as a direct result of a member of the National Harbours Board entering into so-called contracts of service to get around corporations being classed as occupiers.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, even this morning my parliamentary secretary, the well-known hon. member for St. Boniface, met with the mayor of Vancouver and members of the National Harbours Board.


AIRPORTS
Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Has the minister received a report or is he aware of the growing transportation difficulties experienced by airline passengers at Toronto International Airport because of the conflict between the limousine service and private taxi services? If
Oral Questions
so, what recommendation is he going to make to correct this serious situation?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I am aware of this very difficult case. Our people are there meeting with the provincial people and trying to solve the problem.


John Gilbert: Would the minister refer this matter to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications so that they may study it in depth and make recommendations to the minister?


Jean Marchand: If in a short time nobody succeeds, maybe that will be the solution.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. May I ask why there was no mention in the throne speech of legislation to end the discrimination against veterans who cannot count their overseas service as time in Canada when applying for the old age pension?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I believe that this session will show that many bills which were not specifically mentioned in the Speech from the Throne will benefit all Canadians. I hope that one of them will cover the case mentioned by the hon. member.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the uncertainty among many hundreds of civil servants in Whitehorse concerning the rumoured cutting off of the isolated post allowance, can the minister assure those government employees now that no such consideration is being given by the Treasury Board and that isolated post allowances in that city will not be denied to such employees?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, fortunately I know something about this because I have just been getting a briefing from the minister responsible, but we have not yet reached the conclusion of our discussion.
318

March 8, 1974
Oral Questions


REQUEST FOR ELIMINATION OF REGIONAL PAY DIFFERENTIAL-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the President of the Treasury Board. Bearing in mind that in certain regions of Canada public servants are being paid approximately 20 per cent less than in other regions, in the interests of national unity I wonder if the minister would indicate whether the government or his department plans to modify or eliminate the regional pay concept?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think it has been adequately demonstrated that the notion of regional pay is productive of rather more satisfaction than attempts to distort the reward relationship between employer and employee in any given area.


REQUEST FOR ELIMINATION OF REGIONAL PAY
John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact the minister is not aware of the facts surrounding the regional pay rate problem, perhaps I could put this question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the fact that the original reason for the regional pay rate concept was to keep wages in line with prevailing rates in industry and that in most cases prevailing rates now exceed regional pay rates in a number of areas which I could specify if time permitted, would the minister indicate whether his department has accepted the position that the regional pay rate concept is discriminatory, antiquated and should be eliminated, and is he pressing this position on the government?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, without casting reflection on your office, I find it difficult to reply to that sort of question without being argumentative. I will say, however, with regard to that area which is my own responsibility, that if the hon. member will read Hansard of yesterday he will see that I recognize that in the Atlantic provinces in particular there is a necessity to do everything we can to increase wages in the private sector. In fact, future job incentives will be based on 30 per cent of the total payroll in an industry in the second and third years of its operations.


PRICE OF HOME HEATING OIL IN OTTAWA-HULL AREA-REQUEST FOR REPORT
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Can the minister give the House any report on the apparent price gouging with regard to home heating oil in the Ottawa-Hull area?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as a result of the hon. member's questions I have been in touch with the industry in this regard and put forward the view that the price seems to have been excessive in light of the fact that some of the feedstock was based on western oil. I now have a detailed report which I will be glad to furnish to the hon. member, indicating how the additional oil was made up and how that affects cost.


EFFECT OF CLOSING OF TORONTO-OTTAWA PIPELINE-POSSIBILITY OF REPRESENTATIONS TO KEEP PIPELINE OPEN
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the minister arising from the question asked by the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier. Can the minister tell us why the pipeline between Ottawa and Toronto is to be closed this weekend, what effect this will have on oil prices, if any, whether fuel oil pumped through that pipeline has had a beneficial effect on oil prices and whether the minister is prepared to make representations or issue an order to keep that pipeline open?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the pipeline was used for the purpose of supplying home heating oil to the Ottawa area. We are approaching the end of the home heating season and stocks on hand are more than adequate to meet requirements. That is why the pipeline is being closed down. As I indicated, as a result of the detailed questioning of the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier I will be furnishing him with a full report on the matter, and if the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton is interested I will be glad to furnish it to him as well.


REASON PRIME MINISTER DID NOT MEET HEADS OF COUNTRIES OF EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY DURING RECENT TRIP
Mr. Peter C. Bawden (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In view of the vital importance of Canada's trade with the European Community and the stated policy of the government to promote trade with the community, will the Prime Minister say why he did not take at least a little extra time when he was in Europe in January to meet with the heads of some of our principal trading partners in view of the fact he has not done so in Europe for some four years now?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the intent of this question is at least hypothetical. The reason why is that negotiations are going on. The Department of External Affairs, through its various representatives abroad, and other departments like the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, through their representatives and their travels abroad, have been pursuing an assiduous path of cultivating this relationship. There is a time when it will be opportune for me to go and bring to a conclusion certain negotiations. At that time 1
March 8, 1974

will be pleased to seek the support of the House for one of my prolonged trips.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have reached the end of the question period. I will recognize the hon. member for Calgary South and the hon. member for Greenwood, and then call orders of the day.


Peter Colwell Bawden: On May 10 last year I asked the Prime Minister about his intentions with regard to going to Europe. He said he was pleased that I had suggested that he should do a bit of travelling. He went on to say that he intended to prepare travel plans for the coming year. Will the Prime Minister say whether he will be going to Europe later this year or whether he is going to wait for the ski season to open again in the Swiss Alps?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. He announced a little more than one week ago a new regulation dealing with the admission to Canada of immigrants, independent applicants and, I think, nominated applicants. I have been trying during the week to get a copy of the actual regulation. Will the minister make it available to groups who are interested in this subject so they can see the actual text of the law which affects them?


Robert Knight Andras: Yes, Mr. Speaker, most certainly. I will do so as quickly as possible.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Tom Bell (Saint John-Lancaster):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the government House leader whether he has been able to dig up any business for next week? May I also ask if we could have the permission of the House to allow the Minister of Transport to put on record his answer with regard to the case of the missing coins. He has been trying to get the story all week. Would he say, in particular, why this matter was concealed from the government for so long?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I know now that the hon. member was quite right and that the railway lost a certain amount of money in the form of nickels. How much I do not know. They want to keep the amount secret because they say they are not sure. These coins were spread over a distance of about 80 miles-
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member rose on a point of order. I believe the first part of the question was in order as a point of order. Perhaps the other matter might be pursued later. I am not sure whether there will be a reply to the hon. member's point of order.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to advise the House that Tuesday and Friday of next week will be opposition days in order to complete the number of days which are required by March 26. On Wednesday and Thursday we will be dealing with government legislation. There are three items on the order paper. I hope to give notice of several others today, so it may be that on Monday we can discuss which bills the House would like to deal with. There will be an ample number available for consideration.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, is the government House leader aware that we will give very quick despatch to any matters having to do with inflation and the problems thereof?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the government House leader whether the bills, of which he will give notice later today, will include the proposed amendments to the Canada Pension Plan and the War Veterans Allowance Act so that we can get on with those fairly soon?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the notice to be given later today will not include the items my hon. friend has mentioned.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Pretty slow.


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order concerning an answer given to me on March 6 by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. This is a matter of great urgency because it concerns the health of an individual, as supported by correspondence from a director of the Cape Breton Development Corporation. I think it is only proper that an answer should be forthcoming because the physical condition of this man, according to the report of the board of directors of the Cape Breton Development Corporation, is such that urgent action is required on the part of the minister. I would refer the minister to my question and emphasize the urgency.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, March 7, 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.
320
[Stage Direction]
March 8, 1974
The Address-Mr. J. H. Horner
Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, in participating in the throne speech debate we should, I suppose, pay particular attention to some of the things in that speech. Of course, it deals with the fact that a minority government is in power in Canada. Minority governments may not be bad. The speech tells us how successful the minority government hopes to be in the coming session.
Minority governments have become the rule rather than the exception in the western world, as is evident from the results of the recent election in Britain. As I said, such governments are not necessarily bad. Some of them might be quite good. In the speech, the government mentions the alienation of western Canada and how it hopes to alleviate or eliminate that alienation. After listening to this morning's news, I realize that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) does not intend to alleviate or eliminate the alienation of western Canada. He hopes to use it to his own advantage, since there is a possibility of an election later this year. He wants to use that fact to obtain a majority, so that he need not be so nervous in this House.
The Speech from the Throne makes reference to the age old chestnut of freight rates, and how the government intends to eliminate discriminatory freight rates in western Canada. Because Canada is divided into regions this problem has been with us for 100 years. There is much talk about the Crowsnest Pass rates. I will deal with them at length in a few minutes. However, with regard to eliminating discriminatory freight rates, if western Canada did become a separate country there would no longer be any discriminatory freight rates. The freight would either move at comparable rates or not at all. The railroads would be serving western Canada and not eastern interests as they are today.
The Speech from the Throne touches on many agricultural subjects. It is interesting to note they are geared toward increasing supply. In the speech of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), which is recorded at page 112 of Hansard for March 4, three things are specified. The minister said, and I quote:
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.
The second is nearly the same as the first.
The third objective of the government's food policy is to develop a continuing Canadian supply and increasing production-
All of a sudden the government is obsessed with continuing supply. A few years ago they wanted to limit supply, and there was much talk about supply management. The government is still playing around with that idea. The concept of supply management of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board was illustrated by Operation Lift, a colossal failure which cost western Canada millions and millions of dollars and cost the Liberal party millions and millions of votes. It should cost the minister his seat.
The third interesting point is the much talked about movement of grain. What is the boxcar situation? It is true that cars capable of carrying grain have decreased from

88,000 to 44,000. How many boxcars will be needed to move the 16 million bushels of wheat which the minister said must be moved before the end of July in order to meet our commitment? If the turn around time on a boxcar is three weeks, we would require something in the neighbourhood of 24,000 cars. It is not right to say there is an absolute shortage of cars, but it is right to say that the cars are not moving. There have been many pictures showing boxcars sitting idle on sidings. The railroads have not put their heart into the movement of those cars. Let us analyse why they have not done this.
There is a great lobby taking place on the prairies. The minister in charge of the wheat board has travelled across Canada attempting to convince farmers and farm organizations that the root of the trouble is the Crowsnest Pass rates, how terribly low they are and how they have to be changed. The minister from western Canada is deliberately trying to destroy those rates. He is encouraging the railroads to destroy them. How can they do that? By not moving the grain. No wonder the minister is not getting the co-operation of the railroads. He is encouraging them. He is in bed with them.
A former Minister of Agriculture, a nice fellow from Renfrew, Ontario, was politically astute. He knew the one thing he had to do as Minister of Agriculture. He attacked the railroads. He attacked the CPR. You do not hear the present ministers attacking the railroads. They want to wreck the Crowsnest Pass rates. Many farmers agree that possibly they should be changed.
What do the Crowsnest Pass rates really mean to western Canada? To move 100 pounds of grain from Regina to the Lakehead costs 20 cents under the Crowsnest Pass rates. To ship 100 pounds of grain from a point in the United States directly south of Regina to the Lakehead would cost in the neighbourhood of 72 cents. It would cost two and a half times more, quite a difference. With regard to grain moving from Regina to Vancouver, it would cost 26 cents a 100 under the Crowsnest Pass rates. From a point directly south of Regina to Vancouver, it would cost 96 cents, two and a half times more. With wheat selling at $5.85 a bushel, many farmers say they can afford to pay the extra rates, but it is necessary to move the grain. I am not certain the price of wheat will remain at $5.85 a bushel. However, I am absolutely certain that if the Crowsnest Pass rates are wrecked, the cost of moving grain will be two and a half times greater and that cost will never come down. The farmers must realize this.
The minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board is supposed to work for the farmers, not the railroads. He is supposed to make the railroads work for the farmers. However, the minister is in bed with the railroads. He certainly is not concerned about Saskatchewan farmers or, in fact, farmers generally on the prairies. The minister's announcement that wheat used for human consumption within Canada would be frozen at $3.25 illustrates that fact. He stated the government would pay an extra $1 a bushel. The farmers of western Canada must pay an extra 85 cents a bushel on top of that. We hear a lot of talk about the increased price of bread. Canada has become a nation of consumers of bread, so bread is the last thing that should be subsidized. If housewives find bread too expensive, they can always go back to baking their own. That is
March 8, 1974

more economical than buying it in a store, whether it is sliced, wrapped or otherwise.
We should concern ourselves with protein production. We have built up a tremendous feeding industry in the poultry, hog and cattle business. The minister in charge of the wheat board has deliberately raised the price of feed grain, whether it is to the Quebec farmer feeding hogs, the maritime farmer feeding poultry or the western farmer feeding cattle. By deliberately raising the price of feed grains, he has placed the livestock industry in jeopardy. If the government wants to do something meaningful, it should subsidize the cost of feed grains within Canada for the livestock industry. The livestock industry includes the feeding of hogs, poultry and cattle. As I said, Canadians are consumers of protein. They are not huge consumers of starchy foods. The policy in which the minister is engaged is wrong. It should be changed. There is no mention of such a change in the Speech from the Throne.
Recently, there has been a great deal of concern over the huge number of cattle coming into Canada from the United States. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture both made snide remarks this week about this subject. They said "We wanted to put cattle into the marketing bill, but you people over there did not let us." If Bill C-176 had included cattle, that would not have stopped American cattle coming into this country. It would not have helped the present situation one bit. They may be fooling themselves and a few of their Liberal friends across the country with that idle remark, but they are not facing the truth. One becomes used to them not facing the truth in this area.
I read the speech of the hon. member from the New Democratic Party. He talked about the huge profits various companies across Canada have made in the past year. I am not afraid of the word "profit". I like to make a profit-it is the only way I can feed my family and buy them the things they want. But I do not think it is fair to talk in terms of the percentage increase in profits, because if I make a dollar today and two dollars tomorrow my increase will be 100 per cent. And that is what they have ignored when talking in terms of percentage increases. Then again, they have failed to take into consideration the growth in demand for a given product.
The agriculture industry faced a very troublesome year in 1973. This was a year which had all the potential to be one of the great years but it really did not fulfill this expectation; it ended up in chaos. Government spokesman said it was not their fault-that it was the fault of President Nixon in the United States. The minister said the price of wheat might go up, that farmers might expect to get more for it. This has turned out not to be the case; the price of grain is going down. I notice the hon. gentleman smiling. He attempts to blame the railway strike, or the U.S. government-


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Or snow.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Or snow. It is always something like that. But the railway strike should never have occurred. The men should have been given the increase they wanted. There was no real reason for that strike.
The Address-Mr. J. H. Horner They wanted to prove, I suppose, that they could be tough with the workers. Well, it did not work out for Heath and it did not work out for the government. At all events, there was a prospect of a great year for agriculture, but it turned out not to be so because of government intervention at one time and the failure of government to intervene at another when it should. I think the farmers have learned a lesson not to rely on governments but to rely on their own initiative if governments will allow them to do so.
Another subject I want to talk about is energy. There is a great deal of talk across Canada about it. The speech from the throne presented to the Alberta legislature did not really deal with the question of how expensive energy should be. In its own report, this government said the cost of all forms of energy should be the equivalent of the cost of electricity, and eventually that will be the level. All Canadians should be warned that they cannot continue to expect oil to come from Alberta, or any other part of the country, if a price is fixed which bears no relationship to the world price. Looking at our conventional oil reserves, we find there is only ten or twelve years supply left. Thus, the future really depends on a supply from the tar sands.
Production from the tar sands means a labour intensive industry-it really amounts to mining the sands, and much labour is necessary before oil is produced from them. The cost of labour and materials goes up every year. Inflation has a tremendous effect upon an operation of this kind and the price of oil is, therefore, bound to move up whether we like it or not if these tar sands are to be developed. It is easy to ask where the tar sands have been all this time. The tar sands were first discovered in 1775 and the first survey was carried out in 1875. We are only now talking about developing them, 200 years after their discovery. Naturally, we wish to encourage the development of the tar sands but if we are limited by the short term concept that eastern Canada, or the whole of Canada, for that matter, must be supplied with oil at a price far cheaper than the world price, our efforts to do so will be brought to nothing. Canadians should be well aware that the price will have to fluctuate with the world price if the essential reserves in northern Alberta are to be developed.
The other subject on which I should like to speak briefly is the subject of inflation. Much was made of it in the Speech from the Throne. I myself do not believe in the widely held concept that there is any solution in wage and price controls. They might have worked at one time, when the United States was imposing wage and price controls, but with the United States economy moving toward a greater volume of supply, and in the absence of controls there, I do not believe controls are any answer in Canada. But how is it possible to eliminate the western feeling of alienation when the only controls this government imposes are controls on wheat, controls on feed grain and controls on oil? It seems odd that all the controls the government is interested in imposing should be controls on products coming from western Canada. It may be a case of selective controls, as the Prime Minister suggested the other day. They are selective, all right. They are hurting western Canada, and westerners are very much aware of that fact. The Speech from the Throne makes no mention of any move to eliminate those controls.

March 8, 1974
The Address-Mr. J. H. Horner
Inflation began, I think, when we allowed our dollar to go down in value in relation to world currency. Canada and the United States have devalued their dollar by about 40 per cent since 1971. The result has been inflation, world inflation, and the government from time to time attempts to hide under that umbrella. That is not the only reason we face inflation in Canada. Another reason is wholesale spending on the part of the government. This year's estimates, supplementaries included, indicate an increase in spending amounting to 29 per cent as compared with last year. The increase in the staff of the civil service alone amounted to 25 per cent. These wasteful expenditures only spur inflation to greater heights.
Another factor is the government's failure to control the growth of the money supply. In the past, Canada's money supply increased at the rate of about 8 per cent a year. For the past five years or so it has been increasing at the rate of 19 per cent or 20 per cent, so it is no wonder we face inflation today, given sloppy management of this kind. I suppose if we were all law abiding citizens the country would be able to operate on the basis of very little government. But then, of course, we are not perfect. The fact remains that whatever government is in power it should endeavour to manage the affairs of the country more or less efficiently, and the government presently in power has failed to do so.
The Prime Minister suggested that if the income tax amendments had gone through in the right way, all the ills which confront us would have been cured. I remind hon. members that when the white paper on taxation was introduced, the then minister of finance told us it reflected almost in full the recommendations of the Carter Commission-that a buck is a buck. That was his concept. The Carter Commission provided no real answers, in my opinion, to Canadian economic problems.
I disagree strongly with the concept that a buck is a buck. From time to time we see high rates of unemployment in Canada, yet I repeatedly hear that in all parts of Canada we cannot get people to go to work. Surely, some of the brilliant professors we have in our society should examine this phenomenon. Why cannot we get someone to go to work when we have high unemployment? Farm labour is short, the fisheries are short of labour, yet we cannot get anyone to go to work in those industries.
Why is this, Mr. Speaker? It is because people are not given the right incentives by society. I have listened to many TV personalities saying that no one wants to do menial tasks any more. Even the Prime Minister told our young people that they did not have to work. Dairy farms are going out of business because no one wants to milk cows. Four dairy farms a day are going out of business in the province of Ontario and about four dairy farms a week are going out of business in the province of Alberta, some of them major concerns.
I suggest that tax incentives should be offered to encourage people to do menial tasks. The present system really discourages people from doing any real work in our society today. There is a great tendency among people to go after what are called the white collar jobs, the easy or soft jobs in society, leaving much of the productive work

undone. This, too, gives impetus to the kind of inflationary psychology that is abounding in Canada today. We must change our whole tax structure, but not in the manner Carter suggested it should be changed or in the manner the Prime Minister suggested it should be changed. We must change it to give incentives to get people to work, and this will slow or curtail the rate of inflation. We must have more efficient government and less wasteful spending.
In addition the railroads must move our produce to market. The Crowsnest pass rates were set about 50 years ago, but does that necessarily mean they are inappropriate today? If the railways want to move grain efficiently, they can. It is interesting to note that in the years when the railways moved large amounts of grain, their profits were highest. For example, take the years 1971 and 1972, or even go back to 1966 when the railways hauled 800 million bushels of grain and the profits of both CNR and CPR were at a record level. So just because these rates were set a long time ago does not necessarily mean they are too low today.
The railroads are attempting to force a break in what is often referred to in this House as the Magna Carta of western Canada, and it is really shameful that the hon. member in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board and who represents a western constituency is really assisting the railroads to break this long held Magna Carta of western Canada. He is not worried about movement of grain because he fully believes that the price of grain will rise even higher two or three months from now, and that if grain is kept on the farms it will be worth more. Therefore, he does not really worry whether we meet our commitments or not. He is attempting to accommodate the railroads, I suppose hoping that this will further his political career and his climb to the top in the Liberal party. I guess that is his objective; he must have some motive since it is very difficult for a westerner to understand his actions. Why would he work in this way unless he has some ulterior motive such as this?
I am not going to take up any more time in this debate, Mr. Speaker. I urge the minister to divorce himself from the railroads and to get back to serving the people who sent him here as well as the grain farmers of Saskatchewan. I ask him to work towards seeing that they move their products to market. If we lose our present sales we might never recapture them in years to come and somebody else will take them. We must remain a major supplier of grain throughout the world, and we must retain our dependability for supplying grain to the world.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in the debate on the Speech from the Throne I should like to say a word, first of all, of congratulation and welcome to the new holder of the office of Governor General of Canada. I think we have been singularly fortunate in the quality of the people who have occupied this office, and I certainly see in the present incumbent the maintenance of this very fine tradition of service to this country.
I should like also to congratulate the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Stollery) and the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Pelletier) on their moving and seconding of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. Their
March 8, 1974

contributions were noteworthy indeed and have begun this session of parliament in an auspicious way.
I am particularly pleased to participate in this debate, Mr. Speaker, because of the nature of the document to which we are giving consideration. The throne speech is a positive and constructive document and holds substantial promise for all Canadians. It is a document which I believe will prove to be truly historic to western Canadians-historic in the fundamental way that it commits this nation to the spirit of the Western Economic Opportunities Conference and to the task of pressing toward the full achievement of the crucial objectives identified and espoused in Calgary last July.
The western conference, which was conceived of and called by this government, and in particular by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), provided an essential national forum for the expression of basic western concerns. The government of Canada and the entire nation were watching and listening, and hearing a good many things about the vast western portion of this country which perhaps were never fully understood before. The grievances, the inequities, the discontent, the so-called alienation, are real. In western Canada the problems have been growing steadily for some considerable length of time. This goes back through a succession of governments involving different political stripes.
Let me take the House back to just over a year ago now. The throne speech of January, 1973 which opened the first session of this parliament represented a key breakthrough for westerners in the quest to re-establish for themselves a new role within confederation. That throne speech gave fundamental recognition to the problems lying at the root of their discontent-formal and concrete recognition for the first time in the history of this nation. That throne speech, too, committed Canada to doing something about those problems, and the first step was to be a conference on western economic opportunities.
The Prime Minister invited the western premiers to come together to discuss with him and with other representatives of the government of Canada the basic things that had to be done to build for the west a proper place in Canada's great nationhood. In preparation for that historic meeting the resources of this land were brought by this government to focus powerfully upon all aspects of the problem. Literally thousands of man hours were devoted to the job; nearly every department and agency at the national level has been involved.
Why was this, Mr. Speaker? Because this government, the Trudeau government, was determined, and remains determined, to get at the roots of that thing we call western alienation, to tackle the real causes and to eliminate them. As the Prime Minister has so aptly described this federal initiative, no other single project, outside of wartime, so fully occupied the time, the talents and the resources of the government of Canada. The throne speech confirms our dedication and our continuing work.
The Calgary conference touched upon a broad spectrum of issues: The need for regionally sensitive financial institutions; the need for a more decentralized approach for the government itself; the need for a broadly based, stable and
The Address-Mr. Lang
productive agricultural sector; the need to diversify economic activities in the west and to build new industrial strength upon the west's great resource and energy base, and the need to develop a fair and impartial system of transportation free from inequities and discrimination. In all these areas we have come a long way since last July, and the Speech from the Throne at this time discloses further initiatives.
We are in the course of evolving and implementing a new national policy. The task is not a simple one. The answers to a hundred or so years of western dissatisfaction are not found easily and painlessly. If they were, perhaps even some Conservative administrations of days gone by might have found and applied them. Tories always seem to have the sure, quick, simple ready-made remedy, at least while they are not in government and not at all responsible for trying to do the job.
It is rather interesting, I believe, to look back to July 1973 and to examine just how far we have come in the last seven and a half months with these western economic questions and initiatives. As a westerner it is exciting for me to see the progress that has in fact been made, in concrete and specific fact, and to look ahead to the greater goals highlighted in the Speech from the Throne.
In Calgary we talked of decentralization, and we see a move toward decentralization of governmental operations highlighted in the proposed centering in Saskatchewan of the western regional headquarters of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, a move that will reverse the proportion of persons in that department serving in Ottawa and in the rest of the country with approximately 70 per cent of that department spread out in different parts of the country. This decentralization is not just a paper thing, not just a matter of persons being located out in the regions, but a move which places real decision making responsibility up to the level of an assistant deputy minister who is to be located there.
I might also mention the additional location of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce operations throughout the country and other moves that have taken that direction. We see a move toward a federal business development bank which is to be more sensitive to the various interests of the regions of this country, to be located more effectively in them. We see also moves on the part of the Department of Supply and Services, a continuing exercise in an attempt to spread purchasing in this country throughout the different parts, as well as a move toward allowing for participation of the provinces in the banks throughout this country to promote decentralization of our banking institutions. We see, too, the pledge for further processing of resources being carried a step further with the introduction of the export-import act, which will allow for the control of movement out of this country of our resources in an unprocessed state, if that is required, to encourage further processing here. That must be of particular interest to a resource-rich area such as western Canada.
In the area of transportation policy, the throne speech pledges an end to the discrimination in freight rates which has aggravated westerners for so long. Work is well underway toward that end. A federal-provincial committee of officials has been hard at work since last July, and there

March 8, 1974
The Address-Mr. Lang
have been a series of meetings regularly at the ministerial level, led by my colleague, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand). Something in the order of 160 references of specific rate problems or discriminations have been made to the Canadian Transportation Commission for review. I have indicated that, as the Minister of Justice, I will be prepared to intervene on behalf of the government in rate cases where that is necessary in order to assist individuals in obtaining justice in respect of claims they may have. There will be further cost disclosures, so much desired by provincial governments. The federal government has decided to move toward more adequate disclosures of the facts and background so that the true case of freight rates can be known.
We have made a good beginning in this work, but the work must be pressed on. It is our purpose to press ahead with steps in many directions in respect of transportation and, indeed in the handling of our grain. The hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) talked about our problems in handling grain. Of course, he neglected to note the fact that with the steps we have taken in the past years regarding the block system, coordinators at the terminals, with additional hopper cars and an attempt to turn around trains as rapidly as possible, with the existing system we have in three successive years set three successive records in the volume of grain moved. For three years in a row we have moved more grain out of the prairie region into export and domestic markets than was available from production in any of those particular years. In each of those three years our disposition of grain exceeded the actual production of grain, and this was done with the transportation system we now have.
In this year, with all the difficulties again which have beset us, we likely once again will move and dispose of more grain from the prairie region than was grown in the last year of production. That is what is happening with the transportation system we have. But we are not satisfied and we will be taking additional steps to go on beyond that. We will not be taking them in a way which attempts to seek only political advantage from a particular situation in a particular location, trying to run in all directions at once as the hon. member for Crowfoot always does so marvellously.
In connection with the subject of agriculture, the throne speech bears the clear imprint of the Western Economic Opportunities Conference. My colleague, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), dealt thoroughly with this area in his remarks to the House earlier this week. The activities planned by this government in connection with agriculture comprises a list that is impressive and extremely important, and shows our determination to improve the lot of the farmer, the great producer in this country, and to improve also the situation of the consumer by giving him security of supply. This can only come about in the long run if there is a fair and decent return for our farmers who will produce the food for the consumer. May I call it one o'clock.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, just before the adjournment I had indicated that my colleague the Minister of Agriculture had reviewed a good number of measures which are proposed in the Speech from the Throne to deal with particular problems of agriculture and food production in Canada. I do not want to go into the details of this list or of these actions again. However, I do want to refer to one of them in particular. I should like to deal with the general approach of the government and with its intentions in regard to stabilization in the area of agricultural production.
We have proposals to put before the House in connection with stabilization of animal production as it relates to the production of meat. We intend also to bring back before the House the proposal in regard to stabilizing income for grain farmers to offset the vagaries which can occur because of the ups and downs that are almost inevitable in an export oriented grain market. Hon. members will, of course, appreciate that this is an old friend, one which could have been in place now, to provide protection for farmers in the grain producing region of the country, to protect producers against downturns in income, but it was blocked by a variety of tactics adopted by the opposition in a previous parliament. Now, we propose to come back and give the opposition parties a chance to repent, and to see this important form of protection for farmers put in place.
In the days when it was first introduced, members of the opposition tended to cry that it was stabilization of poverty, although as a matter of fact it was intended as a level of protection related to the returns to farmers over a period of time. This measure was designed to put cash in their hands if income took a significant down turn because of prices or, more likely, because of changes in volume of crops in the rest of the world were especially good when compared with the average year, or especially when compared with a bad year. The current level of grain income in 1973 and 1974 flowing into the prairie region shows how silly was the cry respecting stabilization of poverty at that time, and makes it perfectly clear to everyone why a program such as we propose would be a significant element in the days ahead.
We propose, in coming back to the plan, to introduce a voluntary feature, so that if any farmer finds he does not want to be a part of the program he will have an opportunity to opt out of it, although I certainly hope that all hon. members in all parties will bring the advantages of such a program to the attention of individual farmers so that this option is not widely used by those who, in the long run, would find it hurt them to get out of the plan. We have been working on the program as it was designed to be passed into law in 1971, and there will be some specific detailed alterations in it as a result of that work.
The work on stabilization, Mr. Speaker, the work on grain generally, from the purchase of hopper cars with money spent on behalf of the people of Canada, the move toward two-price wheat, work on the LIFT program, and
March 8, 1974

work on extending credit for the Canadian Wheat Board- all of these items in the grain area are a monument marking the constant determination of the government to take steps, as those steps are required, to improve the position of western Canada, and in particular of the grain industry. Those steps, and other things done since the Western Opportunities Conference, show that the government is fully committed to the improvement of conditions for western Canada, and to a new national policy which will meet the aspirations of western Canada.
There are those in politics in Canada who would like to suggest that in some fashion the government is prepared to write off the west from a political point of view. To them, and to all hon. members of the House I wish to say that nothing could be farther from the truth. It is the intention of the government to pursue its long and historic role of attempting to find the policies and programs which are satisfactory and fair to all sections of the country. It is true that the job we face in regaining support for our party in the prairie region may be a long and hard one, and it is going to be a longer and a harder one because of the simple fire power that is possessed by other parties. I stress that that fire power is sometimes pretty simple. It takes false situations and distortions, and spreads them about, stirring up discontent, which it then seizes on in order to make ground in a political manner.
It feeds on the kinds of things we heard from the hon. member for Crowfoot just before he sat down earlier today, when he asked wasn't it just like this government that we have controls on wheat, feed grain and oil. But what are the facts, Mr. Speaker? The hon. member mentioned feed grains, and I asked what did he mean by speaking of controls on feed grains? I know of none that are holding down the price of feed grains in terms of returns to farmers in the prairie region. But, of course, this will not stop the hon. member for Crowfoot, and other hon. members opposite, because the simple truth of the matter is that we can never expect them to hold off if they feel that they can stir discontent in the prairie region in an attempt to gain political advantage.
In the case of oil, we have had discussions concerning what a fair price for oil ought to be when a free market no longer exists throughout the world. I suggest to hon. members opposite, particularly to those from the west, that there is no sound reason why we in Canada have to accept a cartel price imposed from abroad, and definitely not any more than we would want to accept a cartel price imposed from inside our country. But that is quite a different question from wage and price controls. Incidentally, I was interested to note that the hon. member for Crowfoot disagrees with his party leadership in recognizing the futility of controls, and he said so directly.
Where are the controls on the price of wheat, Mr. Speaker? In fact what we have is a stabilized price, with a stipulated floor price and a maximum of $5 in terms of returns to the producers. It is quite wrong to categorize a floor-ceiling arrangement as if it were only a stipulated ceiling price. It is as a result of the $5 price that the consumer in Canada is benefiting by some 70 cents or 80 cents with respect to the grain he purchases, just as the producers benefited when, during a long period of time, we held the price of wheat in Canada above the world
The Address-Mr. Lang
wheat price when that price fell below the levels set out in the International Grains Agreement. In the same way the consumer, in times ahead, may pay more in terms of bread if the international price falls below the present floor. But, Mr. Speaker, that is not a control. That is not a matter to which the hon. member can point as though it were in some way contrary to the interests of western Canada. This is an example of the kind of difficulty that will exist when we are attempting to demonstrate to the people of western Canada the firmness of the government's intention to meet the aspirations of western Canada with a new national policy.
I say that what has been done in the case of grains, the fantastic turn around in that area in recent years, and the tremendous efforts of the government will stand as a monument, as evidence of what we are doing, and will be doing in pursuing the objectives and spirit of the Western Economic Opportunities Conference.
When the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) was speaking the other day in this debate he once again started his speech, as he has done for some four years now, with some remarks about the LIFT program. I always find it interesting that opposition members, in seizing on one thing which they feel is simple to point to as an error, have to go back four years to 1970 to find something in the grain area. They ignore the hopper cars, the two-price wheat, and the other things that we have done. The trouble with picking on this particular program is their error in how they treat it. Once again, the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar did what opposition members are so likely to do. He suggested that the LIFT program discouraged the planting of barley and rapeseed, forgetting that it was directed only in relation to wheat at a time when we had 1,100,000,000 bushels of wheat on hand, with a new crop ready to come off the land. In fact that program encouraged people who wanted to grow anything to go into barley and rapeseed. In fact, Mr. Speaker, we moved to record volumes of barley and rapeseed.
Through that program we were allowed to cope with the tremendous amount of wheat we had on hand, in elevators and on the farms, and one result of that was that we could move other grain such as rapeseed and barley more efficiently. This allowed us to achieve record volumes of exports that year and in each of the succeeding years, so that for four years in a row we have exported more than we produced. In those four years, Mr. Speaker, we have moved grain out of this country at a fantastic rate and still, by next August 1, we will have in reserve about the amount of grain which the prairie premiers last July said was the right amount to have in reserve in this country. That is four years after LIFT, Mr. Speaker, and after four years of exporting more than we have produced.
Those are the facts about the program; it was a program which allowed us to revise the quota system; to put the emphasis on marketing and move from an old pattern of inefficiency and ineffectiveness to a sensible system with information to the farmer and production by the farmer. From 1970 until the year which we are approaching, the farmer has not felt that he wanted to build up his stocks of grain to the extent that he would fertilize to the degree
2739S-22

March 8, 1974
The Address-Mr. Lang
that was wise from a crop production point of view. It is only as 1974 approaches, and to some extent in 1973, that he wants to fertilize and once again increase production, meeting the challenge put to him in four successive years of selling more than is produced.
I understand why the hon. member for Saskatoon-Big-gar (Mr. Gleave) is sensitive on this subject because when I go to his constituency, as I have in the years since 1970,1 find that many a farmer who listened to him in those days-as when they listened to the hon. member for Crowfoot-felt that the right thing to do then was to ignore LIFT; to do the opposite. That was the advice given by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar but when I examined his own farming operations I found that he did not take that advice himself but followed the LIFT program and benefited from it. If he had given that kind of advice to his constituents he would not now have on his conscience the advice that he did give them.
In this Speech from the Throne we see not only these great matters which interest me from the point of view of my responsibility as minister in charge of the Wheat Board and a member of parliament from western Canada, but we see also that significant steps are being taken in the area of improving our legal and judicial system. Once again we will have before the House a series of criminal law amendments. These are important enough in themselves but perhaps they are more important as a process to which we are committed, that of a regular, ongoing reform of our criminal law.
We do not intend to wait four, eight or twelve years for changes as has been done in the past, but to respond on a more or less annual basis to the need that is felt, to bring our law up to date, to improve it or to remove anomalies from it. We will have before this House what amounts to an omnibus bill to keep up the work. We will also watch the reports from the Law Reform Commission which are continuing to flow, and will attempt to make use of the valuable advice and information that they contain in order to continue the process of law reform which this government has carried forward with such vigour in the last half dozen years.
We will also have a very important piece of legislation with the introduction of a Rights and Interests Commission at the federal level. I see a commission which will work effectively with, and as a counterpart to, those commissions which exist in the fields of human rights and ombudsman's work throughout the provinces. Work is being done in the provinces in these areas which are within provincial jurisdiction and we intend that these commissions will have a complementary body which can work in those areas, as a federal commission, which cannot be covered by existing commissions. These commissions will work closely together.
The federal commission will have as a major role the promotion of research, information, education and enlightenment in the field of human rights. It is through better understanding and a greater willingness on the part of people to be fair to others that human rights are best protected. We can create legal techniques to enforce the rights and improve the position of individuals, but in the end it is through the understanding of the great majority

of our people, and the willingness of individuals to be fair and fair-minded that those rights are best protected.
This, Mr. Speaker, is my view of my own responsibilities and of the very exciting and vigorous amendments which will come before the House in this session as this government attempts to continue putting before parliament and the people of Canada legislation which makes and keeps Canada the great country it is.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that I have had the opportunity of listening to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) take part, as have many ministers, in the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. As I heard of his great concern about the gap in credibility between western people and the government here in Ottawa, and as I heard him reread the speech of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) which listed all the things which have been done since the Western Economic Opportunities Conference of last summer, I tried to picture in my mind what it all represented.
I thought of that doctrine of the middle ages whereby you should spend your time on great academic matters. The only picture that came to mind was that of a mosquito with a wooden leg trying to bore a hole through a dill pickle. That is the measure of effectiveness of the answers of the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Justice to the gap that exists between western Canadian thinking and to the actions of this government. Another picture that flew through my mind was that of a pygmy sandpapering the side of an elephant-the problem is so big. With these mosquitoes and pygmies running around talking this middle ages sterile nonsense that we have heard today, it shows better than I can how that gap will never close.
The minister spoke about his responsibilities in connection with grain and mentioned the grain stabilization bill that failed. I say to him very bluntly that whenever he brings into this House a grain stabilization bill that does not make it necessary or mandatory for the farmer to receive the share of the money he put into the fund dependent on the whims of a few civil servants, then the farmer will look at it. Any type of stabilization bill brought into this House must be based on a formula that everyone knows in advance and not, as the minister once said, upon farmers doing what they are told in order to get money out of their own fund. I think that indicates some of the reaction he is going to get from western Canada before he introduces the stabilization bill. Base it on a formula which ensures that the farmer who puts money in has the right to draw it out in certain circumstances.
The minister is sensitive to LIFT. If he wants to bridge the gap between the west and Ottawa all he has to do is say to the west and any others, "I listened to the wrong advisers; I goofed when I recommended to the government that we restrict the production of western grain and when we paid farmers not to grow things." The whole world knows that this winter between 10 million and 50 million people are in various stages of starvation. How many died we do not know. Every government which took advice on restricting production in a hungry world has committed a moral crime that people are not going to forgive. The
March 8, 1974

minister is so inflexible that he is not going to bend his knees and say "I listened to the wrong people". Why does he not say that to the farmers, so that he can say, "You have heard the truth from my own lips?" If I were caught beside a cherry tree which had been chopped down and I had an axe in my hand and my old man asked me what happened, I would tell the truth. That is what the government must learn to do.
I did not enter this debate in order to teach modern methods of thinking to the Minister of Justice. That would be impossible. I entered it, in part, because I want to pay my respects to the mover and seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. I say to those hon. members that I recognize the honour the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has paid them in allowing them to move and second this important and traditional motion. Speaking as an older person and member, I always look at those speeches to see if any new contribution has been made by those bright members. I think the congratulations extended by hon. members to those two speakers are well founded.
I think we should be aware, in this debate, of speeches made in the House which are different from the ordinary, that is to say, unusual. Such a speech was made one week ago by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche): I do not know how many members have read his speech or how many listened to him in the House. His speech was unusual. He bared his soul and thoughts as he dealt with the sickness that is evident in the western world today. I commend the hon. member's speech to members of the House and to the country. Not all may agree with his sentiments, but it should be noted that there is at least one member who is groping for the truth and the way ahead.
I, too, want to speak about the malaise gripping ministers who are supporters of governments adhering to the western style of democracy. This malaise can be seen in Japan, France, Italy, Israel, the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada. The malaise is a common denominator in those countries. People in them are looking at their leaders and asking what is wrong. They say, "Our leaders do not seem to know what they are talking about and, despite all the pronouncements made by the use of public relations experts, what they say still does not ring true." What governments say has little bearing on the deep worries of individuals. So, my criticisms of this government today are aimed not merely at this government. They are aimed at the ministerial malaise which grips western style democracies.
I do not know if I am right. This I do know: ever since the war, ever since the great penetration by governments into the affairs of private individuals, we have developed, all of us, a charming, amiable, dedicated but determined bureaucracy which, more and more, has run the countries of the western world and which has left to members of parliament and to cabinets the task of making their announcements ex cathedra.
This process is of concern to me, a member of parliament in a western style democracy. On several occasions in this House, in 1966 and 1967, and again last September 13, I
The Address-Hon. A. Hamilton spoke about two or three problems in this area and about ways of solving those problems. Let me begin by referring to an article written in the magazine Executive by one of the older and more experienced members of the news gallery, Douglas Fisher, who, in more than one way, is one of the more substantial members of the gallery. I think most members know that Douglas Fisher at one time used to sit in this House in opposition as a member of the NDP.
I shall refer to his views about the role of ministers of the Crown in the present government, and to that of deputy ministers.
Apparently, it was the dream of the socialist from the Montreal milieu to set up a substructure when he was in power, and to employ experts in that substructure. He wanted to leave all decision making to the bureaucrats within the substructure, so that politicians would only need to take their advice, run the country accordingly and all would be well. Apparently this structure did not work too well. It has fallen apart. Actually, the election of 1972 ended its role, and now we have a government that is no longer run by the bureaucracy or a government in which one bureaucracy watches another; according to Douglas Fisher, we have a government in which ministers of the Crown are flying by the seats of their pants. I welcome that. I would rather see a minister with common sense speaking for the people he represents and making decisions on the basis of the facts before him than the horrendous system of bureaucracy, of committee on committee, trying for years and years to arrive at a consensus.
In this modern day when conditions are changing so rapidly and becoming so complex, the middle ages approach to running government is obsolete, and has been for some time. So, I welcome that article by Douglas Fisher. I commend it to members on the government side as well as to members on my side, who some day soon hope to make up the government party. We are living in important times and we shall need to make individual and important decisions to overcome problems.
I wish to add to my remarks of September 13. There are three areas of concern in the economic field. They are of concern to all thinking politicians in the world, regardless of the form of government they support. What are these concerns? First, economic advisers of governments, of both the so-called free enterprise countries and of the socialist countries, have no model, no framework for decisions dealing with a new phenomenon that has developed noticeably since the war, the phenomenon called cost-push. That is something which concerns ministers of socialist governments as well as those of free enterprise countries. I will return to that subject.
Second, all governments, regardless of their political outlook, are worried about the threat posed by huge capital accumulations or concentrations which endanger the precarious monetary and fiscal systems we have evolved for running the world. I am referring, of course, to the $120 billion odd in Eurodollars. It does not matter how these Eurodollars were accumulated. They are now a threat to world economic stability. In addition, of course, there is a great concentration of money in the hands of oil producing countries, many of them Arab countries. This concentration of capital which has no easy access to investment has brought the world into the position where it has never
27398-22J

March 8, 1974
The Address-Hon. A. Hamilton been closer to worldwide recession than in the last year or so. We are still in that position. I will return to that problem.
Third, what is even more serious is that economists in Canada, Japan, Europe, the United States and elsewhere do not have models of economies which take cognizance of the fact that the world no longer has a surplus of every form of commodity. Since the last war, the fact has become increasingly clear that in the next century or two we are going to be facing a series of shortages in strategic commodities that affect the whole economic stability of the world. We had a little taste of the phoney oil shortage of this past year, but I will come back to that so I can maintain my remarks in a coherent fashion.
Let me briefly review my first point, the cost-push inflation problem. Cost-push is simply made up of a number of factors that force costs up and have the effect of raising the price of the end product. The rapidly increasing costs of government in all our western countries is the number one cost-push force. The deliberate policy on the part of western governments of forcing up the interest rates as an attempt to carry out Keynesian doctrine at a time when that was something they should not have been doing is the second cost-push factor of major importance forcing up prices. It is this clownish behaviour of the stop and go money supply.
As several speakers have already mentioned in this debate, for years our money supply was a constant. I recall sitting on the treasury benches for five and a half years. The money supply remained almost the same, around $13 billion. It now goes up at the fantastic rates of 15 or 20 per cent a year so that we now have over $50 billion in circulation, yet the amount of goods in circulation is not five times greater. Obviously, there has been some misuse or bad use of the technique of issuing the money. This has created a tremendous upward pressure on prices.
There is also the fact of municipal and provincial governments allowing land costs around our cities to get out of control so the speculator has had a field day. This has added tremendously to the cost-push at the centre of industry around our cities which has the great impact of higher prices. At the end of the list is always the labour cost. The labouring men who live in the cities naturally have to fight to keep up with all of these costs and, with their organizational strength, try to keep ahead of the rat race. God help the unorganized labourer or person on fixed income.
These factors of cost-push are well known. This government has set an example of exacerbating all of it. Every time we get into a situation like that of 1969 when it was said that prices were rising too fast, we get the same medicine. It is as if those price increases were caused by a demand factor when they were in fact caused by cost-push. I am reminded of a story I have told many times concerning youngsters going into an apple orchard. Never having seen an'apple orchard before, they gorged on the apples. One or two of the group got a bellyache. I can recall the lady of the house calling in the whole bunch of us. Bellyache or no bellyache, we all got the same medicine which was designed to get rid of any problems of the

stomach very quickly. This is what the government has done, not only in the last five years but the last 25 years.
As the Porter royal commission made very clear, it is a matter of wrong fiscal and monetary policies. This has been well discussed on many occasions. I want to point out again that some of us tried to make positive proposals in arguments with civil servants. I am not too immodest to point out that I have tried to suggest positive proposals. I made a series of remarks on three or four separate occasions over the past 10 years in the House about the necessity of refining the Lord Keynes doctrine in a country like Canada with so many regions, something which has been almost completely ignored by the government for the past 15 years. In our model of handling our economic system, we need to have some recognition of the regional nature of our country and the varying demands of industry. In a moderate industrial strategy where you strengthen the ones with the best chance of succeeding, you bring in the question of the social purpose of the monetary and fiscal policy. This all boils down to the fact we have to accede to the principle of selectivity.
I will now turn to the question of timing. I read the speech which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) made the other day. He said on three days of the week the opposition is expansionary and on three days it is restrictive in monetary and fiscal policies. He is quite right in that criticism because with modern monetary and fiscal policies, you have to go both ways at once when dealing with a country as big as Canada. When you are in a boom situation in Montreal, you can be stagnating in Toronto. We are stagnating in the areas north of Toronto and in Montreal all the time. You need to have conflicting policies in theory working at the same time.
It is as true as I am standing here that when you have to deal with a country with at least 17, 18 or 19 regions, there have to be policies that are different and they can be the opposite at different places at the same time or even in the same area. However, I do not want to repeat all those types of positive proposals in this one speech. I have made it in the House on three or four occasions. I know that the Minister of Finance and his officials have read it. However, I do not see evidence of any thought being given to it in the form of action by this government.
The second problem that I mentioned is the danger to the world of these concentrations of capital. I am not only referring to the Eurodollars. The finance ministers of the world and their officials still have not put anything forward about funding those Eurodollars and getting this floating danger off the backs of reserve funds of the various nations of the world. More important is the tremendous buildup in the Arab nations. Some Arab and African nations can put the money they receive for their oil back into investment in their own country, but many of them cannot such as Kuwait, Abu Dhabi, Saudi Arabia and possibly Iraq. There is no possibility of the billions of dollars pouring into their coffers being used in a prudent way so quickly in their countries. Therefore, it is a job for all thinking people in the western world.
Japan is going to be very short of oil energy sources for an indefinite time, as will western Europe. The United States is moving into a period of shortage, but will, I think, be out of it in about 10 years. There are some
March 8, 1974

surplus nations. These problems seem very remote. Imagine a group of nations 12,000 miles away having $60 billion, $80 billion or $200 billion of surplus investment money. This does not have anything to do with Canada? No country is more under the gun than Canada. We are an export nation. We depend on the stability of the monetary and fiscal systems of world nations, both domestically and internationally, to keep up world trade.
I say to Canadians who wish to give the proper thought to such a situation that the danger of a recession in Canada and in the United States is not on the horizon at the present time. There is too great a demand for goods. But there is a danger at the international level. However, it should not be without some pleasant aspects. Hundreds of billions of dollars, almost one hundred billion dollars are available for investment. And what have we in Canada to contend with? What is the difficulty? Well, it amounts to a difference in attitude. Let us be frank and realistic. The Japanese are frightened of an invasion of cheap money from the Arab countries. Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, the reaction of the United States government today if there were an offer backed by Arab money to take over Ford-seven billion dollars in one swoop? The attitude of the Americans, of the Japanese and ourselves has to change. All these surplus money nations can get for their money is about 3V4 per cent or a little more in Swiss banks. Our countries take the attitude that Arab money is dangerous. One can imagine civil servants saying: By God, if we bring 5 per cent money into Canada it will ruin our high interest policy.
Today, thousands of Canadians are in desperate need of homes. They are wired into this 10 per cent interest rate which our masters on the fiscal side have decreed they must accept. There is cheap money available but it is accompanied by dangers. We have to pay it back in 20 years from now at the exchange rates prevailing at that time. This means we must work hard and export sufficient to keep our dollar in relation to those currencies. But that is not impossible. There is nothing wrong with borrowing money providing bonds for us to develop our economy in Canada. Canada's interest lies in owning the equity; we want to own our country. We can soon pay off the bonds.
Still on this subject, the newly developing nations are in tremendous need of investment capital. However, they can only absorb it at a certain rate-it is difficult to get huge amounts into those countries quickly. Machinery is lacking at both national and international levels to encourage the speeding up of the movement of needed capital into, say, Pakistan or Indonesia or Malasia. It is true a World Development Bank has been set up, but in my book it is really a delaying mechanism. I do not see why Canada and other countries which are not suspect in the eyes of the world cannot build up the necessary machinery taking advantage of the tremendous know-how possessed by Canadian companies allied with the enormous investment funds belonging to the Arabs.
Such an organization should be capable of acting quickly so that part, at least, of these huge sums which are overloading the monetary system and threatening the whole stability of the world monetary structure can be usefully employed. As I say, Canada would need to adopt
The Address-Hon. A. Hamilton domestic and foreign policies designed to keep our dollar in relation to the value of other currencies. But this is not beyond possibility. In other words, the problems affecting us here are mostly monetary and fiscal. I am warning Canadians that if we do not get with it there could well be a world wide recession.
I turn, now, to another point-the tremendous change which has to come over the minds of the experts who guide our governments in the formulation of policies. We have no model for handling the problems raised by a worldwide shortage of commodities. All the economic doctrines and theories which guide our policies are based on the fact that there will always be an abundance of commodities and is concentrated on the use of labour and capital. Somebody, or a group of people, has to devise a model to cope with the likelihood of the world being short not only of oil but of steel, fibres and other key materials. By the year 2000 the Americans alone, using the prices of a year ago, will be importing minerals at the rate of some $60 billion a year. We shall be facing a tremendous shortage of fibres, that is, wood. I know these things, because warnings have been given out for years. This is all the more reason for putting some original thinking into designing an economic model to cope with the situation when it arises.
I come back to the argument by Douglas Fisher. I am simply saying that even though I give warning of these dangers I have great confidence in the fact that the human mind, once faced with a challenge, has always responded. We do not necessarily have to wait for another Lord Keynes to come up with a model to solve our problems as he did in connection with a demand-pull type of inflation in the thirties. Among ministers, among members of the opposition, among parties of all types in all the western democracies I believe there is a tremendous fund of com-monsense, an ability to sit down and do the type of thinking which has to be done to produce new ideas for testing out. When I hear supporters of the government yelling "tell us your policy" as they have done for the past year, I know there is no thinking there. The same sort of thing is happening in every country. It is in these circumstances that governments say: Inflation is worldwide and we cannot do anything about it. This is being said by French ministers in Paris, by British ministers in London and by Japanese ministers in Tokyo. It is the same attitude as ministers took in 1929, and as a result, we spent ten years-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. The time allotted to the hon. member has expired.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I have just one sentence to go.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I have said I am optimistic. We can avoid an international recession if we use the brains we have-the resourcefulness of our civil servants and of our elected members. I have faith that in the monetary field they can produce the ideas if only they will get down to the job of grappling with the situation.

March 8, 1974
The Address-Mr. Ouellet


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to congratulate warmly Their Excellencies Mr. and Mrs. Jules Leger on their appointment and I also extend them my best wishes in the discharge of their high responsibilities.
I would also like to congratulate the member for Spadi-na (Mr. Stollery) and the member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Pelletier) who have well discharged their task in proposing and seconding the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne.
I cannot refrain, Mr. Speaker, from pointing out also the outstanding intervention of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) during the debate last week. I think that columnist Charles Lynch was right when he stated:

In his opening speech of the session it was a different Trudeau- involved, scrappy, funny and confident. It was easily Trudeau's best speech ever in parliament.
That performance does not surprise me at all. It reflects very well the leadership, the stability, the ability of the Prime Minister of Canada. I think it is not superfluous to compare that leadership in Canada to that we can find now in most industrial countries of the free world. In Europe, if you except a few totalitarian regimes, most countries are governed by shaky coalitions or are simply not governed at all.
Almost every country in the Common Market suffers from political unstability. There is no government in Italy, we do not know exactly what type of government they will have in Belgium, Chancellor Willy Brandt's regime is on the brink of disaster, Premier Messmer, in France, has had to reshuffle his cabinet in order to hang on and the British have just given themselves a government that was truly elected by the skin of its teeth.
I think that the situation is not much more rosy in the United States where they are wondering from one week to the other when President Nixon is going to resign. Canadians can therefore rejoice in the fact that they have political stability thanks to a statesman who governs with vigour and dynamism. In my view, all Canadians have realized that in these difficult times they needed a strong man to lead the country. The leader of the official opposition (Mr. Stanfield) may be a likeable chap, but he has not and will never have either the strength or stature to be the leader or Prime Minister of this country. In my opinion, it is quite clear that his many attempts to overthrow the government are as useless as his efforts to convince the Canadian people that he is a "valid alternative" to the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). His efforts are fruitless and will remain eternally so. No matter how hard he struggles and frets, he will fail because, as the popular saying goes: "He simply hasn't got it!"
I should like to avail myself of this opportunity this afternoon to deal with a matter of very great concern to me. It is a fact that, in addition to my duties as Postmaster General, I have been entrusted by the House with the responsibility of marketing commemorative postage stamps and coins to help finance the Olympic Games. No

matter what a number of hon. members in the opposition may think, I am as eager to fulfill my responsibilities as Postmaster General as I am to sell the commorative stamps and coins. I strive to discharge my responsibilities to the best of my ability so as to give satisfaction to the Canadian people in these two areas.
For the benefit of the House, I want to come back on some declarations made here that have no doubt caused great prejudice to the whole Olympic program. I think that those allegations affect me in so far as I am in charge of the sale of Olympic coins and stamps. It is necessary that neither doubt nor smirch should depreciate the Olympic organization, and that is why I want to set the facts in their true light and bring some order back in a situation where the privileges of this House have been used to tarnish the reputations of certain individuals and highly commendable organizations.
Mr. Speaker, hon. members know very well what I am talking about. I am talking about the recent statements made in this House by the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Jelinek) on the sale of television rights to the 1976 Olympic Games. To set the record straight may I first be allowed to point out that the television rights to the Olympic Games are owned by the International Olympic Committee and not by Montreal, COJO or Canada. And the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley should know that very well. So COJO sold its rights on behalf of IOC. And I quote from section 48 of the 1972 IOC regulations:
The television broadcasting rights to the games will be sold by the organizing committee by delegation of the International Olympic Committee and subject to its approval.
Since the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley made those very serious charges without substantiating them with evidence, I had the opportunity to meet personally and ask those mainly concerned in that business. Commissioner General His Excellency Roger Rousseau, Mr. Snyder of the Olympic Committee and member of that committee dealing with the adjucation of that television contract, Mr. Arlidge, President of ABC, all told me that the hon. member was completely off the track and the victim of either his imagination or his maliciousness. I leave it to the House to determine whether it is his imagination or his maliciousness.
Members of COJO told me that with respect to the 1976 games a protocol identical to that of Munich and previously Mexico was adopted for the sale of television rights with one exception-COJO hired an expert for the negotiation of television rights and on the advice and recommendation of the organizing committee for the Munich Games. It is through the advice of that expert that a goal was set of $25 million as compared with $4.5 million obtained by Mexico City in 1968 and $13.5 million collected by the Munich Games in 1972, for the sale of television rights to the United States.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to give the House the information that I received on the state of the negotiations. As you know, three American television networks were entitled to submit tenders for the games broadcasting rights. I am told that all of them were invited to do so. However, Munich authorities had warned the organization committee not to give the networks the opportunity to set up a
March 8, 1974

common front which would have allowed them to set in advance the maximum amount payable for broadcasting rights in the United States.
It is therefore with full knowledge of the facts that the organization committee sought expert advice to obtain the best possible contract. This is why there were no public calls for tenders; the committee did not want to be boxed in by such a move and perhaps forced to accept an amount that it considered too low.
Mr. Speaker, the negotiating committee came to an agreement in principle with the ABC network for the amount of $25 million on November 17, 1972. This agreement was then ratified by the COJO and ABC boards. A contract duly prepared by the legal services of both parties was signed on January 3, 1973.
I find it simply absurd that the member for High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Jelinek) could not even differentiate between an agreement on principle and a formal contract when speaking of this matter. Throughout the negotiations, the CBS and NBC networks had the possibility of making better offers than the ABC proposition of which they were fully aware.
In its own interest, COJO encouraged CBS and NBC to make offers, even after the official signature of the contract. Until the ratification of the agreement by the International Olympic Committee, that is May 12, 1973, the CBS and NBC networks were absolutely free to approach the International Olympic Committee with a better offer. Nothing was done under cover, as it were; all three networks knew perfectly well what they had to do. The hon. member should know that it is the International Olympic Committee that had the last word. Since the contract was ratified only in May, they had enough time to make any offer they wished.
I am assured by COJO officials that there lies the real reason for the reserve clause put into the contract by ABC, because the other networks could make directly a better offer to the International Olympic Committee.
Therefore, the CBS and NBC networks had all the time required to make an offer, even after that of ABC, and they deliberately chose not to exercise their option. The hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley tried to make the House believe that the IOC repudiated the way in which the contract was awarded when he quoted Lord Killanin, president of IOC, as saying, and I quote his words as reported on page 90 of Hansard:
Future television negotiations will be conducted jointly by the organizing committee and the IOC board.
The sentence is quoted out of context and I say once again to the hon. member that he is either ignorant or malicious.
Mr. Speaker, it is true that COJO asked for the censure of IOC by negotiating a contract whereby the latter must share the cost of television technical services as well as the income. Those services will cost something like $9 million. The hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley will therefore be happy to learn that COJO will use those $9 million to make up part of the $25 million it will pay the CBC as official telecaster of the games. If Lord Killanin is unhappy, it is not because IOC feels the contract was unsatisfactory but because he realizes that as a result of
The Address-Mr. Ouellet
the decision of the Canadian committee IOC will get less than it had originally hoped. In any event, I want to quote Lord Killanin, and it is important that I do so, since the hon. member tried to impute motives to the president of IOC. Lord Killanin said: "It is very clear that the contract between COJO and ABC was in order; that is why the International Committee sanctioned it in May last."
And in a press release from Lausanne, one can read this:
Lord Killanin, president of the International Olympic Committee, declared that he is convinced that claims of irregularities in the awarding of television contracts for the 1976 Olympic games are without foundation.

Mr. Speaker, in Munich in 1972, the international broadcasting rights for television were sold for $17.5 million. The Innsbruck winter games in 1976 will be sold for some $10 million. By comparison, COJO sold the rights for the United States for only $25 million and it hopes to sell them to Japan, Europe and to the rest of the world at a price much more reasonable and much higher than that paid in the past by those countries. This is why it has hired an expert to help it negotiate these contracts and obtain the best conditions and as much money as possible. Mr. Speaker, $25 million is the biggest amount which has ever been paid for television rights. The hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley should be delighted about such a contract rather than trying to reflect discredit upon the Olympics Games.
On January 11, 1974, this member made in this House unfounded statements particularly when he declared as you can read at page 9280 of Hansard and I quote:
... when the National Broadcasting Corporation had in fact indicated that they were prepared to bid up to $32.9 million, without any strings attached?
The representatives of COJO have told me that NBC never made such an offer. Furthermore, newspapers reported that one of the people in charge of NBC had denied that the network was prepared to pay such an amount.
On page 9280 of Hansard, the same member states that Mr. Carl Lindeman, Vice-President of the CBS network, was told point blank that he would have to pay $5 million to the Quebec government as payment for contract negotiations with COJO.
Mr. Speaker, I have this to say: When any one makes a statement with such implications, such a serious statement, he should verify his facts, he should not say whatever he thinks. Mr. Carl Lindeman does not belong to the CBS network, as the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley claims, but he is Vice-President of the NBC network in charge of sports. This shows clearly how accurate the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley can be in his statements.
The hon. member by his statements in and outside the House has brought such doubts about the integrity of ABC that the network communicated with him to ask him for details and a retraction, because he was hurting the network's reputation. This is what the hon. member was forced to do. In a letter addressed to Mr. Roone Arledge,

March 8, 1974
The Address-Mr. Ouellet
President of the ABC network, sports section, last January 30, he wrote as follows and I quote:

To clarify some of the misquotes in the press following my so-called allegations, I want to make it clear that at no time did I accuse or suggest that ABC was aware of any underhanded or illegal dealings that I believe arose as a result of the ABC contract with COJO. Nor have I ever indicated that the negotiations conducted by ABC in obtaining the exclusive television rights were ever "shady" or illegal or in any way improper.
I do, however, want to reiterate my belief that somewhere along the line, funds did in fact find their way into the Quebec provincial Liberal coffers as a result of the completion of the contract.
I hope this clarifies my position in this matter.
It is signed by the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Jelinek).

There! We see the true face of the hon. member. Forced to retract because of a doubt he had spread about the integrity of the ABC network, he retracts; but he continues to claim that money was paid to the Quebec Liberal Party. He has no proof of it, but he continues to throw mud, to discredit Quebecers. This is the typical way to act for some members of the Progressive Conservative Party!
I think a television program "the City at Six" which was broadcast on March 1 following the second intervention in the House of Commons by the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley is a pretty good resume and a pretty good answer to the allegations made by the hon. member. In a press notice in the parliamentary gallery he announced his intervention in the throne speech debate in these words:
I hope to, among other things, explain my position on the Olympic issue, as well as disclose further evidence as to the irregularities of the awarding of the contract.
The following is a portion of a transcript of the TV program to which I have referred. Bob Jeronomie, TV broadcaster, said:
There was to have been a bit of drama in the House of Commons today. Otto Jelinek, the Conservative MP, had promised to document his charges of bribery in connection with the awarding of television rights for the 1976 Olympics.
That did not happen. Mr. Jeronomie continued:
Tim Knight has worked on this story for weeks now. He got a copy of the agreement between ABC and COJO, he went to Ottawa and New York city and he talked to the people involved. Here is his report.
Mr. Knight interviewed Mr. Rousseau, Lord Killanin, Mr. Josephson and Mr. Arlidge, and all of them absolutely denied any wrongdoing in this matter. He said that when he interviewed the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley and asked what proof he had, what evidence and documents, that there were some shenanigans going on there and that some money had found its way into the Liberal Party of Quebec, the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley answered:
As far as the money finding its way into the Liberal Party, I have absolutely no proof at this time.
Mr. Knight concluded his inquiry by saying the following:

The problem is, of course, that it is incredibly difficult to prove innocence, but it seems to me that unless Otto Jelinek or somebody else does come up with a lot more details and facts than they have-there is no foundation for all these rumours or these allegations. All the principals involved deny any kickbacks, any bribery. It is a fact that NBC or CBS could have challenged the ABC deal at any time up to May last year. Then, and only then, did ABC officially get the television rights to the Montreal games. There is some friction, of course, between the International Olympic Committee and COJO here in Montreal, but that's not unusual in a contract as big as this. All in all, this reporter throws this case out of court for lack of evidence.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I think the time has come for the Progressive Conservative Party to reveal its true intentions, without ambiguity, about its position on the Olympic Games in Montreal and Kingston, in 1976.
The hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Jelinek) claims to be the spokesman for the PC party on Olympic matters. He was one of the first to take the floor after the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) in the name of his party in this House, during this debate. So he surely speaks in the name of the Progressive Conservative Party. But he does not deserve to speak in its name on matters relating to the Olympic Games. He has explicitly and clearly proven that he is incompetent or that he is not in good faith. In my opinion the time has come for the official opposition to seek in its ranks someone else to speak on Olympic matters. I know that several members of the opposition are undoubtedly favourable to the games. If I may, I would like to suggest to the Leader of the Opposition to ask the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) or the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) or the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) to speak about the Olympic Games but let him get rid of this man who makes charges that are likely to be very prejudicial to the 1976 Olympic Games. This is not worthy of a member of parliament. Otherwise, I will have to conclude, as will the people of Canada, that Progressive Conservative members are opposed to the games. They cannot keep on playing that game. When they go to Montreal, they tell the people that they are pleased, but when they go in other parts of the country, they say that the games should have been divided, one part being held in Montreal, another in Toronto and another still in western Canada.
This hon. member who already took part in Olympic competitions is perfectly aware of the fact that the games cannot be divided in this way. He knows perfectly well that the games must take place in one main location. Since the beginning of this debate, the Progressive Conservative party have indulged in peanut politics. They unduly and incorrectly pestered us in committee, through the voice of this member who keeps on sullying Quebecers. The Progressive Conservative party continue to divide people in this country whereas, thanks to the games, we should unify Canada. And all of us should be very proud that these games will be held in Montreal and Kingston in 1976. Athletes from all parts of Canada will take part in the games. People from all parts of Canada will come to attend these games, both in Montreal and Kingston.
Therefore, I say that the Progressive Conservative party show their real position, otherwise we will understand that they are always sitting on the fence and that in the end they are opposed to everything stemming from or
March 8, 1974

directed to the province of Quebec. The Progressive Conservative members are against French Canadians and they always have the odd greenhorn to sully people.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. Does the hon. member for Lafontaine (Mr. Lachance) wish to ask a question or is he rising on a point of order?


Mr. Lachance:: I wish to put a question to the minister, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Since the time allowed to the hon. minister is not completely expired, the minister may, if he so wishes, answer a question. Does the minister agree?


André Ouellet: Agreed.


Georges-C. Lachance: Mr. Speaker, could the minister give us the date of Lord Killanin's statement?


André Ouellet: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The President of the International Olympic Committee made this statement at the beginning of March, and I have here a copy of the Toronto Sun of Tuesday, March 5, reporting Lord Killanin's statement.


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I should like to express my appreciation to the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) for relinquishing his position today and allowing me to take his place since I have another engagement on Monday. I should also like to express my appreciation to the hon. member for Huron (Mr. McKinley) who was instrumental in making these arrangements.
The Speech from the Throne in the main has recognized a number of economic issues which prevail both at home and abroad. Whether or not the issues to which the government has made reference will be resolved as time progresses is really another matter which is dependent upon the attitude of the government and, indeed, the course of its legislative program. One would have to possess a short memory not to note that basically this Speech from the Throne is very similar to the Speech from the Throne delivered at the commencement of the previous session a year ago, possibly with the exception of a little more emphasis on energy and agriculture and items such as the status of women. The government really is saying that basically we have the same problems today as we had a year ago, gravitated by a year of government inaction. It is saying, in effect, "We have failed to correct them, but give us another chance and we will stumble along with the aid of the NDP, hopefully for another year."
The Speech from the Throne speaks of a serious disturbance in the international economic situation arising from problems of supply and the price of a number of commodities, particularly oil. It makes reference to problems relating to food, the shortages of foodstuffs here in Canada and throughout the world, the dramatic increases in the price of food, the causes and the effects, and it proposes some solutions. It proposes to increase production of a number of agricultural products. This is rather a turn-about
The Address-Mr. Mazankowski because only a couple of years ago the government was paying farmers to slaughter chickens, it was paying farmers not to grow wheat and penalizing the dairy industry for producing dairy products. It speaks of inflation, and in that area the government is in a league of its own. It refers to inflation as a phenomenon, for which no real concrete solutions are proposed. It speaks of the necessity for increased job opportunities. It speaks of matters relating to greater control over our economic affairs. It speaks of the need to overcome regional inequalities and disparities, and a few more crumbs are thrown out for the west. Of course, it mentions housing, transportation, the enhancement of our quality of life, aid to small business, industrial development policy, science policy, and so on.
Out of force of sheer necessity any government would be bound to recognize these problems which are very real, but we on this side of the House are in no way convinced that a year from now these problems will not be with us still, for in our opinion the major objective of the government is to cling to power. Moreover, it lacks the vision, the expertise and the determination to grapple effectively with the matters mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, matters which in effect threaten the economic fabric of our nation. I will have a little more to say about that later, particularly in relation to agriculture and transportation. However, before doing so I want to refer to another matter, one which concerns me very deeply. The throne speech has made reference to a number of economic disturbances. I shall refer to a disturbance of a social nature which in my opinion transcends the most important of the economic issues which we face.
I refer to the escalation in the decay of the human and moral standards which prevail in our society, a growing permissiveness, a growing disregard for discipline and the upholding of our laws, both human laws and those which are enacted by government legislation. I see the decline in our spiritual and moral fibre as a major threat to this nation and to neighbouring nations. I see the stability of family life being undermined by the direction of government legislation and its seeming disregard for the concept of the family unit which is a vital and integral part of our social structure. I see our educational system creating conflict and confrontation between generations and within family units. I see governments and society in general acquiescing in laws, written and unwritten, which are contrary to the laws of humanity and nature, where for example a person who has ambition and initiative is penalized if he looks after himself.
I see the incredible increase in the incidence of abortion, approaching a 30 per cent increase on an annual basis. And to think that in this chamber we have a number of so-called progressive-minded people who promote the concept of free abortion on demand! This is a philosophy which contravenes all the laws of nature and God. What hypocrisy, Mr. Speaker, when on the one hand we become deeply grieved and emotionally stricken over the loss of one baby, one man or one woman through violence or some other extraordinary event, or through some stupid accident, and on the other we spend great sums of money on protecting the safety of individuals, on search and rescue and on environmental protection devices-all aimed at preserving life. I agree with that, because I believe life is sacred; yet we condone, and in many cases promote, mass

March 8, 1974
The Address-Mr. Mazankowski
murder in the name of preserving the emotional health of a mother-this in the name of birth control.
The deliberate destruction of human life through abortion is without foundation in human reason and is opposed to human nature. The destruction of human life for selfish motives is contrary to all the laws of God and man.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I believe that we in this House and in this country had better realize that fact. We find ourselves in a society in which television and the other media engage in the perpetration of filth, violence and pornography, financed in many cases at public expense and referred to as "reporting it as it is." Much of this can only be categorized as cheap, unimaginative trash. Whatever precautions a parent might engage in, it is absolutely impossible for any parent completely to immunize his children against this kind of trash.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: We find ourselves in a society where discipline and punishment have been replaced by permissiveness and reform and in some cases reward, where the criminal is treated as an unfortunate misfit, in many cases receiving royal treatment under the name of rehabilitation while his victim is the hard luck guy. We find ourselves in a society where moral and spiritual attitudes receive no consideration in the quality of a man or in the evaluation of his ability to develop his full potential and contribute to society. We see an increase in the use of alcohol and drugs. We see an increased incidence of venereal disease. These are things that treatment alone will never conquer; they are social diseases, most of which are the result of the sad behavioural problem which we have in this society.
So we must ask ourselves-why? We live in a society with all the technical, intellectual and medical expertise and we have made great progress in these fields, but in terms of human progress it can only be categorized, in my humble submission, as shaky and questionable. Much of this is the result of a deliberate route taken by government and by liberal intellectuals many of whom, I would suggest, are over-educated for their brains, whose behavioural attitudes are based on ease and expedience rather than on firmness and natural sense.
Although our educational system is rather sophisticated and advanced, it has failed to provide us with the necessary tools properly to communicate with one another, to live in harmony, to understand, to co-operate, to tolerate and to accept human life-all forms of human life-as something sacred.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the major afflictions which affect our society are by no means limited to the pollution of our air, water and land but are, rather, pollution of the mind. The prerequisites for satisfactorily grappling with this problem are discipline, clear thinking, regard for spiritual values, and work. I do not want to pose as one who has a monopoly on morals and who is a paragon of virtue. Nor do I suggest for one moment that the state and the government can legislate behaviour and

morality. But I do say that our legislative measures and our educational systems can, and must, be tailored to restore and rededicate the family unit as the major pillar of our society.
We must adopt ways and means to strengthen family ties, for discipline begins in the home and that is where the breakdown commences, given the numerous counteractions which are deliberately perpetrated. These institutions must work in harmony, rather than in conflict with the family unit. Furthermore, the government must take firm and immediate action to stop the merciless acts which masquerade under the guise of therapeutic abortion. This is murder and is contrary to the laws of human nature. It is shameful, and it must be stamped out.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Never in my life have I witnessed anything so blatantly wrong, with no response from government. The state is charged with the responsibility of preserving the priceless heritage of life, and particularly of those who are innocent and unable to fend for themselves. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we have reached the point in time where we will soon have to make a choice, and that choice is clear: it is whether we shall stand and fight for a philosophy of life, or whether we shall stand idly by and surrender to a philosophy of death.
I want now to deal with the subject of transportation for a few moments, particularly grain transportation and movement in this country. Grain movement in this nation has reached a very critical state. Shipments are behind something like 135 million bushels this year compared to last year. In Vancouver there are at present 14 ships waiting to be loaded, and ten more are reported due within the week. The Thunder Bay terminal is half full, with four weeks to go to the commencement of the shipping season on the St. Lawrence River. This is not a new problem but it has become particularly apparent to me since becoming a member of this House.
The railways have failed to discharge their responsibility, which is to move commodities and people across this vast land. They have a mandate to perform and they are not living up to it. The government has a responsibility to force the railways to carry out their mandate and their obligations. Just today Statistics Canada reported that for the first two months of this year railway car loadings were down 3.5 per cent compared with the same period last year. This comes at a time when all steps, supposedly, are being taken to get goods moving; at a time when the economy is moving fairly briskly and when the demand for moving bulk commodities is at an all-time high.
We hear from the minister in charge of the Wheat Board (Mr. Lang), from the railways and from some farm organizations that the only way we can resolve the problem of grain transportation is to abandon the Crowsnest pass freight rates. Mr. Speaker, that is really what the railways want and what the minister seems to be engaged in with the railways. The hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) called it a lobby, but I refer to it as a conspiracy. I believe that the railways, the minister in charge of the Wheat Board and some men in farm circles are engaged in a
March 8, 1974

conspiracy, in effect, to undermine and, hopefully, abandon the Crowsnest pass freight rates.
I believe we have sufficient evidence of that, Mr. Speaker, because while we hear the cry for more rolling-stock and the need for more boxcars to move grain, we note that there are cars sitting around the country. On sidings at Perdue, Saskatchewan, for example, some 20 boxcars had been loaded with wheat since December. Cars located at Provost, Alberta, had not turned a wheel for four weeks. Three hundred hopper cars sat in Vancouver during September and October and their alfalfa pellets were not unloaded until November 13. Also, 25 government hopper cars were waiting at Kindersley for seven days for spotting orders; 26 hoppers were sitting at Glenavon, Candiac, Montmartre, Odessa and Vibank for over two weeks before the Christmas holidays; three-quarters of a mile of boxcars were sitting idly at Claresholm for a month, and there was a similar situation at Cayley and Aldersyde; there were 40 cars northeast of Cranbrook which had not moved for a month. Why, Mr. Speaker?
I am not sure that more rolling-stock will solve the problem. I say this is a deliberate attempt by the railways to squeeze the government and the producers, who need to move grain now, into abandoning the Crowsnest pass freight rates; and they are convincing a few people. I remind them and all hon. members that the removal of the Crowsnest pass freight rates will not automatically solve the grain transportation problem. Shippers of other commodities such as fruit, lumber and even the floral people, are complaining that they cannot move their goods adequately by rail, and these items do not come under the Crowsnest pass freight rates. The government has an obligation, and the railways have an obligation to see that the grain is moved. I warn the government and reiterate to the minister that if the government thinks it can open up the hornets' nest of revising the Crowsnest pass freight rates, it will create a situation which will drive every western Liberal into oblivion.
Yesterday we awaited the statement of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) with great anticipation. He had advised the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) in the morning that he would be making a profound statement on transportation policy. The statement was that this government really does not have a policy, has not had one since 1967, and even that one was not good. He admitted that and said they will look at devising a new policy. That was the profound statement that he indicated he was going to make. I reiterate, Mr. Speaker, that the Crowsnest pass freight rates are a Magna Carta to western Canada's farmers. If they are tampered with, we on this side of the House will fight the issue right into the ground.
I want to deal for a moment with the cattle industry, which is in a very serious state. The climate in the cattle industry at the present time, particularly the feeding industry, can only be described as frightening. The flood of U.S. cattle into Canada, resulting in depression of prices coupled with high and increasing input costs, threatens the life of a major Canadian industry. It is a very major industry because the spin-off and the ancillary effects of the cattle feeding industry allow many allied industries to flourish in western Canada. Last year, for example, 128,000
The Address-Mr. Fleming
feeder cattle were shipped to the United States for feeding purposes; over 208,000 slaughter cattle were shipped back to Canada. This means, basically, that the Canadian cattle feeding industry has found itself uncompetitive with the United States. Canadians, therefore, are relying on U.S. feedlots to produce much of Canada's beef, resulting in a staggering loss of economic activity in this country. This year, to the end of February, in the order of 25,000 head of slaughter cattle crossed the U.S. border into Canada. It took eight months to reach that figure last year. This gives one some idea of the flood of imported cattle in comparison to what normally occurs.
What are the implications of this situation, Mr. Speaker? To put it simply, it will result in a shortage of beef down the line, and in much higher prices. The following appeared in the Alberta Farm Economist for the winter quarter, 1974:
In the short run, producers may lose money at times when consumer demand weakens, yet the production level will continue with little variation. However, in the long run, the law of supply and demand will automatically choke off supply if the rapidly rising livestock production costs are not covered by market returns. Livestock and meat prices should be allowed to rise, following the market indicators, and thereby guarantee an adequate meat supply at equitable prices in the future. If livestock and meat prices do not move upward and the major inputs for livestock production continue to yield very lucrative returns to producers, consumers will eventually face a lower meat supply at very high prices.
That paragraph is to be found at page 2 of the publication. In a nutshell it tells us what we can expect if we do not solve this crisis. Last August, when beef prices skyrocketed, the government moved quickly. I urge the government to move as quickly in the present circumstances in order to save this important industry. Today, feeders large and small are losing between $100 and $150 per head. They cannot survive in this economic climate. The government must act with great haste at this time, just as it acted last year, to protect the consumer.


Mr. Jim Fleming (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I begin my remarks by extending best wishes to His Excellency the Governor General and to Madame Leger in their new responsibilities. I think it does honour to Canada to have men and women of such calibre representing us. Truly, they are a great example of the excellence which Canada can develop. Being able to say that there are Canadians of that style, calibre and nature to represent us does great credit to this country. I also wish to extend best wishes to the Hon. Roland Michener and Mrs. Michener. I hope they will find happiness and that their time will be more restfully spent.
Following tradition, I extend congratulations to the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. I do so with special pride for I believe that my colleague from metropolitan Toronto, the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Stollery), has brought a refreshing approach to this traditional honour paid to him. He has a special insight because of his experiences as a world traveller. I think that because of his perspective, which comes from knowledge of poverty and hardship and of the political systems of people in other countries, he is better able to judge how good or how bad things really are in Canada. I also congratulate the seconder, the hon.

March 8, 1974
The Address-Mr. Fleming
member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Pelletier). It is obvious that his extensive academic background in political affairs has added much to his ability to serve his constituents well.
I perceive three major thrusts in the Speech from the Throne. The first is an effective and sensitive response to the factors of inflation. This is not the most politically easy response, true, and not a simplistic response but it is one that is fitting for our circumstances, one that can work within our system and will help us overcome our problem and help our people generally. It is not a simplistic approach. The simplistic approach has been tried and found wanting. I feel that the sooner the official opposition drops its wage and price control proposal, the sooner it will gain credibility with the people of Canada. Wage and price controls are painful and costly in application, painful and more costly in exercising and most painful and most costly when you try to escape from them. They have been tried in the United States but did not work, as the President himself admitted. They were tried in Great Britain and brought about the worst class confrontation to hit that great nation in many a decade.
Selective and sensitive reaction to the problem is not the easiest way of dealing with it, but it involves the most realistic approach. We have already seen examples of the government's realistic approach in its aid to pensioners. It is all very well to pooh-pooh these government expenditures. It is all very well for the Conservatives to make a great song and dance about amounts contained in estimates and supplementary estimates and to claim we are spending ourselves out of existence. It is those same people who thought they could outdo what the government, the NDP or even the Creditistes want to do. They were the ones who would give the Canadian people more. One day they talk out of the left side of their mouths and on the next out of the right side. When it came to helping pensioners, they talked out of the left side of their mouths, but when it came to estimates they talked out of the right side. Somehow they always seem to talk more easily out of the right side of the mouth.
Aid to pensioners has been increased by more than 25 per cent in the past 18 months. That is not to say that our pensioners will have as much as they deserve, or as much as will enable them to buy some of the luxuries available to people in the labour force today. I admit that we must try to do more. Nevertheless, the government's action shows that a great deal has been done. That expenditure accounts for part of the increase in spending. As I say, the money is to be spent in the months ahead.
The government has also increased family allowances. Surely to goodness, when we are faced with inflation which is world-wide-and this has been said a million times, despite the hearing difficulties of the opposition-it is up to us to help the needy. We have acted by bringing in these increases. Actually, in our first major increase we just about tripled family allowances so that children who are helpless will not suffer and children from poor homes will not be an additional burden. Having done these things, the government in a sensitive and selective way acted to help consumers by supporting the price of bread and of milk, two basic commodities which are essential to the health of Canadians.

The government acted in the field of energy. I will deal with that matter in a minute. Again, in this field there was explicit action in treating Canadians fairly and protecting them from increased oil prices in the world. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the cabinet will, as set out in the Speech from the Throne and in accordance with the commitment given last summer and early last fall, act as necessary and continue to take advantage of our resources in Canada so that we may protect our own people and, especially, protect the defenceless. The government's past actions have again proved that sensitive and selective action is right and that we should not adopt the simplistic formula which has failed both in Great Britain and in the United States. The government said it would follow this course. It has given a public commitment that all the negative stridency of the opposition party cannot hide.
There is a further point in this Speech from the Throne which apparently has been overlooked by the media. The point is that little attention has been given to the pledge or to the commitment of the government that it would consult with the provinces after it had considered a number of proposals. The government gave the pledge or commitment that it would act selectively, which is what brought in pension increases, family allowance increases and protection to consumers. The throne speech says that, particularly under the Ministry of National Health and Welfare, further necessary aid will be coming and that these proposals are still under discussion with the provinces.
So the first thrust of the speech is with regard to selective, sensitive action against inflation, protecting the defenceless and doing our best to help all Canadian consumers. I believe there is a second element or thrust to the throne speech. Measures must now be taken for the long-range protection of consumers across Canada. Nothing is more important than measures taken to encourage our farmers and fishermen to produce more. Because of the boom and bust conditions experienced by these workers in the past, nothing can be of greater assistance to farmers, fishermen and consumers than a stabilization program, especially in general agriculture, including prairie grain farmers.
These measures must not be enacted to be effective for one year only; they must be effective from this point forward. Notice that I said they should include the prairie grain farmers as well. Did I hear members mention that that would involve government action in western Canada? Supplies will be increased, fair farm incomes will be assured and Canadian consumers will reap the price advantages of Canadian produce. All this, much to the political agony of my friends opposite, will develop as this session progresses.
The third thrust of the throne speech has to do with regional disparity and its correction. That thrust does not specifically have to do with DREE. That program, of course, is giving assistance to areas of need such as the Maritimes, the like of which has never before been seen. I might mention, however, that DREE is not a success story in eastern Canada alone. Take the Medicine Hat story. That town is in Alberta, in case anybody has forgotten. DREE grants have been the basis for the development of energy resources and related industry in that city in
March 8, 1974

Alberta and are bringing it unparallelled success in industrial growth.
The value of building permits in any urban area in a particular year is an indicator of the expansion of the area. In 1971, in Medicine Hat building permits were let in the amount of $889,000. Shortly after that, DREE began to give major assistance. In 1973, that $889,000 total soared to $21 million. The projected amount for next year in Medicine Hat, Alberta, is $150 million.
Coming from an urban area such as metropolitan Toronto, with the environmental problems and urban sprawl problems which we have, I would almost be frightened by such rapid expansion. Never let it be said the government is not attempting to assist in giving very real assistance to all parts of Canada, including the west. No one can claim that either the great resource-maker in the sky or the federal government forgot Medicine Hat. Similar extensive federal aid went to south Lethbridge and Slave Lake in Alberta.
Some hon. members might resent an easterner attempting to discuss the west, but I am concerned as one of those so-called wicked, greedy easteners. I spent some time in Alberta during the recent recess; in fact, in the general area of the hon. member opposite. My purpose was twofold. It was, first, to try to learn of their anger and frustrations. I think we all, as parliamentarians from all sides of the House and all parties, are deeply concerned about any situation that is divisive of our national unity. I was also there to better understand their problems and to express, as too seldom reaches western ears, some eastern problems-if you can convince westerners that we have problems-and some of the great advantages and potentials of their part of Canada as we in the east see and enjoy them.
I noted in Tuesday's Globe and Mail a quotation of the words of the Premier of Alberta with regard to the cushioning of rising oil prices in eastern Canada, the government's pledge to do that and to attempt to discuss it with the province. The Premier of Alberta said, "Well, that's Ottawa's problem." I wonder if back in 1961, when the national energy policy was established by the government of Canada, what might have been different if in fact Ottawa had said, "Development of your resources is your problem. Go to it." The federal government imposed regulations forcing Canadians west of the Ottawa Valley to pay more for western Canadian oil than offshore oil-that is, from the Ottawa Valley westward-even though in Edmonton, a few miles from the oil fields, it was more expensive than buying offshore oil.
Eastern problems or western problems, they are Canada's problems and not just Ottawa's problems if equality of opportunity, education or economic well-being are involved. They are not Ottawa's problems translated into a particular government or particular party. It is Canada that has to cope with them. This country cannot survive if the federal government alone must bear the burden and solve the discrepancies in lifestyle across Canada. East, west, central or north, the responsibility belongs to us all as long as any one of us says, "I am a Canadian."
The Address-Mr. Fleming
There has been cause for western anger and frustration. I understand it better, having spent some time talking about it in the west with westerners. So did the Prime Minister and his cabinet colleagues because of the western economic opportunities conference. The anger and frustration in the west has built up over many years. You can see it very clearly, not so much when you talk to their leaders, who are very strident in what they tell us is wrong, but when you talk directly to westerners in their own homes. That same anger and frustration, amassed for so long, is now being nurtured by an opposition apparently blind to real progress or unwilling to recognize it because of opportunistic, political motives.
I think we succeeded in showing the rest of Canada the problem and showing the west there is interest here in Ottawa. Surely, if that was done on a raw political base it was a foolish move. If it was done to find solutions it was a good move, despite some political disadvantage to it. For the Prime Minister and the cabinet to go west and face the western press, which has hardly been our best friend over the years, and face at public meetings the leaders of those provinces was a daring, forward and honest move. It was done publicly, openly and on their own ground. There is no cheaper or easier shot these days in the west than to take on the federal Liberals, but is there a time when political stridency hurts more than it helps you politically in a particular party? Is there ever a time when it will hurt anyone else more than those seeking the regress of their long-standing grievances?
It was pointed out at the western economic opportunities conference that freight rates are a major problem in the west. At that conference the Premier of Alberta presented the federal government with 20 complaints of alleged tariff inequities. Over the following months that figure grew to almost 200. Day by day we hear the strident scream that nothing is being done. That conference was held last July. We are intensively investigating 200 different tariffs. If you want answers and some equity in the west because you have been treated poorly, surely you want responsible, proper answers so that the tariffs will be corrected forever in the future. Give the government a chance to look at it properly to analyse what the solution should be.
Estimates of revenues amassed by the 1961 national oil policy, as carried out through the years until a few months ago to help develop western resources, have ranged as high as $500 million. I am willing to admit that one of the problems was that all the money from most of Ontario and points westward went into developing the resources for not only Alberta but for all of Canada. We see the wisdom of that now and are further acting to see that the entire country can be supplied from western resources. The fact is that perhaps there was too much development of the refineries in the east. That situation should be corrected.
Obviously, the west has had real reason to say they have been disadvantaged in developing secondary industry, but judging from the actions of the last day or two by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) the pledges and commitments that were publicly made will be met by the government. This situation is in the process of being corrected; there is no doubt about that. Errors and mistakes have been made on both sides over

March 8, 1974
The Address-Mr. Fleming
the years. Alberta accused Ottawa of not consulting. The Premier of that province actually refused at one time to talk to the federal government. At one point he even threatened to sever relations. That is great Canadianism! Yet the same Premier developed the Syncrude plan over many months. He drew up a deal directly involving federal revenues. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) heard about Syncrude in a television newscast in a hotel room in Calgary.
Canada is blessed with almost unparallelled opportunities. We know that, despite the leering of my friends opposite. We have unparallelled opportunities, and we have a federal government listening to problems in all regions of Canada, especially the west although there is little political advantage to that at the moment. We have these almost unparallelled opportunities through no planning or foresight of our own. Canada-or is it just Alberta and Saskatchewan-is rich in resources; but the mari-times, Quebec, northern Ontario, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon have some real pockets of poverty and regional inequity.
If in practice there have been failures, or at least delays in helping Canada, has the spirit of our nation and its regions ever been "the haves shall have it and the have-nots shall not"? Were government omissions, shortsightedness or insensitivities in the past, at any level, ever a justification for that approach now or in the future? No matter how strident my friends opposite are regarding the past, in the long run who will suffer from a course of confrontation, regionalism or politically fortified frustration? Not the west in this case. Only, and especially, those Canadians who have suffered most all along.
No government in recent times has, with fewer political rewards to reap, concentrated more on seeking solutions to problems and inequities in western Canada. Never before in Canadian history-and I include my own province-has any region stood on the threshold of so much wealth and economic well-being as Canada's west. Before any oil embargo was announced by Arabia, this government volunteered to go into the lion's den and seek out the abcesses. Thus the western economic opportunities conference. It continues pledged and obliged to correct the wrongs of which the west has complained. Surely those pledges would not otherwise have been put so clearly in the Speech from the Throne, and the government would not have gone out west if they had not been prepared to do that. I only hope the pioneer spirit of westerners, of which we hear them speak and of which they are so proud-and so they should be-will make them Canadians first as their fate-found abundance moves them into the forefront of the Canadian economy in the decade ahead. There can be no doubt this is what their position will be.
The inequities in freight rates are to be remedied. Western farmers will prosper on a continuing basis as they never have before. The industrial development of the west will boom, as it has begun to do already, for instance in Medicine Hat, with the assistance of DREE. Over and above all this, the west's abundance of energy assures it of unparallelled wealth. Surely it is a time when Canadianism, not regionalism, should be bursting from them and from their leaders.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I join with others who have preceded me in this debate in congratulating the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. I propose to deal with one subject and one subject only, and that is Canada's position in the international world.
I note that apart from a reference to the effect of the fuel crisis on the third world, there is no mention in the Speech from the Throne to international affairs. This is perhaps because, it must be acknowledged, international affairs are not the most attractive subject politically. Nevertheless, they are of tremendous importance to Canada. It is obvious that neither Canada nor any other modern nation can live in isolation, and it is trite to remark that the world is getting smaller and increasingly interdependent. Canada's welfare and even her survival depend on peace and security in the world as a whole, and we are bound to pay attention to the subject.
It is said that international affairs should be treated on a non-partisan basis. To some extent I agree with this statement. There are, naturally, many aspects of Canada's international relations upon which Canadians of all parties are in substantial agreement, and in such cases they can and should work together. However, there are very real differences of outlook and real differences in regard to international policy on specific issues. It is, in my view, worth while discussing these differences here.
I propose, therefore, to put emphasis on the points on which there is disagreement between my party, the New Democratic Party, and the present administration. I think it will become apparent that these differences are very real. First of all, I think there is a substantial philosophic difference. The government, in 1970, introduced a series of papers under the general title "Foreign Policy for Canadians." These papers reveal what can only be described as a desire to maintain a low profile in international affairs and a weariness with such activities as peacekeeping and, generally, a reaction against overemphasizing Canada's role.
We recognize, of course, that Canada is not, in terms of military power or influence, a major actor on the international scene. We believe, however, that there are aspects of international affairs in which Canada's leadership is both natural and essential. I refer to such questions as the development of international law in the protection of human rights and in the whole field of humanitarian internationalism.
We share with some other countries an obligation to give leadership. I mention, for example, Sweden, Australia, Holland, West Germany, Norway, Denmark and New Zealand. There are, of course, many countries in the so-called third world which are in a similar position. We have not had, in my view, the clarity, precision, vigour or dynamic leadership which Canada could have given in these fields. There has been lack of a sense of urgency. In my view there is an urgent need to build a world community. The present administration, according to its own declarations, and indeed according to its practice, tends to put emphasis on narrow national self-interest and upon economic growth. For example, we find in "Foreign Policy for Canadians" six ingredients of Canadian foreign policy as follows:
March 8, 1974

(1)	to foster economic growth
(2)	to safeguard sovereignty and independence
(3)	to work for peace and security
(4)	to promote social justice
(5)	to enhance the quality of life, and
(6)	to ensure a harmonious national environment.
These are described as the six main themes of national policy and no one could quarrel with any of them, any more than they would think of quarrelling with motherhood. But on page 32 of the main pamphlet an effort is made to assign priorities and we find that economic growth is given the highest priority. Social justice and the quality of life are a mention. Peace and security, and sovereignty and independence are somehow placed in some degree of relative insignificance.
Mr. Speaker, we challenge this philosophy. Economic growth may be important, but as a determinant of foreign policy or the highest priority for consideration, we think it is both old-fashioned and wrong to put so much emphasis upon it. In our view, the emphasis should be on peace and security. Canada has no greater interest than in the maintenance of a stable and peaceful world. This, in turn, depends upon the development of a world community and the development of social justice not only within nations but between different groups of nations.
We also place supreme importance upon the maintenance of Canada's sovereignty and independence. Canada should indeed be a good citizen in the community of nations, but the best basis for this would be the preservation of Canada's own sovereignty and independence against threats to that independence not only military but economic, cultural or intellectual. For too long we have borrowed many of our attitudes in international affairs from large countries with which we have been associated by history and geography. For many years we were dependent upon the United Kingdom, and now our dependence is upon the United States of America. To some extent this may be inevitable, but in our view it has gone too far.
Mr. Speaker, I now propose to deal with three or four specific aspects of Canada's foreign policy. These illustrate the differences in outlook which I have outlined. The first of these subjects is development in the third world; the second, the situation existing in Viet Nam; and the third, Canada's relations to southern Africa.
There is no graver issue threatening the stability of the world than the growing disparity between the so-called rich and poor nations. The standards of living and consumption in one-third of the world vastly exceed those in the other two-thirds. The gap continues to grow. Grim poverty and hardship is the fate of large sections of humanity. Indeed, we are told on good authority that there is a prospect of serious famine in vast regions of the world this year. This is a time when the resources of the world are expanding and will expand, and it is a time when the culture of the western world has spread throughout the whole world and aroused expectations. Social justice within countries is based on a measure of equality. Social justice in the world depends upon a measure of equality between different nations and regions of the world.
The Address-Mr. Brewin
I wish to mention two aspects of the relations between the developed and developing world. The first is aid and the second is trade, but neither should be considered in isolation from the other. The developed world has failed miserably to make an adequate contribution through aid. No countries, including Canada, have lived up to the standard set by the United Nations and in the Pearson report. This report called for not only a substantially increased volume of aid but also for changes in the nature of the aid given-the untying of aid, the expansion of multilateral as against unilateral aid, and in general the removal of aid from the taint of neocolonialism and selfinterest on the part of the developed nations.
Canada, it is true, has made some comparative progress, and although I am sure CIDA is not a perfect institution, I would like to pay tribute to its work. During the course of the last year I visited both Tanzania and Bangladesh and had a chance to see at first hand some of the results of Canadian aid through CIDA. I believe that in these countries, at any rate, Canadian aid has been effective, and is highly spoken of by the recipient countries. However, we still fall below the international standards that have been set. The Pearson report mentioned a target of .7 per cent of the gross national product as a reasonable measuring stick. Canada contributes something between .4 and .5 per cent. Most of our aid is still tied. The greater proportion of it is unilateral.
The need for increased aid is particularly urgent at the present time. The Speech from the Throne mentions that the third world has been especially hard hit by the energy crisis. These countries import oil and other forms of energy, not for recreation or luxury but to keep their plans for development going. The increased cost of energy endangers the patient efforts of countries like India, Bangladesh and Tanzania, to take illustrations only, to reach the point of take-off from which their drive for development can be self-sustaining. All their carefully laid plans which we have supported can be wrecked by the rising cost of energy.
Canada has contributed foodstuffs to various areas of the world but as the prices have moved up, the same dollar value of aid produces a much smaller actual volume. We have to step up our aid in dollar terms if we are to maintain even the existing level. But aid alone is not the key to development, although it may be helpful. The main key is, in fact, the establishment of effective trading relations between the third world and the rest of the world. In the past GATT, UNCTAD and other international efforts to regulate world trade have been dominated by the developed countries. The share of the third world in world trade has dimished rather than increased. The prices of primary products upon which many third world countries rely have been grossly inadequate.
Canada and the other developed nations must listen to the pleas of the third world. They must provide special drawing rights, they must lower trade barriers so far as developing countries are concerned, and they must assist marketing and other methods of expanding trade with the third world. If there is disruption to industry in Canada, then legislation should be passed for adjustment assistance to those affected.

March 8, 1974
The Address-Mr. Brewin
We now pass to the question of Viet Nam. As most members of this House are aware, there exists in Viet Nam at the present time a grave human problem of tremendous magnitude, exceeding in depths of human misery and cruelty anything that is occurring in any other part of the world. There is the clearest evidence that a very large number of political prisoners, over 100,000 in fact, have been subjected to continued detention and inhuman treatment, including torture. We have had before this House a host of reliable witnesses, British, American, Canadian and French. We have spoken to those who have spoken to these prisoners and heard their stories. We have seen vivid and authentic films of young men crippled by the treatment they have received in jails.
A large number of these persons are guilty of no offence except that they have sought peace between the warring factions in Viet Nam. They support neither the present regime nor the PRG or the communists. Their offence is one of neutralism and desire for reconciliation. This issue has aroused the conscience of many Canadians. Most of the members of this House-and I am sure that if the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) were here he would confirm this-have received numerous and spontaneous letters on this subject. A group of members of parliament and senators representing the three major parties of this House, most or many of them members of the external affairs committee, have presented a brief to the Secretary of State for External Affairs urging that Canada take the lead in bringing this subject to the attention of the Human Rights Commission of the United Nations for investigation.
We have furnished ample legal authority that in international law this is a proper course to adopt and in accordance with precedent. The minister has encouraged us with expressions of deep interest and has promised to give the matter the fullest possible consideration, but so far he has not come up with an answer. We understand he has been in consultation with other like-minded nations. Our own limited inquiries have revealed that the Italian foreign minister, the Netherlands foreign minister, the Swedish prime minister, the parliamentary secretary to the minister of economic collaboration in West Germany, the West German parliamentary secretary of foreign affairs, and the prime minister of Australia have indicated their deep concern with this problem. If we took the matter to the United Nations, we would not stand alone in our humanitarian concern.
We do not wish to interfere in the internal affairs of another country, but there is no doubt that where there is a consistent pattern of gross violation of human rights- and that condition certainly exists in South Viet Nam- then the international community has a right and an obligation to intervene, not indeed by military methods but by making clear what world opinion is. Even the most authoritarian governments are sensitive to world opinion. This is a case where Canada can give a lead, and I hope the members of this House will indicate to the Secretary of State for External Affairs their hope that the request of the non-partisan committee which has interviewed him on this matter will receive favourable consideration.
I now wish to refer to another aspect of Canada's policies in Viet Nam, and I do this on my own responsibility

and not on behalf of the committee, though some members of the committee may agree with me. It is perfectly clear that despite the clear words of the Paris agreement of 1973 calling for the total withdrawal of American advisers and paramilitary personnel, for the negotiation of the release of political prisoners, for the establishment of civil liberties, and for the formation of a national council of national reconciliation and concord, both the Thieu regime and the United States government have disregarded these provisions of the Paris agreement. Indeed, an article from the New York Times was reprinted in, I think last Saturday's Globe and Mail giving a detailed account of the situation. It indicated as follows:
The United States, far from phasing out its military involvement in South Viet Nam, has descended from a peak of warfare to a high plateau of substantial support dispatching not only huge quantities of weapons and ammunition but also large numbers of American citizens who have become integral parts of the South Vietnamese supply, transport and intelligence systems.
It may be said that this is a matter for the United States and not for Canada. But what has Canada's position been? First of all, we are talking about increasing our diplomatic representation in Saigon. Secondly, we have completely refused to recognize the PRG which was one of the parties to the Paris agreement and was thereby accorded juridical status amongst the nations. We act as though the PRG did not exist.
As far as North Viet Nam is concerned, we have indeed granted diplomatic recognition but we have totally failed to make that meaningful. Accredited to the Hanoi regime is our ambassador in Peking. He surely has enough to do representing our interests in the People's Republic of China without taking on North Viet Nam as well. In the meantime, we rely for day to day diplomatic contacts entirely on the British ambassador and his staff. So far as I know, we have not even discussed reconstruction aid with the Hanoi regime. Whatever the future of Viet Nam may be, it is highly probable that the authorities now installed in Hanoi will have something to say about the future of that country. It really does not make sense for us to play favourites with the authoritarian and unstable regime at Saigon and ignore in practice both the North Vietnamese and the PRG.
There is another aspect of this matter, and that is that the Saigon regime is deeply dependent upon the United States and outside aid to be able to maintain its present system of repression and continued war. International institutions, in which Canada has a part, will be called upon to extend aid to South Viet Nam, if they have not already been called upon. There have been reports to the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development- incidentally, the reporters went nowhere except to Saigon and got all their information from the people there-and it is possible that the World Bank and many other institutions will be called on in a deliberate plan to get the rest of the world including Canada to finance the maintenance of the present regime in Saigon.
The immense, terrible war damage in all parts of Viet Nam cannot be repaired until the terms of the Paris agreement are accepted by all sides. Canada was one of the signatories to the final act of the International Confer-
March 8, 1974

ence of Guarantees of the Implementation of the Paris Agreement. We have assumed responsibility in this field and I suggest it is time we showed some responsibility.
I now turn to the last subject I want to discuss, and that is South Africa, a key area in the whole future of the world. Canada, consistent with its ambiguous stance as announced in its foreign policy papers has supported UN resolutions which condemn Portuguese colonialism, apartheid in South Africa and the illegal regime in Rhodesia. The government policy papers are abundantly clear-and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) has spoken in this vein himself-about the moral revulsion felt by Canadians toward these racist regimes. Canada's actions have been very different from her rhetoric. Canada has aided and assisted the development of trade relations with South Africa and Angola. Canada still extends to South Africa a preferential tariff, supposedly based on membership in the Commonwealth many years after South Africa left the Commonwealth on the very issue of racial policies.
Canada has failed to give adequate recognition to the liberation movements in Angola, Guine-Bissau and Mozambique whose populations are fighting for freedom. Some people talk about them as terrorists, but I suggest they are not more terrorists than any other people fighting for liberation and freedom in their countries, and these people occupy in most instances the greater part of the area of their countries and have the support generally of the international community.
In 1972, I think in December or November, Canada supported a resolution in the United Nations which recommended-this is an almost literal quotation-that all governments render to the people of those countries, and in particular to the populations of the liberated areas of those territories, all moral and material assistance necessary to continue their struggle for the achievement of the inalienable right to self-determination and independence. Canada, with 97 other nations, voted for this resolution. I suggest we committed ourselves to it. It is true that the Canadian delegation then proceeded to explain away its support for that resolution with reservations and qualifications.
Recently, the Secretary of State for External Affairs announced that Canada would in fact give, through CIDA, non-military support to non-governmental agencies, one of which is the World Council of Churches, which were assisting the development of those areas which have been liberated from colonial occupation. There were a few critical editorials and letters to the newspapers which seemed to have caused this government to hesitate. I hope this hesitation amounts to a mere tactical retreat and that the government will stick firmly to its announced determination. I suggest to do otherwise would be to signal to the people of Africa and to people throughout the world that there is no consistency between our words in the United Nations and our actions, and it would indicate that in the struggle for freedom Canada is neutral.
We should take such practical steps as withdrawing trade commissioners from South Africa and Angola, as trying to persuade Canadian companies with investments in that area not to exploit the apartheid practices prevalent there, and we should withdraw the preferential
The Address-Mr. Baker
arrangements with South Africa and give practical but non-military aid to those liberation movements.
There are other subjects I should like to pursue, as obviously international affairs range pretty widely, but time does not permit me to do so. However, I should like to make one reference to the fact that, despite the contempt that is sometimes heaped upon the United Nations and despite the disillusionment expressed by this government in its foreign papers with peacekeeping forces, the UN and its peacekeeping forces constitute an essential element in the maintenance of precarious peace in the Middle East.
The views which I have expressed may be thought to be idealistic. Personally, I am not afraid of that word. Unless our international policies are at least tinged with idealism, we will condemn ourselves to futility. I understand that the foreign policy of any country must be based upon self-interest, but that self-interest should be enlightened self-interest. I think enlightened self-interest in fields of development, in our relations with Viet Nam and in our relations with South Africa requires the policies I have outlined.
In closing, let me assure the government and this House that more and more people, and I include among them particularly young people and church people, are in fact deeply concerned about these issues and look to the government for the leadership they have not received in full measure in the past.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I should first like to join my leader and other colleagues in the House in congratulating the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. I think they undertook this duty in commendable fashion. I was very pleased to be here to listen to their speeches. I did not agree with everything they said; none the less, I thought they carried out their duties extremely well.
I listened with great interest to the speech delivered today by the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet). I was very heartened, in fact I was absolutely delighted, to hear him open his speech, as so many other members have on the other side of the House, by attacking the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield). If there is any great sign for optimism in our party, it is the fact that members on the government side have not exhausted their energies in attacking the opposition, and I for one want to express my thanks to the Postmaster General and others who have contributed.
I say to the Postmaster General that rather than extoll all the virtues of his own leader, of which I would not call him the most unbiased judge, I would suspect that he should have expended his energy, or the natural gas he exuded in this House, in improving the performance of his department which has perhaps the most disappointing record of any Post Office Department of any democracy in the world and, more than that, has among its staff perhaps the lowest level of morale since confederation. So I think that perhaps if he extended the same amount of energy to those things as he did in extolling the virtues of his leader, there might be great improvement. I do not wish to denigrate the hiring practices of the Postmaster General, but I

March 8, 1974
The Address-Mr. Baker
want to underline the fact that the undermining of his department commenced notably the day the former member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton became his executive assistant.
Then I listened to the hon. member for York West (Mr. Fleming) speak about the income stabilization program. I listened to him speak about the pain and cost of it all, and how the selective program, which is really backing into the control program of the government, is so much better. As I heard him extoll the virtues of the government's program and fight against inflation, I was reminded and perhaps the House was reminded of some startling statistics. For instance, the average Canadian worker has lost $5 a day in the past 12 months in purchasing power, due to inflation. His wages have declined since September and have remained virtually static since last April, in terms of purchasing power.
Food which cost $15 last year now costs $17.50. A house which cost $29,600 last year now costs $31,680. Clothing which cost $134.70 last year now costs $144.80. Canada Savings Bonds purchased in 1972 for $1,000 now have a purchasing power-and, mind you, this includes accrued interest-of only $959, a $41 loss in respect of what is supposed to be a gilt-edged security. The interest on it is taxable, in addition. Sales of Canada Savings Bonds have dropped sharply over the past year.
Here is another litany of failure. In 1972, Canada's annual cost of living increase rate was 5.1 per cent. It is now increasing at the rate of 9.1 per cent. The greatest monument of all was the announcement not too long ago that contributions by employers and employees to the unemployment insurance program had to be increased by 40 per cent-and this does not say how much is coming in from the public sector. Let us not have any comment from the government benches about the pain and cost of an economic stabilization program. Rather, I think we should listen to the Canadian people who pay the cost of what I can only call administrative slothfulness on the part of this government.
Mr. Speaker, as you are aware, I have the honour to represent in this House many people employed as public servants, employed by Crown corporations and agencies and by the armed forces of Canada, as well as their wives and children. I do not like to have to raise this matter, but as a result of the move to identify, and ultimately designate, positions in the public service as bilingual I have received more mail and telephone calls than on any other subject since I came here, including capital punishment. From the tone of these letters and telephone calls it is alarmingly evident that the difficulty of implementation of a policy of bilingualism in the public service that was to be overcome by the guidelines approved by parliament has in fact become more intense and as a result I believe the morale of the public service is being seriously undermined. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the service is being damaged as a result.
The tragedy of this impairment of morale is that it is happening in a service which, to their everlasting credit, has by and large accepted the principles of the Official Languages Act. Like most Canadians, they saw those principles as the instruments by which Canadians would be able to receive and obtain service from the federal

government in both languages, and on that basis they were prepared to accept that as time went on the service would develop an increasing capability to work or communicate in both languages. It was not intended or expected by any reasonable person that 100 or so years of Canadian history would be changed in the public service or anywhere else in the short period of ten years; it was intended to be a process of evolution.
The difficulties and the anxieties which have been communicated to me arise from two aspects. The first is the mistake of setting a deadline of 1973, in the first place, now substituted by a deadline of 1975 which in terms of the volume of positions is impossible to meet. On top of this impossibility is piled an additional burden. The 1976 deadline was established for an estimate of 25,000 bilingual positions. Now, to everyone's disbelief, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) finds himself to have been about 100 per cent wrong: the true figure is close to 50,000. Once again, the minister finds himself among the growing number of ministers who are 100 per cent wrong.
Mr. Speaker, to find the true measure of the volume that this figure of 50,000 represents we have to consider the number of persons who will go on the courses and fail, and the number who will have to be trained in their places and, as well, the vacancies that will be created by retirements which will also have to be filled. Even if the designated positions amount to less than 50,000, I venture to suggest that the training program will be among the most costly since confederation, and there are grave doubts that its objects can be realized. I suggest that the only way it could possibly be done would be to consciously recruit an abundance of Canadians who were bilingual on entry into the service, or to water down the requirements of proficiency so that a great number of graduates would be no more than statistically bilingual. The one is discriminatory and the other is a flagrant waste of public funds.
The real flaw is the emphasis that this government has chosen to place on the implementation procedures. They have chosen to emphasize the secondary object of the program, namely, communication with the service, to a greater degree than the first object, which is the ability of the public service to communicate in the official languages with the public. With regard to that, I say to you, Mr. Speaker, in the presence of the President of the Treasury Board, that the government has put the cart before the horse. As a result, the pace of implementation has assumed revolutionary proportions. The cost in monetary terms, if the truth is ever ascertained, will be astronomical, and in human terms I suggest it will be beyond measure. Public servants feel themselves compressed into an impossible time-frame. They see careers endangered and they see advancement threatened. This is in fact happening in the public service today.
The basic and primary intent of the Official Languages Act is being ignored. The grandfather clause, as stated by Mr. Pearson in this House, is being overlooked. Pressure from the Treasury Board-in fact some have described the President of the Treasury Board as the platoon sergeant in this enforced march-have led us to excessive designation in terms of need, and I say with all the force of conviction I can muster that the time has come to recognize and face
March 8, 1974

up to the excesses in a program that is causing anxiety to public servants, incalculable expense to taxpayers and is slowly but surely shaking the faith and lowering the morale of those who have dedicated their lives to the public service.
Consider how foolish it is, Mr. Speaker, to establish a goal that cannot possibly be accomplished with a timeframe that is itself unrealistic. This government is blindly on the road which is likely to lead Canadians to the point where they will have the worst of both worlds. What has been trumpeted as a program to "institutionally bilingual-ize" the public service has become a program to bilingual-ize the public servant, and we should get back to first principles very quickly.
As I have said before, and I say it again, the policy of bilingualism means that within the limits of practicability Canadians should have the right to federal government service in either official language. We should continue to search for equality. There ought to be a commitment to equality. We must not forget that entering the public service and advancing within it must be based on equality of opportunity for all Canadians. Every member of parliament has a duty to ensure that the public service is a place where Canadians can work together. All members, not just those who represent ridings with public servants in them, must ensure that the public service is a place where justice is not only done to every public servant but where it is seen to be done.
We must never forget that bilingualism involves the right to be unilingual, and that right applies to both English and French-speaking Canadians. There was a very heavy burden on this government with regard to the public service of Canada. It is a matter of history and record that the government failed with respect to that burden. On June 4, 1973, I joined with my leader in asking the government to go the second mile with public servants and put the so-called guidelines into law. The government has not done so, and in fact every one of the members of the government voted against that proposal. So much for their commitment to justice!
Nothing that has happened since that time has led me to any other conclusion than that this was the first step, that it was right then and that it is right now. There would be the assurance of an independent, trusted tribunal, which there is not now, and all of us would be assured that there would be no order, directive or regulation issued contrary to the law and, if there was, then important rights could be preserved and protected.
I believe that the time has come to review and reassess the basis of the procedure of implementation and the process of designation. This must be undertaken, not on some mystical quota system that does not square with the facts, or on some unscientific or subjective basis, or on the basis of pressure, whether subtle or otherwise, but on the basis of an examination of the real function, need and requirement for capacity of a bilingual nature based on a study of each position in each department and in terms of the requirement to give service. It would have to be recognized that the scope of this requirement would vary from department to department, but I believe that that is the real meaning of institutional bilingualism.
The Address-Mr. Baker
As part of a new approach to the problem of implementation, it goes without saying that the revolutionary aspect must be recognized as unreasonable and unacceptable. This means, of course, that we must end once and for all time-frames which have thus far been unrealistic and which as a result impose a coercive element upon the public service that is neither conducive to learning nor to anything else except resentment. This leads to pressures that are equally non-conducive to learning. Moreover, there is a growing feeling that the present procedure may be injurious to opportunities because superiors, who have a responsibility throughout all of this to get work out, are developing a noticeable tendency to fill the job with someone who does not need to go off on language training.
In this approach we would have to admit that the requirement for bilingual public servants would be reduced in the numerical sense, but I am willing to bet that the quality of the bilingual capacity and the desire to achieve that capacity among public servants would increase, and for the right reasons. To foster this desire the government, I believe, would be bound to provide language training. Most important, the public service would be a place which all Canadians would find attractive to work in and many of the anxieties and fears would be removed. I do not regard this as breaking faith with the principles of the Official Languages Act. Rather, l believe that the proposal is supportive and, moreover, that it is positive. These proposals are not intended to be exhaustive but, rather, to make a new beginning.
I want to make it clear that the Treasury Board, or any member of the government or of this House, ought not to be insensitive to the feelings of the public service of the country. For a start, all of us must face up to the fact that a new attitude is needed, because the pebble of insensitivity that was dropped into the pool has caused waves of misunderstanding that have travelled a fair distance and they will not go away because some members choose to ignore them.
In the few moments that I have left I want to turn to another subject which is important in this area, and that is the relationship of the people who live in it in terms of their local government and its relationship with the federal government. That relationship is best expressed to us in this area through the workings of the National Capital Commission. I am happy to say that of all the commissions and agencies of government, this commission and its workings are beyond the matter of party politics and dissent. I want to commend the government on its choice of a new chairman for the commission. He has held the office for some time. I have heard him speak, I have talked with him and I have come to know him. I believe he bears within his soul and heart the attitude of compromise that will make all the difference in the relationship between the federal government and local government.
However, it is important that there be a sound and strong contact between the two levels of government. I would hope the government would consider taking up with the National Capital Commission and, between the two of them, consider the appointment to the commission of the chairman of the Outaouais regional municipality board on the Quebec side, and of the chairman of the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton on the Ottawa

March 8, 1974
The Address-Mr. Baker
side. I think there has been a good relationship between the two governments on the staff side, but the relationship has not been as sound and as continuing as it might be on the policy side.
I put forward this suggestion, which I made in the first speech I delivered in this House, for the government to consider because I think it is important that, with respect to the long-range aims of both governments, firm consideration be given to it. I think it is also important that, being the largest land owner in the area, the federal government should understand that it does have a responsibility through the National Capital Commission, and perhaps through the Minister of Public Works, to ensure that the land use plans which are developed for federal lands, in the minds of federal planners, do not collide with the work of local municipalities. I hope that through this step there is machinery to bring that about.
The Ottawa area is one in which there is an opportunity; in fact, where it is not too late for us not to make the mistakes that have plagued other areas and the larger cities in Canada with respect to the tendency that has been demonstrated to pack more and more people into fewer and fewer acres of land. I join with the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik) in asking the government, over the long haul and in co-operation with the departments, to take a good look at the concept of development of centres of population around existing small towns which have at their root now the social and other amenities which are necessary for a reasonable life in an urban setting, rather than to continue the packing of a diminishing amount of land with larger and larger populations. This would involve the development of inter-urban transportation of a rather sophisticated nature. It would also improve the lifestyle of people not only in existing municipalities that are overcrowded, but perhaps existing municipalities on a smaller scale to which variety might be of benefit.
Now I want to speak about a problem that is close to you as well as to me, Mr. Speaker, and that is the problem facing eastern Ontario farmers today with respect to brucellosis which seems to have broken out in the county which you represent and the one which I represent. We must look at this problem very closely and we must have the courage to decide whether the government program with respect to it has worked. If it has not, we must admit it, and where it has not worked in respect of the individual farmer we must recognize the great difficulties placed upon him in a market where costs are high and returns small. He must be provided with compensation for animals that become more and more valuable, to the extent that compensation is less and less a consideration. Such a program would have to be developed in co-operation with provincial governments, but it is important that it be done because every herd that goes out of existence in the milk producing areas of eastern Ontario will not be replaced and our targets of food production will not be met.
Mr. Speaker, I thank you and hon. members of this House for the indulgence given me with regard to the clock. It is an honour for me to take part in this debate. In closing I wish to extend to you my best wishes and hope that you enjoyed the opportunity for rest provided by the recent recess of parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the unanimous consent of the House to revert to motions in order to propose a motion in relation to next week's business.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is there agreement to revert to motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, there have been negotiations through the usual channels, and I should like to propose a motion to give effect to the agreement announced in the House on January 11 whereby the CNR financing and guarantee bill and the national parks bill are to be restored at the report stage. In the case of the CNR bill there is attached to the motion the recommendation of His Excellency the Governor General. I would assume, in accordance with our procedures, that this recommendation will be printed in today's Votes and Proceedings.
[Editor's Note: For recommendation referred to above, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I move, seconded by the hon. member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet):
That, notwithstanding the provisions of any Standing Order or practice of this House, the version of the bill intituled "an act to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain capital expenditures of the Canadian National Railways system and Air Canada for the period from the 1st day of January, 1973, to the 30th day of June, 1974, and to authorize the guarantee by Her Majesty of certain securities to be issued by the Canadian National Railway company and certain debentures to be issued by Air Canada," as reported with amendments from the Standing Committee on Transportation and Communications during the first session of the twenty-ninth parliament, and the version of the bill intituled "an act to amend the National Parks Act", as reported with amendments from the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development during the first session of the twenty-ninth parliament, be deemed to have been introduced, read a first time, ordered to be printed, read a second time, referred to and reported from a standing committee, and that the said bills be ordered for consideration by the House at the report stage on or after March 8, 1974.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the opposition, we concur in the motion of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury). It is agreeable to us.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) is quite correct in his statement that there have been discussions leading to the presentation of this motion, and on behalf of the New Democratic Party I wish to indicate our agreement.
March 8, 1974

I should like to point out, however, that one of the understandings was that certain commitments that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) made to the committee that dealt with the bill last session would be implemented. The one that is of particular interest and which was spelled out in the committee was that at the appropriate stage, either at the report stage or at third reading, there would be agreement to the presentation of an amendment which would have the effect of deleting from section 6 of the National Parks Act the reference to the expropriation of the lands of Indians.
Legislative Program
I might say, Mr. Speaker, that this has been fully discussed and agreed to by those who are interested and concerned. It was felt, however, that the agreement should be on the record at this point. On that basis we are prepared to support this motion.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
At 5.09 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, March 11, 1974