1974-02-28

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 1975, was presented by Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board) and read by Mr. Speaker to the House.
Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the main estimates for 1974-75 are made up of $22,023 million in budgetary expenditures and $1,275 million in loans.
On the budgetary expenditure side, the estimates are up $2.4 billion over forecast expenditures for 1973-74, more than three-quarters of the increase being attributable to changes in the amount for statutory items.
Much of this increase occurs in payments to those particularly vulnerable to current inflationary pressures, whether because they are raising families or are on fixed incomes or are at least partly dependent on welfare. Thus, the most prominent component of the increase is for the family allowances payments which are expected to cost $1,836 million in 1974-75. There are also much higher outlays expected for the Canada Assistance Plan and for veterans pensions and allowances.
The estimates book also records a forecast of $3,432 million for old age security and guaranteed income supplement payments.
At the Western Economic Opportunities Conference the federal government put forward a number of proposals, some of which are being put into effect through expenditures in these estimates. Most prominent among the latter are expenditures of about $43 million for the first year costs of programs of highway improvement and highway and railway development.

Faced with the necessity to increase Canada's energy supply, we are anticipating loans for the building of a CANDU reactor as well as a new heavy water plant. Funds will also be made available for the building in Cape Breton of a coal plant worth $8 million, in order to facilitate the marketing of the coal produced by the new Lingan mine. Finally, other funds are earmarked to increase the government's shares in Panarctic Oils Limited.
Three years ago the government issued for the first time a booklet dealing with the estimates and called: How
Your Tax Dollar Is Spent. It is designed to better inform the public on how the government uses its revenues. Copies of the 4th edition will soon be distributed to hon. members and will also be available to the public free of charge upon request at any Information Canada Centre. The special theme this year deals with the Public Service which plays an essential role at the service of Canadians.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact the minister has made a fairly lengthy statement on a very complicated subject without having made it available to any member of the opposition before delivery, it is absolutely impossible to make any worthwhile statement in reply. I can only say that I regret that the minister has not followed his own previous practice and that of his predecessors in office. If a statement is to be made on the tabling of main estimates, as is being done at present, the minister should extend to us the courtesy of making available a copy of the statement at least on entering the House, if not beforehand. The way those opposite are behaving these days is rather nonsensical, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, obviously the time for detailed comment on these estimates will be after we have had a chance to peruse them and perhaps to understand them.
I am interested in the assertion of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) once again today that it is the government's practice these days to give us more information about the spending of the government than used to be the case. I still find that hard to believe. The bigger the Blue Book gets, the less understandable information it seems to contain.
Since we have been presented with this volume and with the minister's statement without any prior warning, the only comment I wish to make is that I do not like it when increased expenditures seem to be blamed in the main, as I thought the President of the Treasury Board did today, on the increase in social security, veterans' pensions and allowances, welfare payments and so on. I insist that these payments are not charges against the treasury or the government. They are an attempt by society to move to some extent in the direction of equalizing the positions of our people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: This is one of the best things that organized society does-to collect from those who have in order to make it possible for those who have less, or those who have nothing, to enjoy something of the standard of living society as a whole is now

February 28, 1974
Salmon Stocks
able to produce. We are concerned about the waste that no doubt we will find in these estimates, but we welcome the improvement in social security reflected in the book the minister has tabled.


Mr. Gilles Caouette (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, like our colleagues in the opposition, we have regretfully heard the minister's statement without having received any advance notice nor a copy of the statement itself so as to be able, in essence, to look at it in order to make the necessary comments.
We shall therefore refrain from making any comment for now, but be assured that when the discussion of the estimates is possible we shall take part in it and that no advance notice will be required from the minister.


CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, and in view of the government's objective outlined in the throne speech, "to create a society free from discrimination," I ask leave of the House to introduce a motion to refer to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs the present discriminatory exclusion from the Canada Pension Plan of the more than two million housewives not working for an income outside the home, such motion to be seconded by the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie).


Mr. Speaker:: This motion, proposed under the terms of Standing Order 43, requires the unanimous consent of the House.

Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent; therefore, the hon. member's motion cannot be put.


FISHERIES
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: 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, namely, the allegations that Canada is taking a weak stand in the discussions with the United States about the interception of the salmon stocks of each country on the west coast, and the need to explore those allegations and refute them, if necessary. I therefore move, seconded by 
the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas):
That the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry be authorized to conduct an inquiry into all aspects of the relationship between Canada and the United States regarding stocks of salmon, with particular reference to the discussions that have been taking place between our two countries recently with respect to an agreement relating to the salmon stocks of each country.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent; therefore, the hon. member's motion cannot be put.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Terry Grier (Toronto-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, there is a matter of urgent and pressing necessity arising from the growing rumours that the consumer price of bread will shortly be raised by four cents. In view of the fact the Food Prices Review Board has recommended that only half that projected raise is justifiable I should like to move under the provisions of Standing Order 43, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis):
That this House instruct the government to take all the steps necessary to ensure that there be no increase in the consumer price of bread beyond, at the maximum, the two cents considered justifiable by the Food Prices Review Board.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent. [Translation]


RISING COST OF SUGAR-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House for leave to move a motion on a very urgent matter since it concerns the scandalous increase in the price of sugar.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard):
That this House consider immediately the serious problem of the increase in the price of sugar and that for this purpose, a special committee of the House be instructed to examine the causes of this increase and to report to the House as soon as possible.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Pursuant to Standing Order 43, this motion
February 28, 1974

requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent; therefore the hon. member's motion cannot be put.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to ask leave of the House to move a motion of great concern to farmers in my constituency and in other places across Canada. I ask permission to move, seconded by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave):
That in view of the extreme concern of farmers in Leeds and Grenville counties resulting from the outbreak of brucellosis among cattle in the area, this House requests the government to enunciate a clear policy on the matter of whether or not to vaccinate cattle against this disease in place of the present so-called de-emphasizing program, and also this House requests the government to bring compensation payments for cattle necessarily destroyed because of brucellosis more in line with current market values.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Pursuant to Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not, and therefore, the motion cannot be put.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF THE HONOURABLE WILLIAM
Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of the Environment and Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery opposite of the Honourable William Andrew Cecil Bennett, a distinguished Canadian, and long-time premier of British Columbia.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


TABLING OF CONVENTION CONCERNING CREATION OF HYDRO-QUEBEC RESEARCH INSTITUTE AND COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY ENGINEERING BOARD ANNUAL REPORT
Mr. Herbert Breau (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), I would like to table copies in both official languages of an agreement between the government of Canada, the government of Quebec and Quebec Hydro-Electric Commission concerning the cooperation of the government of Canada in the establishment and development of the Hydro-Quebec Research Institute and at the same time, I would also like to table, pursuant to the same Standing Order, a copy of the annual report of the Columbia River Treaty Engineering Board for the period from October 1, 1972 to September 30, 1973.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. the Prime Minister relating to one or two aspects of the government's anti-inflationary program not mentioned in the Speech from the Throne. First, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he has any measures in mind to enable the ordinary, small Canadian saver or investor to protect himself or herself against the kind of erosion in the purchasing value of his investment that was suffered last year, 10 per cent, in face of a similar threat this year? Can the House expect the Prime Minister to present any measure which will offer some safeguard to the small Canadian saver?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I believe it was indicated in the Speech from the Throne that we are very much in favour of taking specific action in specific cases. The Leader of the Opposition asks me if we have measures in mind. Yes, Mr. Speaker. The cabinet is looking at various approaches. As to when they will be announced, I am afraid the Leader of the Opposition will have to exercise his usual patience.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: No doubt, Mr. Speaker, this will unfold as the universe unfolds.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

February 28, 1974
Oral Questions ENERGY


CANADIAN CRUDE OIL-POSSIBILITY OF EXTENSION OF PRICE FREEZE BEYOND APRIL I, 1974
Robert Lorne Stanfield: May I ask the Prime Minister whether it is now the intention or within the contemplation of the government to extend the freeze on Canadian crude oil beyond April 1, although it was indicated at the energy conference that the freeze would come off on April 1 and the Prime Minister said, I believe, that what he called a reasonable price increase would take place? Is it now contemplated that the freeze will be extended?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition is talking about continuation of the present freeze, the answer is no. There is no contemplation of that being continued past April 1; but, of course, it is in the government's plans to ensure that there will be a freeze in the sense that there will be a lower price in Canada than the world price. In that sense we are going to ask for the co-operation of the provinces, the industry and, hopefully, of the opposition parties in supporting the government so that Canadians will pay a lower price than the world price.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, in the area of the cost of living I want to ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs whether he is contemplating any action to make certain that the increase of four cents in the price of a loaf of bread proposed by the Bakery Council will not take place in view of the recommendation of the Food Prices Review Board that the increase ought to be no more than two cents per loaf?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I think that the government's position with respect to unjustifiable food price increases has been confirmed in the recent Speech from the Throne. The Food Prices Review Board is, I understand, currently reviewing the situation in order to come up with a final report on the implications of what has been proposed by the industry. We will certainly be prepared to assume our responsibilities once this information is available to us.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, no one can help but be struck by the minister's commitment.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: I would ask the minister exactly how he proposes to assume his responsibility in view of the fact he has refused to produce to Parliament legislation that would give either the board or him authority to roll back an unjustifiable price increase?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, we have demonstrated our commitment in the past to deal with these kinds of matters and we will be prepared to do so again.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is much use pursuing this particular minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


DISCUSSIONS WITH PROVINCES ON PREVENTION OF INCREASE IN PRICE OF MILK
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I want to pose a question to the Minister of Agriculture arising out of reports that there may be an increase in the price of milk. In view of the discussions the minister has had and the agreements he has reached with the agencies of a number of the provinces, may I ask whether there have been any further discussions with regard to the subsidy or any form of action by the government to avoid an increase in the price to the consumer of milk, a product so essential to the health of Canadians, particularly children?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, we have had consultations with several of the provinces. Several provinces have stated they are desirous of increasing the price of milk because of increased input costs. According to the agreement we signed with them, if they can prove to us they require increased prices because their costs have gone up and the increased cost of input to them varies from 5 to 10 per cent, we immediately open negotiations with them. We have allowed the province of Quebec-I believe it is the only one-a two cent a quart raise in their price, but the federal subsidy of five cents a quart still stays in position.


RISING COST OF LIVING-SUBSIDIZATION OF CONSUMERS
Gilles Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
In view of the staggering rise in the cost of living, specially that of food, does he plan to subsidize consumers in order to make up for the erosion of the purchasing power of Canadians and so give them access to Canadian production?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If the hon. member is alluding to the subsidies granted in specific cases, the answer, Mr. Speaker, is obvious since the government has already acted and will continue to act to that effect as long as it is deemed necessary. If, on the other hand, the hon. member means general subsidies to be granted all consumers for all sorts of reasons, then the answer is no.


PROPOSED INCREASE IN PRICE OF BREAD-POSITION OF MINISTER
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Has the minister discussed with the chairman of the Food Prices Review Board the question of the
February 28, 1974

proposed increase in the price of bread? If so, has he satisfied himself that the four cent increase in the price of a loaf of bread announced by the Bakery Council of Canada cannot be justified? If so, what immediate steps does he propose to take?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I have received the interim report which was issued by the board to the public. I will be anxiously awaiting the results of the work it now has under way so that the government as a whole can take decisions in this matter, the program being one that is administered, of course, by the Wheat Board.


James Aloysius McGrath: Has the minister satisfied himself, and if not, why not, that this four cent increase in the price of bread cannot be justified?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I think we should take a serious view of any major increase in the retail price of bread at this time. We would want to assure ourselves that any increase implemented by the industry was fully justified on the basis of increased costs and did not come from an increase in the price of flour which was supposed to have been stabilized by the subsidy program administered by the Wheat Board.


James Aloysius McGrath: In view of the failure of the government's flour stabilization or subsidization program to have the desired effect and in view of the skyrocketing cost of sugar, which is a further contributing factor, what immediate steps does the government propose to take to prevent further increases in this staple foodstuff?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member recognizes that this program has helped to prevent increases in the price of bread which would have otherwise taken place. As I said in answer to other questions and as was committed in the Speech from the Throne, we are certainly prepared to carry out our responsibilities where and when necessary.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A number of hon. members have supplementaries. Perhaps for the moment the Chair might recognize the right hon. member for Prince Albert and return to supplementaries on this subject later.


PROVISION OF BOXCARS TO TRANSPORT WHEAT
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister reporting for the Canadian Wheat Board. Farmers all over western Canada are being pressed to deliver their wheat so that the Wheat Board can carry out its responsibilities under international agreements and the like. However, cars are not available. Figures I received for last week, and I ask whether they are correct, indicate that the number of railway cars is 7,800 behind the target of the Wheat Board for west coast delivery and 4,811 cars below the target for delivery to Thunder Bay.
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the right hon. gentleman might now like to ask the question.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I find that sometimes the government has not looked into these things and I have to give them information.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I ask what is being done to secure the necessary cars. The farmers are being urged on the one hand to deliver grain but there is no place to deliver it.


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, farmers are being asked to deliver wherever there is a possibility of their doing so. There is, of course, significantly more space in the elevator system as a whole in the prairie region at this time this year compared with the same time last year. There are real difficulties facing individual farmers in areas where snowfall has been heavier than normal. This has no doubt led to problems of farm delivery in some cases. We are asking every participating section of the industry, the railways, the elevator companies and the farmers, to do their utmost to ensure the maximum amount of grain movement. Either the failure of the grain to come in or failure to move it forward can become an impediment to Wheat Board sales.


John George Diefenbaker: No snow job like that can cover up the government's failure. Let that be clear. Despite all the explanations the minister has endeavoured to place before the House I ask him, what is he doing to ensure a supply of cars? I suggested to him before-he brushed it aside but again I press it-that a boxcar controller be given authority by parliament-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the minister might be given an opportunity to reply to the right hon. member's supplementary question.


John George Diefenbaker: I had not finished my question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: That is precisely what I was afraid of.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I did not wish to interrupt the right hon. gentleman but I was hoping he would soon reach the point where he would ask a question so that the minister might be given an opportunity to answer and we might be able to proceed.


John George Diefenbaker: I am trying to get an answer from the minister: I know he needs protection against questions. I ask him whether he will now give consideration to bringing before the House a measure giving power to a freight car controller to direct the railway companies to make cars available to this important sector of the economy and providing for prosecution and stern penalties in the event of failure to comply?


Otto Emil Lang: We are indeed prepared to consider every step necessary to ensure that the railways carry out their responsibilities effectively rather than simply making up

February 28, 1974
Oral Questions
excuses. No doubt, very real problems have arisen. On the other hand, I say to the right hon. gentleman that I know he has difficulty in appreciating that we have already moved so much grain this year that we have almost exceeded the amount moved at any time during his administration.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: The farmers will not be misled by that eye-wash.


PROVISION OF BOXCARS TO TRANSPORT WHEAT-COMMITMENT BY RAILWAYS TO MEET TARGETS
Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: In view of the fact that officials of the Wheat Board are concerned that they will not be able to meet the export targets they now have before them, and since many elevator delivery points in western Canada are congested, has the minister held a meeting with officials of the CNR and the CPR and is he able to tell the House that he has received any commitment from the railroads to meet the targets to which they have agreed with respect to Vancouver and Thunder Bay?


Otto Emil Lang: We have held such meetings. I am not yet satisfied with the commitments I have received.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture following the first series of questions asked today. Since the farm input price index for Canadian agriculture has increased over the fourth quarter of 1972 by some 20 per cent for the country as a whole-24 per cent in eastern Canada and 14.9 per cent in western Canada-will the minister tell us what specific plans the government has prepared to cope with the ever-rising input costs which farmers are experiencing?


Eugene Whelan: The
measures were outlined in the Speech from the Throne yesterday.


Jack Burnett Murta: The minister tells us they were outlined in the Speech from the Throne yesterday. I would ask him to refer specifically to that part of the speech in which those measures were outlined so that the Canadian people might be better informed.


Eugene Whelan: I have been preparing the ground for some 15 months. We planted the seed yesterday and I hope that before the crop comes through the ground-


An hon. Member:: What about fertilizer?


Eugene Whelan: -I shall be explaining this in greater detail when I speak in the House later.


STATUS OF CUBAN ORDER FOR LOCOMOTIVES PLACED WITH MONTREAL FIRM-INQUIRY AS TO ORDER FOR AUTOMOBILES
Mr. Ed Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Is the minister aware that the government of Cuba has placed an order for 25 locomotives with a Montreal firm? If so, can he inform the House whether the sale is to be proceeded with and, if not, why not?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: I am aware that the Cuban government is interested in placing such an order. I am also aware that the company's American directors are encountering some difficulties. Representations have been made to the United States government to which we have not yet received a formal reply.


John Edward Broadbent: My supplementary arises from a related matter, namely, that the government of Cuba has changed its policy concerning the importation of North American-produced automobiles of the type once made only in Canada and the United States but now also manufactured in South America, and has recently placed orders in Argentina for automobiles produced by General Motors, Ford and Chrysler. Can the minister tell the House whether such an original order was placed in Canada and, if so, were his officials involved in the negotiations surrounding such an order? If the answer is yes, can the hon. gentleman tell the House what position the government took?


Alastair William Gillespie: I have already stated we are aware of the interest of the Cuban government in making a purchase of Canadian-manufactured locomotives.


John Edward Broadbent: Automobiles.


Alastair William Gillespie: I am unaware of any interest on the part of the Cuban government in placing an order for Canadian-made automobiles.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Frank Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration responsible for the Unemployment Insurance Commission. I would not want him to be unhappy because I did not put a question to him on the first day.


An hon. Member:: Big deal!


John Raymond Ellis: In light of the minister's statement in Quebec that there would be an inquiry into the Unemployment Insurance Commission and the reference in the Speech from the Throne to a comprehensive review of the Unemployment Insurance Commission, would the minister now indicate the extent and type of the inquiry and the timing?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: As the throne speech indicated, amend-
February 28, 1974

ments to the Unemployment Insurance Act will be introduced during this session as part of an ongoing, comprehensive inquiry based on our experience in the past few years. It is not an inquiry in one sense, but rather a deep analysis; an evaluation of a very significant program and it is under way at the present time.


John Raymond Ellis: I gather from what the minister says that he does not intend to hold a public inquiry. I want to bring one point to his attention-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member should ask a question.


John Raymond Ellis: Would the minister not agree that the cost of administration alone would justify an inquiry?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would not think it is in order to ask a question in those terms; it is in the nature of an argument.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Can he tell the House whether or not consultations with the Quebec government with regard to a new regional development program have lead to an agreement? If so, would he soon advise the House of its nature?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, negotiations with the government of Quebec have been virtually completed. I have indicated that I am prepared to proceed at any time now with the signing of the general development agreement and it is now a matter for the province of Quebec to indicate a particular date on which it wished to do that.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to a question asked by my colleague, the hon. member for Hastings. As a result of the comprehensive review related to the Unemployment Insurance Commission, can the minister advise whether there have been any specific studies in relation to this review to determine the relationship between high unemployment, high UIC benefits and the high job vacancy rate? In other words, has the minister been able to
Oral Questions
determine whether in fact the act as presently constituted is a disincentive to work and, if so, what is the answer?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I can quite categorically say that if this is an attempt to focus entirely upon unemployment insurance as the only potential factor in respect of work-ethic erosion, I think it is most unfair and too narrow. One surely would have to examine a great many other factors such as job barriers, employers' attitudes, changing attitudes toward work, education, wages and working conditions and a whole series of other things and recognize that this problem is not peculiar to Canada but exists in nearly all countries of the western world.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would remind hon. members that we will be running short of time soon and perhaps we should limit the number of supplementaries at this stage. The hon. member will be recognized for a last supplementary question.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, the minister does not have to adopt an argumentative attitude. I asked a simple question and I have not received an answer yet. I should like to ask him a supplementary question. When he brought in Bill C-125 last session he indicated it would save the Canadian taxpayers $100 million. I am sure he must have some figures in respect of the pending legislation. I should now like to ask if he can advise the House how much the Canadian taxpayers will be saved if and when this bill is introduced as contemplated in the throne speech? Has he any figure in that regard?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, when the bill is introduced in the House I will try to make available all possible information to hon. members.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. In view of the fact the province of British Columbia has given permission to the municipality of Burnaby to negotiate a deal for the George Derby lands in Burnaby, will the minister advise whether he will negotiate with the municipality and turn this land over at a price comparable with what the federal government paid for it?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, negotiations are presently going on between our department and the province of British Columbia in respect of a possible transfer. I do not have the authority to transfer the George Derby lands to the municipality. However, I am meeting with Burnaby officials tomorrow and I am prepared to discuss the matter.


John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the right hon. Prime Minister. Does he think a deal could be made in respect of the George Derby lands

February 28, 1974
Oral Questions
similar to the deal made in respect of the Jericho lands in British Columbia?


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Solicitor General which arises from the recent escape of a prisoner who was convicted of murder and given a sentence of life imprisonment in accordance with the law. I think the Solicitor General will know the answer as I spoke to him about the matter yesterday. Has that person been recaptured or is he still at large at the present time?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is referring to Mr. Douglas Joseph Booth who was in the Collins Bay minimum security institution, I can say that he is still at large.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Warren Allmand: He was out on a temporary absence pass and failed to return on February 23, 1974.


An hon. Member:: He is probably in the gallery.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Warren Allmand: This man had been given 16 previous temporary absence passes which had all been observed with the exception of one when he returned late, but voluntarily. He has been in minimum security since 1971, and he has been in prison now for eight years.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In light of the fact that this is of concern to all Canadians living in urban centres, is the minister now prepared to adopt a system whereby the Parole Board would have jurisdiction in respect of the release of people who have been charged and convicted of murder and given life imprisonment under the new amendments to the code in order to avoid this type of mistake and mistakes like the Head case?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, we have already taken the decision to have all long-term absences, that is, more than three days, handled by the Parole Board, and there are no more back-to-back passes. We have already amended the law so that no person who has been convicted of murder can be considered for day or temporary parole until he has served seven years. This man had been in prison for eight years and had a good record in prison.


SUGGESTED CURTAILMENT OF EXPORT OF CERTAIN BUILDING MATERIALS TO IMPROVE DOMESTIC SUPPLY
Mr. H. T. Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Commerce. In view of serious shortages of certain essential building materials, is the minister considering measures to curtail the export of these materials in order to improve the supply position on the domestic market?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I am advised that there are shortages among some important building materials. Some of these have been caused by strikes or transportation problems which are temporary-


An hon. Member:: And by the weather.


Alastair William Gillespie: -and some as a result of a lack of plant capacity. I am also informed that a number of important plant expansions are under way or projected at the present time which will increase supplies. In view of the fact that the lumber market has been easing recently I do not propose to take any action at the present time.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport, I shall ask my question to the Minister of Public Works.
Would the hon. minister inform this House-


Mr. Speaker:: Gentlemen, order please. I recognize the hon. member for Joliette.


Roch La Salle: I thank you, Mr. Speaker; you are understanding as usual.
Would the hon. Minister of Public Works inform this House if, at the opening of Mirabel airport, the bus service will be the only public ground transportation system provided to international passengers between Montreal, Dorval and Mirabel airport?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, if I understood correctly, this question should be asked to my colleague, the Minister of Transport who has jurisdiction over Mirabel airport.


Roch La Salle: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
I had precisely pointed out, Mr. Speaker, that in the absence of the Minister of Transport, I thought that the Minister of Public Works was familiar with the matter. So I shall ask my question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the hon. Minister of Transport, my good friend from St. Boniface.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary able to answer the question I asked before to the hon. Minister of Public Works?


Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, while the minister is not in the House, I can say that he is in his office at the present time.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!
February 28, 1974


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: He has asked me to answer on his behalf. In respect of the particular question asked by the hon. member, I should like to tell him that I will bring the matter to the attention of the minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


INQUIRY AS TO FORMULA TO COMPENSATE COMPANIES IN LIGHT OF PRICES PAID FOR IMPORTED OIL
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Has his department prepared a formula for compensating the oil companies for the prices they are paying for imported oil? Can he give the House any information regarding the formula? What is the anticipated cost per month and what is the price per barrel upon which the formula is based?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions in this regard but an appropriate formula has not yet been finalized. It would be the intention of the government to present a measure to the House for the specific purpose of appropriating the funds necessary to provide a cushion to eastern Canadian consumers against the increased prices.


CONSULTATIONS WITH PROVINCES ON FORMULA TO BE USED WHEN CRUDE OIL PRICE FREEZE EXPIRES
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the Prime Minister's statement earlier today that the present price freeze will end at the end of March and that a new formula will take its place, may I ask the minister what consultations are going on at present with the provincial governments, both at the official and ministerial levels, and whether the minister has any plans to meet the ministers of the various provincial governments involved?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: There have already been consultations at the official level and the Prime Minister will be meeting a number of the premiers from the producing provinces in the very near future specifically to discuss this question.


REQUEST FOR IMMEDIATE ANNOUNCEMENT OF INTERIM PAYMENT
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister responsible for the Wheat Board. Having made the announcement that the initial price for grain will be raised, will he also announce the interim payment for all grain that has been delivered until now? Will he make the announcement immediately rather than wait until the fall?
Oral Questions


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, when we indicated that initial prices were going to be raised for the balance of the crop year and, except in the case of barley, restored to approximately the same level on August 1, at the same time we announced that adjustment payments worth about $400 million would be made as soon as possible and that is some time towards the end of March or the beginning of April.


MEASURES TO BLOCK WORLD FOOTBALL LEAGUE ENTRY IN TORONTO
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the minister's recent statement regarding the government's intention to block the World Football League's entry in Toronto, can the minister advise the House as to what measures he proposes to take to initiate this move and if in fact legislation will be introduced regarding this matter?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that all necessary measures will be taken to that effect.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto John Jelinek: I did not expect anything better from the minister at this time, but I have a supplementary question. Keeping in mind every Canadian's opinion on "Canadian-izing" football in this country, can the minister advise the House if he is prepared to take steps to make a greater Canadian content in the Canadian Football League compulsory and, if so, when and, if not, why not?


Marc Lalonde: There again, the hon. member will have ample opportunity to discuss this issue if and when steps are required to be taken.


Mr. Bell:: How about baseball?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for St. Paul's.


POSSIBLE PROHIBITION OF NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE FRANCHISE IN MONTREAL
Mr. Ron Atkey (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the same minister. Would he indicate, if he is going to introduce legislation or take measures, whether he would also include a prohibition against any National Football League franchise going to the Montreal Olympic stadium after 1976, and would he also indicate whether he has had assurances from Mayor Drapeau along this line?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I would advise the hon. member to read my speech in that respect. He might learn a few things.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

February 28, 1974
Oral Questions


CONSULTATION WITH COMMUNITY-OWNED CANADIAN FOOTBALL TEAMS TO PREVENT ENTRY OF WORLD FOOTBALL LEAGUE
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of representations that I believe have been made to the minister from community-owned football teams in Canada and in light of the statement he made subsequent to that, can the minister advise if he is presently consulting further with community-owned professional football teams in Canada to obtain their views as to what methods the government can and should take to prevent the World Football League from operating in Canada?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, obviously the government will have to accept its own responsibilities in that respect and make its own decisions in what we consider to be the national interest. I am in consultation with the president of the Canadian Football League who happens to be a gentleman from Edmonton, Alberta, and represents a team that is community-owned.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, as long ago as November 16 I inquired of the Secretary of State for External Affairs what action he had taken following the disclosure on November 5 in the House that classified information had been made available improperly to a member of the House. I should like to ask the minister now whether there has been a dismissal from the Department of External Affairs or CIDA following this unusual performance?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, there has been a resignation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald W. Munro: My supplementary question is to ask the minister whether he will provide reasons to the House why a resignation was accepted rather than charges being pressed because a member of the public service failed to honour his word under his Oath of Secrecy?


Mitchell William Sharp: I think that some of the reasons will be fairly clear. We did not consider that it was necessary to dismiss this official or to take action against him, since he was prepared to resign. So that there would not be an unnecessary blot upon his character in looking for another job. We accepted this way out which I think is the "liberal" way.


Mr. Speaker:: There are three or four minutes left before the end of the question period. If the hon. member has a brief supplementary question he might ask it, following which I will see the hon. member for Rimouski.


Donald W. Munro: My brief supplementary is to ask the minister whether he is satisfied that this form of dealing with the matter will preserve the integrity and usefulness of the Canadian foreign service?


Mitchell William Sharp: The Canadian foreign service was not involved in this particular case, and I am satisfied that we took the right action under the existing circumstances. I can imagine other circumstances under which a different kind of action would have been appropriate.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
In view of the impact of sugar prices on many food commodities, would the hon. minister inform the House of the measures he intends to take to put profiteers to reason?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I had some difficulty in hearing the hon. member's question and consequently I will take it as notice.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the hardships imposed on Canadian fishermen because of the implementation of an order in council on January 15, 1974, is it the minister's intention to amend the regulations as they apply to Canadian fishing quotas and especially as these regulations apply to the seizure of fishermen's catches?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, the answer essentially is no. I might also point out to the hon. member that the quantity of fish taken was roughly the same last year as in 1972 and incomes were up about one-third.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will be recognized for a supplementary, followed by the hon. member for Medicine Hat.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Fishermen are required by law to handle the catch when it is landed on deck. So I ask the minister, what steps is he planning to take to protect the rights of all individual fishermen working on the deck of a dragger since these fishermen have no authority whatsoever to determine the area in which the captain decides to carry out fishing operations?
February 28, 1974


John (Jack) Davis: This question is one of detail. I will inquire into the matter and get in touch with the hon. member.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence and refers to last week's announcement by the minister of the closing of the defence research activities at Suffield, Alberta. In view of the hardships imposed on some 184 families in that community who are affected by this decision, and in view of the tremendous loss of business activity in the Medicine Hat area due to this proposed action, will the minister now consider an immediate review of the local circumstances involved in this decision with a view to possible indefinite postponement of the announced closure?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me notice that he intended to ask this question. I believe he is aware that the research establishment at Suffield has been phasing out for several years. My announcement last week was simply to confirm that the phase-out would continue for another three years and that the research activities will be terminated in 1977. However, Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that the personnel involved will have their positions protected as far as possible and we will make every effort to see that the people he is concerned about are successfully relocated.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that American turkeys are now coming into Ontario, thus driving down the price of western Canadian turkeys by 3 Vi cents a pound, is the minister prepared to give the western producers some tariff protection, or is he planning to impose import controls on American turkeys?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I have received a brief from the new Canadian turkey marketing board and at the present time we are considering the representations they have made to us.


IMPORTATION OF DES-FED CATTLE FROM UNITED STATES- STEPS TO PROTECT CANADIANS
Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of
Oral Questions
Agriculture. It concerns the thousands of American cattle that are being imported into Canada weekly. As these cattle can be fed DES, a food additive which is banned in Canada, what steps has his department taken to protect the Canadian people?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, in the United States the decision to ban DES has been thrown out of court. No cattle fed DES will be coming into Canada for at least six weeks, or possibly two months, because producers in that country will just be restarting their program now. They have plans to add the DES supplement to their cattle feed, but they are not going to do that and ship the cattle to us the next day. We are watching the situation, and we will meet with the Minister of National Health and Welfare later today.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have reached or gone beyond the end of the question period but perhaps the Chair would be allowed briefly to recognize the hon. member for Shefford and the hon. member for Edmonton West and then call orders of the day.


FINANCE
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance.
In view of the fact that the Speech from the Throne recognizes and decides in favour of the formerly brilliant premier of British Columbia as regards provincial participation in bank ownership, does the minister intend to use this same opportunity to admit the necessity of eliminating the six-month limit on loans currently granted to the provinces by the Bank of Canada?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might elaborate on this question when introducing shortly legislation enabling the provinces to invest in chartered banks in Canada. As stated by the hon. member, it is a coincidence that the author of this proposal is today in the galleries.


REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON ATTEMPTED REFORM OF INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND AND EFFECT OF GOLD MARKET ON CANADIAN DOLLAR
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Would the minister tell the House if he is going to make a statement on motions in the very near future, or possibly in the forthcoming debate, giving in detail the position of attempts to reform the International Monetary Fund, the results of the abortive conference in Home, the related question of the effect on Canadian currency of the wild gold market, as well as all related matters?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I will be speaking in the debate on the address in

February 28, 1974
The Address-Mr. Stanfield
reply to the Speech from the Throne, but whether I should explore all these matters through a more detailed statement on motions is perhaps something that I will have to judge later.


SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, February 27, 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.
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to associate myself with the tributes paid by the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Stollery) and the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Pelletier) to His Excellency the Governor General and Her Excellency, and to extend to the Governor General and his wife the best wishes of the members of my party.
I would also like to extend our greetings to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of this country, because to whatever extent the good fortune of the country is measured by the calibre of the people who devote their working years to the public service, then to the fullest of that extent Canada is indeed a most fortunate country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the members of the treasury benches will not take that remark too personally.


John Napier Turner: That's a very nice compliment.


Mitchell William Sharp: Just continue in the same vein.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: At the beginning of this new session, I would like to salute you, Mr. Speaker, and assure you of our sincere co-operation in carrying on satisfactory proceedings in the House. You have before you an official opposition more vigorous than ever-especially since our Quebec membership has increased by 50 per cent since Tuesday-and especially determined to play fully its parliamentary role not only as a critic of the government but also as a potential government. And since the past is a guarantee for the future, we rely greatly on your fairness and usual impartiality to enable us to perform our duty in all its rigour.
Before coming to the heart of the matter, allow me, Mr. Speaker, to congratulate the mover and seconder, the hon. members for Spadina and Sherbrooke (Messrs. Stollery and Pelletier). They have brilliantly discharged a difficult task even to the extent that their interventions were almost more significant than the main paper itself.
[Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton).l

Sir, we meet at this time under the threat of a very severe dislocation of the world's economy, a threat to economic stability and economic progress arising from restrictions placed on the export of oil by some oil producing countries and from enormous balance of payments problems created by very substantial increases in the price of crude oil. These balance of payments problems are faced by most oil consuming countries. This situation poses great problems not only for the world but for our own country. Unless ways can be developed, through collective action, to enable countries to continue policies of reasonable growth, country after country may be forced to retrench, to slow down in order to avoid collapse leading quite possibly to difficulties for trading partners and therefore a reaction in our own economic conditions in Canada and, at worst, leading to a general, worldwide economic depression.
This is a severe problem for developed countries, but underdeveloped countries which must import their energy are threatened with catastrophe. This matter is mentioned in the Speech from the Throne. I was happy to see it there, but I sensed nothing in the throne speech indicating the depth of concern that I believe this impending or possible catastrophe should evoke. Nor did I see any indication of any proposals to meet the horrendous problems for the relatively poor countries which must import their energy or, indeed, for developed countries which are faced with substantial threats of dislocation.
I suggest that this problem facing developed countries which are large importers of energy, and underdeveloped countries which must rely on external sources of energy, presents the greatest challenge to western leadership that the western world has faced since the end of World War II.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am not happy to say that it is difficult to feel confident that such leadership exists today. I do not expect Canada to supply all the answers or to take all the initiatives, but we are in a rather unique position to show leadership. Because individuals and companies have found petroleum in Canada in sufficient quantities to make us, for the time being at least, relatively independent in the sense that we export about as much as we import, we are in a position of relative independence and therefore are in a position to be somewhat objective and to offer leadership in that sense.
I am not sure that we are doing very much more than being smug. I hope to hear in this House very shortly definite statements by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) and by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) as to precisely what Canada is proposing by way of collective action to assure stability and, indeed, continued progress in trade among developed countries, and precisely what we are proposing to head off these tremendous problems faced by underdeveloped countries which must import oil at vastly increased prices. I would have more confidence in Canada's contribution toward reducing these economic problems if I saw more evidence that the government had a deeper understanding of our domes-
February 28, 1974

tic problems and, above all, a real determination to face the problems that exist within our own country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The essence of what needs to be said by me, on behalf of the official opposition, as the government is about to be faced with its first test of confidence in this new session can be boiled down to very few words; in fact, one word pretty well does it, and that word is "failure".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I refer to failure to attack the root causes of domestic inflation, failure to deal adequately with the effects of that inflation, failure to subdue and control its own aggrandizement, failure to open itself and particular programs to the scrutiny of impartial inquiry, and failure to maintain order and justice in our economy for the ordinary Canadian.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Worst of all, on so many counts, is the failure to even try. This is the real failure of leadership, the failure to dare to perform at the level demanded by the challenges and opportunities before this country today. One even gets the impression that the government has failed to comprehend what is going on in this country. The government is living in some world of its own without contact with anybody else in this country except perhaps its own backbenchers. The question that arises is not simply where is there an adequate response to the problems facing Canadians today, but where is there some indication that this government is sensitive to the human indignities and injustices created by these problems?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Why will not this government commit itself to correcting as many of these situations as possible, as quickly as possible? The word from the government side is that they will step in as they have in the past and use specific measures. Surely that is just another way of saying that they will twitch if they are being poked. The government promises to step in to cushion consumers against sudden and disruptive price increases in essential commodities, and to prevent groups from taking undue advantage of the current situation.
Mr. Speaker, how can we take that kind of situation seriously, in view of what we see going on in the country? What assurance can the average Canadian worker, the average wage earner, take from a statement like that? We have no idea what this government defines as essential commodities, let alone what it believes would represent a disruptive price increase. How can we expect the worker in Canada to have any confidence in this kind of statement when he knows very well that during 1973 the increase in the cost of living rose faster than his earnings, and he fell behind.
The government stresses some proposals regarding food production incentives. They are needed, but this is a pretty belated conversion on the part of an administration which just a few short years ago was discouraging production and has never devoted proper attention to increasing
The Address-Mr. Stanfield
storage capacity. Are they really concerned yet about doing our part to help feed the world? Are they really concerned this time around because there is an almost biblical justice in the price we are now paying for their short-sightedness. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) knows what I mean by this. He knows how emphatically we told him that LIFT as a thing unto itself was wrong economically, wrong socially and wrong morally.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: As helpful as any incentives to food production and improved storage and related facilities may be, these are surely long-term operations in terms of having a stabilizing effect on prices. As Lord Keynes said quite a number of years ago, "In the long run we will all be dead". I ask the government, Mr. Speaker, what it intends to do for the ordinary Canadian in our economy. In the absence of a comprehensive program, the government appears to be ready for more selective subventions and more selective interventions. These seem to be the government's chosen alternatives. Yet nobody on the treasury benches seems to be able to tell just how far we will go down that road and just how many thumbs will be used to plug how many holes in how many dikes.
We are told that we shall see a further unfolding of the universe. That was apparent in the House this afternoon during the question period. Perhaps we shall see that when the budget is presented. The Minister of Finance has been talking recently about a budget being brought down perhaps in April, perhaps in May or perhaps some time in the long run. In the present state of policy or, rather, lack of policy in this country, this is not good enough. It is clear that we need an earlier budget, almost an immediate budget, so that we can see what specifics the government has in mind to provide some further relief for the Canadian people.

A good many initiatives could be taken to protect in a more humanitarian fashion those who cannot protect themselves. I consider deplorable that none is included in the list of government measures, and I am very much afraid that the victims of this state of things would not judge with kindness a parliament which is merely letting the government mark time and insinuate that it might take action in the future.
I intend to keep today to some very important items, as far as I am concerned. The members from my party will deal with some other aspects in the course of the debate.
The group of citizens we are most concerned about is that of retired Canadians. To what extent does the upgrading of Canadian pensions cope with the realities of life for retired people? When it was decided to upgrade the old age pensions, we indicated that the Guaranteed Income Supplement should also be escalated in line with the requirements of the most deprived retired people. We know that all citizens must spend 90 per cent of their income on food, clothing and lodging, that is to say, on the necessaries of life. It is a fact that the prices of these necessaries increase more rapidly than those of other goods and services. Therefore, would it not be logical and more equitable to

February 28, 1974
The Address-Mr. Stanfield
make the escalation of the Guaranteed Income Supplement more in line with the unvarnished reality.

Why should the federal treasury continue to extract the federal sales tax on clothing purchased by our citizens on fixed incomes? The government claimed in the last budget that the removal of sales tax on children's clothing had some beneficial effect in holding down the prices of these articles. Why can we not remove the federal sales tax on all clothing?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Also, consider what inflationary housing costs are doing to our citizens, especially the aged, and what is happening to their savings, if they have any. As to housing, I recall that just one year ago the Minister of Finance liked to talk about housing in terms of increasing supply. Now, one year after the budget which he presented at that time, housing starts are declining and the vacancy rate for apartments has dropped to a level where an unscrupulous operator can pretty well charge whatever the traffic will bear. Let there be no misunderstanding as to why my joy is restrained when this government talks about fixing everything by increasing supply in the long run.
In the area of housing, even scored against its own expressed aim of increasing supply, the proven result of government policy is one of dismal failure. In the wake of this policy, social priorities are becoming more and more distorted as we have seen housing becoming more and more an investment shelter for those who can swing the financing. Then to cap this disgrace, the government has continued in the past and continues today to profiteer in the operation by way of a flat rate sales tax which sees government revenues go up as the cost of building materials in this country goes ever higher. Obviously, as part of any effective anti-inflation program this tax on building materials should be reduced, preferably eliminated altogether.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I say to my hon. friends opposite as earnestly as I can that we in this country cannot continue to permit this continuation of spiralling housing costs. We cannot permit housing costs to rise at the rate at which they have been rising. I do not accept the idea that it is beyond our power in Canada to bring some degree of order into the price of housing in this country. The cost of shelter has reached absurd heights. The rate of price escalation is absurd and must be stopped.
I spoke about our older citizens and what inflation is doing to their savings. This erosion, this confiscation, applies not only to older Canadians. The time for action is now, not some months hence, not when the universe unfolds, not in the long run. We must do something now to protect the savings of diligent people who have done without today in order to put away something for tomorrow so that they may protect their families and prepare for their retirement. How can hon. members opposite sit there so quietly when ordinary Canadians who may have set aside a few dollars lost ten per cent of the value of their savings last year and may lose a further ten per cent

this year? Their savings may lose 20 per cent of their former purchasing power in the course of two years. Why do members opposite sit so quietly and allow this to go on?
I believe that the proper place in which to commence bringing some relief is in relation to Canada savings bonds. I suggest that those bonds should be indexed. There are many Canadians who cannot afford the luxury and the time it will take for the Minister of Finance perhaps to take another trip to Truro, see how this can be done, say how it cannot be done, why it cannot be done and then come back and do it. I read a remark attributed to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who said that he did not want to subsidize those who hold bonds at the expense of the ordinary, little fellow. I have news for the Prime Minister. Most holders of Canada savings bonds are little fellows. They are not looking for a subsidy; they are looking for simple justice.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, there are things that can be done to ease the impact of inflation upon those Canadians who have not the muscle which comes from being part of a large organization or who do not have the independent financial backing which will enable them to just comfortably ride things out. There are things that can be done, and these are some of the things that are on my priority list. I do not know, but it may be that the kinds of omissions I have mentioned are among the unforgivable omissions which the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) noted with regard to the government's announced program. As time goes on this afternoon, I know we will get a fuller explanation of what is an omission and when, if ever, it may become truly unforgivable.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I hope the Prime Minister will give us further information today as far as his anti-inflationary policy is concerned. We have had some reassurances about where he does not stand. He has told us a bit about his view for the long run, but that is about all. I say that the Prime Minister does a great disservice in any fight against inflation when he states we are probably heading for about the same terrible rate of increase in prices this year as last year and says there is really very little his government can do about it.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In my judgment, that kind of statement can have only one effect. That effect will be to further stimulate the development of a vigilante attitude in Canada where everyone does the best he can to protect himself because his government is not trying to protect him. This, of course, will further feed the fires of inflation.
I thought the Minister of Finance made a good point when he said we should not go around saying things that take on a life of their own and lead to psyching ourselves into a recession. I make this same point to the Prime Minister now he has taken the line that we are foredoomed to a higher cost of living and the government is helpless to protect the country: I say the line taken by the
February 28, 1974

Prime Minister can only psyche us into further harmful inflationary expectations.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I think it would be difficult to exaggerate the importance of the pyschological side of inflation, the expectation aspect. This, of course, is why my colleagues and I continue to propose and urge, now more than ever, the adoption of a temporary program of across the board control of prices and incomes to give Canadians a breathing space in which we can all dedicate ourselves to squeezing a great deal of these inflationary expectations out of our economy. Surely we can do this for ourselves in a way which takes account of our trading interrelationship with the world but does not see us slavishly hand-wringing and saying, "It's the world, you know. There is nothing we can do about it." There is no easy, simplistic solution to inflation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have persistently and consistently stated that we do not propose controls as a cure-all but as one measure, a necessary measure at this time, among others. Surely we have sufficient will and ability as Canadians to do something about our own domestic inflation. I believe we can, and I know that we would if we had at the centre of our national affairs an administration with enough imagination and enough intestinal fortitude to risk its own comfortable position in the course of putting forth an honest effort.
The Prime Minister blames the official opposition for the failure of the government to act in the last session. His first version in this blame game was that the Progressive Conservative Party somehow stonewalled Bill C-125, resulting in its not being passed. Yesterday he suggested we were divided on the bill and this is why it did not move forward. I am confident that if the Prime Minister thought we were divided on the bill, he would not have brought it forward in the first place.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The bill was presented for first reading and soon thereafter, for perfectly sincere reasons, my friends in the New Democratic Party indicated they would not support it and would vote against it. Shortly after that the bill was dropped. There were no conversations with me or my House leader to determine what our attitude toward the bill might be. The government simply shelved the bill, and later in the session the minister emphasized that there was never any need for the bill anyway. As to the bill itself, I agree with the minister because it was largely a cosmetic operation. We want to see a full-scale, independent inquiry into the unemployment insurance program.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am not talking about a witch-hunt and I am certainly not talking about some kind of internal review. I want to see an inquiry which really gets to the roots of the program and comes up with real answers to a number of basic questions relating to the administration.
The Address-Mr. Stanfield
Are the fears expressed about abuses justified? Are the claims made by many that they wait long periods for benefits justified? Is there adequate co-ordination between the unemployment insurance administration and Manpower? Are there disincentives to work built into today's unemployment insurance program? In asking that question, I would disagree with what the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) said here today. If there are, they are not the only kind. That is not the point.
Are there disincentives built into this program? If so, what are they and what should be done about it? These are surely legitimate, vital questions to be asked about a new program which in its first couple of years of operation has been costing an amount equivalent to an annual levy of $100 per head for every man, woman and child in the country instead of the $20 which was forecast by the government at the time the measure was presented to the House.
I spoke of cosmetics a minute ago. Cosmetics always suggests theatrics to me. We have seen some dazzling displays of theatrics by the government in its pursuit of the politics of energy. The amazing orchestra involved in this performance was placed very prominently on the stage, the members not feeling comfortable down in the pit. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) moved from the fiddle, to the drum, to the trumpet in arranging and rearranging his own orchestration. While the minister was moving about in this virtuoso fashion, the Prime Minister kept changing the music on the stands.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The Minister of Finance made an appearance once in a while, usually on small percussion instruments, notably the triangle. The fellow who really brightened up things was the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer). This re-emergence into the public spotlight was highlighted by the minister's expressed intention to get the oil out of the Alberta tar sands at an even faster rate than many of his former charges used to get out of jail.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The minister sang out the praises of his own version of a CANDU, the Hermann Kahn-do.


John Napier Turner: Try that again.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I simply suggest that my hon. friends opposite are a little slow. I apologize for being too fast for them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In any case, when this disorganized show reached the first intermission, it was announced to the audience that anybody who was unappreciative was probably alienated from federalism.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
30

The Address-Mr. Stanfield


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Sir, we can have a little fun about these things, but they are deadly serious. The whole performance has been ludicrous. It is certainly a serious matter that the government should have left such a trail of uncertainty and bitterness as the legacy of the road show put on in recent months.
We are no further ahead now than we were two months ago with regard to very important aspects of our petroleum policy, including what the government envisages in the way of a national petroleum corporation. Perhaps this mystique is intended to create the illusion that this national petroleum corporation is some kind of magic wand. Of course, it is not. It is no solution in itself either for our short-term or long-term needs, and it is no substitute for proper arrangements with the producing provinces or appropriate policies to increase Canadian participation in the private sector of the petroleum industry. Let this be very clear: any action the government takes with regard to oil or energy policy goes far beyond simply affecting future supplies of petroleum in this country. The government's actions, its attitudes and its behaviour will have a profound effect on the very future of our country.
In closing, let me return to my opening observations with regard to inflation. The government of Canada says it is impotent to act except, of course, in the long run; unable to protect either the ordinary Canadian or the national interest. I do not want to be unfair. Some people dignify the position taken by the Prime Minister by praising his candour. In my opinion it is not candour on the part of the government; it is callousness. There is no more critical issue confronting this country than the present challenge to our economic system. I say to you, sir, that I am weary of the argument that Canada cannot do anything because, it is said, Great Britain cannot do anything or President Nixon cannot do anything. If income policies are so hollow, if they have proven to be so inappropriate, why does the Liberal Party in Britain, which seems to be making such a come-back, support an incomes policy? I am tired of being told we cannot do something in this country because President Nixon may have failed, or somebody else may have failed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Incidentally, the price performance of the United States in the last couple of years has been significantly better than ours in this country. There can be no question that inflation at the rate of 10 per cent or more a year presents a threat to the personal security and well-being of millions of Canadians. And there is surely no one so comfortable and secure as to be protected for long from the consequences of an eroding currency, diminished personal savings and failing public belief in the system of enterprise itself.
Why would anybody, apart from the comfortable few, continue to support an economic system in which the cost of housing escalates beyond their means, in which the cost of essential food and clothing absorbs more and more of personal income and where the value of their savings, in which the investment of their pension or retirement income is continually being diminished, is stolen from them by the rest of the community, in effect? There are many in the political process today who do not believe in

the economy of enterprise, and while I do not for a moment question their sincerity, I do question their wisdom. There are others who pay lip service to the system of enterprise but who categorize excessive inflation and high unemployment as either international phenomena or acts of God.
As far as I am concerned, no government worth its salt can wash its hands of its responsibility to make every effort to redress the hardship which falls upon so many who are otherwise helpless. No government worth its salt can escape its responsibility to muster the general population in a shared national program of restraint, discipline and co-operation which will meet this challenge and overcome it. Surely restraint and discipline must start with the federal government itself. There must be leadership by example. In this new session of parliament we shall demand that new government programs be subject to an inflation test. In the form proposed, will the suggested program contribute to inflation? We have had presented to us today estimates which the President of Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) suggested were about $2 billion higher than the estimates last year. The proper comparison is to compare the estimates introduced today with the original estimates introduced a year ago.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: One then finds that the difference is not some $2 billion-although that is no mean figure, for most of us at least-but it is about $3,629 million.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I want to take a further opportunity to look into these figures before commenting on them at any length, but I just point out that the minister's reference is most misleading. Knowing him as I do, however, I am sure it is quite unintentional.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In fact, then, the estimates as introduced today are not 10 per cent higher than a year ago; they are about 20 per cent higher-one-fifth higher. We shall again be pressing the government to revise its thinking in relation to certain taxes which have an adverse psychological effect as well as an adverse cost effect in times of high and rising inflation. The Prime Minister, with a shrug or toss of his head, with a wave of his hand maybe, can settle if he likes for a further 10 per cent increase in the cost of living, or 15 per cent, if that is what it should be. Those who are inclined to agree with him-and there are those who are inclined to agree with him, whatever he says-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -must know that such an attitude consigns numbers of Canadians to a shortfall in life's essentials and to the inevitable denial of their reasonable expectation of the benefits of their own labours. This attitude in itself contributes to the inflationary psychology by reinforcing inflationary expectations.
February 28, 1974

We in the Conservative Party have not only proposed measures to combat inflation but, more important, we have the will to do so.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Perhaps this is because we believe that what Canada has achieved to this day has been because men and women have been free to launch their endeavours and to seek their rewards, to run risks and to profit from their enterprise. What we have advocated, what we argue for and what we espouse is to reward savings, not confiscate them; to encourage investment, not to confiscate it; to curb taxation, not to increase it. It is our policy to encourage private ownership of homes, of farms and of profitable enterprise and to maintain confidence in the value of personal initiative.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It is a fundamental article of faith to our contemporary philosophy to see social justice fulfilled. There is no mention of this, strangely, in the Speech from the Throne. We want to see social justice fulfilled as it can only realistically be fulfilled in an environment of national order and national purpose. Inflation that is uncontained means injustice and growing disparity for millions of Canadians. We have to decide, and very soon, whether it is an acceptable truth that the achievement of a stable economic system is beyond the competence of our free institutions. I, for one, believe in the capability of a free people to respond to any such threat or challenge to their well-being.
I believe the present condition of the country requires the reassertion of our faith in our institutions. There are many ways to give expression to our faith. One of them, surely, is to say to ourselves and to others that this country can enjoy more responsive leadership and government, and to believe that Canada is not beset by problems of insoluble, global magnitude but is in fact a country confronted by unique and rare opportunities. Nothing was ever achieved under the slogan "It can't be done". We do not support that attitude of resignation and we will not support it in this parliament.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacin-the (Mr. Wagner)-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Wagner:: You are nervous.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I read in the newspaper today that the government had come back to face parliament with great confidence. I have never seen such a nervous-looking bunch.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I move that the following be added to the address: "We respectfully affirm to Your Excellency that Your Excellency's advisers do not possess the confidence of this House".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
The Address-Mr. Trudeau


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I recognize the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Boy, you must be nervous.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) describe members of this caucus as being nervous. I think this kind of misunderstanding of the mood of the House is quite the same as his misunderstanding of the mood of his own caucus.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Before disagreeing further with some of the arguments put forward by the Leader of the Opposition, I should like to join with him in saying that it gives me great pleasure today to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Stol-lery) and the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Pelletier) are among the youngest members of the House, in terms of seniority, but they have both established impressive reputations for very hard work and a very conscientious approach to the constituents concerned, to the business of this House, its committees and its caucus.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I think it is traditional, Mr. Speaker, to say that one cannot help but be hopeful about the future of this noble institution of parliament when one sees contributions of such high standard and potential made by members from various parts of the country. I would want to add that one cannot help being very encouraged and very gratified by the fact that these young Liberals have spoken in a way which indicates that the spirit of Liberalism is very much alive and very much on the march in this country and in this parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We are beginning the second session of the twenty-ninth parliament at a time, Mr. Speaker, when the rapidly changing circumstances of the family of man are making unprecedented demands upon the wisdom, the courage and the foresight of national governments all over the world.
As the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) pointed out, seldom has a year been so marked by sweeping changes and unpredictable events as was 1973. Few countries were unaffected; fewer still could disregard the lessons of those events.
We have learned that in a world of trading nations grown closely interdependent, no state, no matter how
32

February 28, 1974
The Address

Mr. Trudeau
strong economically, is immune from disruptive pressures in strategic commodities.
In a world where law and its moral foundations are too often held in disrespect, we have learned that no society, no matter how democratic or politically mature, is guaranteed stability if elements in it become greedy, or unmindful of the rights, dignity and needs of others.
We have learned that in a world where terrorists and hijackers are protected by some governments, no community, no matter how peaceful, can safeguard the physical security of its inhabitants without their co-operation and understanding.
Here in Canada, Mr. Speaker, a growing population, better trained and educated and with higher expectations than ever before, a society increasingly urban-oriented and industrialized, has imposed its own strains upon nature and upon every social institution from the individual family to Parliament.
We are surrounded by changing circumstances in every facet of our individual and collective existence. Mr. Speaker, I might be tempted to say that the one thing that does not change is the usual complaint of the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) about a situation which he cannot resolve himself. It is a bit nostalgic, Mr. Speaker, to hear the same cliches and the same feelings of frustration invariably voiced by the Leader of the Opposition each time he rises to speak.
In the midst of change, Mr. Speaker, it is important for us as Canadians to understand the present reality so that we can control our future direction as a nation.
What is the Canadian reality? We are unquestionably a most fortunate people. Through no virtue of our own we find ourselves living in what, in relative terms, is the richest country in the world.
We can grow on our land more than we can eat. We can take from the sea more than enough for our needs. Perhaps alone amongst the industrialized nations of the world we possess adequate supplies of energy. Below the ground we have an abundance of minerals which world demand is making increasingly more valuable.
We are a strong and prosperous people, with human and natural resources sufficient to make us the envy of every nation.
It could not escape the notice of those who observed the federal-provincial energy conference last month that our primary problem as a nation is not war or shortages or famine, as it is in many other countries. Our problem is the equitable distribution of our most abundant wealth, and of the developmental opportunities which flow from that wealth.
It is important for us to understand our problems in the context of our strength, to know that we are in a better position than any other country on earth to create the kind of society we want for ourselves and our children.
Yet, despite our very high standard of living, there are continuing problems which Canadians expect a strong central government to remedy.

Although we are a prosperous nation, there are many Canadians who are poor and in need of help. There are

many who, through no fault of their own, find it difficult to make ends meet. There are many who need better housing. There are regions which need help to provide jobs for their people. There are areas where better transportation services are needed for the efficient and economical movement of people and commodities.
In the past, Liberal programs have responded to these needs through such things as income support measures, urban development and housing policies, transportation subsidies and regional development funds; and now, once again, the House is debating the outline of a Liberal legislative program designed to respond still further to these and many other needs of Canadians.
Of all the problems facing Canada at the present time, however, the most personal, the most pervasive and the most difficult to solve-I was glad to hear those words from the mouth of the Leader of the Opposition or, rather, that thought if not the words-is the rising cost of living. Every Canadian, indeed every person in the world, is affected by inflation. Some are hurt very badly as they see their limited incomes steadily eroded by rising prices, parents as they learn of increases in the price of children's shoes and clothing, married couples as they see the cost of housing rising beyond their reach, elderly people whose diet is restricted by rising food prices.
Such social inequities should not exist in a country as rich and as prosperous as Canada. That it does exist is a challenge to us all, certainly to this government, particularly those of us who occupy positions of public responsibility in various areas of the public sector. It is a challenge to those in a position to influence public opinion, to those who exercise leadership in labour, management and the professions, to the powerful in all sectors of our society. The whole community, I would suggest, has some responsibility for creating an economic climate where many are hurt and the weakest suffer the most, for tolerating and even encouraging a social climate in which the ideals are not the conservation and sharing of limited resources but, rather, the stimulation of even greater consumer demand with everyone wanting to take more from society and to give less.
We cannot change such ingrained social attitudes overnight, but we can take hope from the evident desire of many younger members of our society to become more responsible stewards of the bounties of this land and to subordinate selfish interests to the cause of social justice.
It is the continuing intention of this Liberal government to bring about the equitable redistribution of our national wealth, to give to the weak who cannot protect themselves against inflation and to take from the strong who should not be allowed to profiteer from inflation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Why didn't you say that three years ago?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I cannot identify the hon. member who talks about three years ago, but I understand he is in the NDP. I would like to recall, for those of them who were in this House three years ago, that they sat on
February 28, 1974

their hands when this government brought in a white paper on tax reform-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -a white paper that I must confess was somewhat more progressive than the law which finally passed this parliament. They were happy to sit back and see the pressure groups in this country hammering away at the government on that white paper while, as I say, they sat smugly warming their hands.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Don't wash your family linen in public.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is a fact, Mr. Speaker, that even as a majority government it took us months and months to get our income tax legislation passed through this House because these people made no gesture to support us on its more progressive measures, those that had first been brought forward in the white paper. I hope that next time we bring in some progressive legislation they will feel it is a good thing to support us, because this time they know that if they do not, they will have to respond to the people immediately rather than wait until later.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I would say that Canada cannot insulate itself absolutely from the adverse effects of worldwide disruptions in the price and supply of essential commodities, but we can and must ensure-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there seems to be some disagreement in the NDP caucus between those who were here three years ago and those who arrived only last year. Let them read Hansard for that year and see what happened.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Again, I don't think a family should wash its dirty linen in public.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, all Canadians must share as equitably as possible both the burdens and the benefits resulting from the new economic paradox of our times. To underline the strength of our commitment, may I remind the House that it was a Liberal government that increased pensions and family allowances and tied both to the cost of living. It was a Liberal government that provided subsidies to limit increases in the price of bread and milk. It was a Liberal government that indexed personal income taxes.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Peters:: A minority Liberal government.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Tory Party sometimes complains about our not listening to some of their suggestions. Surely they should be satisfied-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Oh, very.
The Address-Mr. Trudeau


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -in view of the fact that the people of Canada in their wisdom decided not to entrust them with the responsibilities of government, and thankful for the fact that the government entrusted with those responsibilities should take the very best ideas from them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It was a Liberal government that indexed personal income taxes, that insulated our petroleum-


Mr. Grafftey:: A Liberal socialistic coalition government.


An hon. Member:: What's next?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Next, Mr. Speaker, is to inform the members opposite that it was also a Liberal government that insulated our petroleum market from worldwide distortions and


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -used tariff and other trade policy measures to lower the price of many goods to Canadian consumers. We will not allow the sharpest effects of inflation to fall upon the weakest members of our society. We will not allow corporate profiteers and gougers to pile up unearned windfall profits at the expense of the people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, let no one think that a Liberal government, this Liberal government, will not use the considerable power at its command to uphold the public interest in the absence of voluntary restraint on the part of those who otherwise might be tempted to exploit the people of Canada. Perhaps some of the people on the other side will now leave the centre of the road, where they are trying to appeal to their affluent supporters and to academic supporters, and instead support a really liberal-inclined government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I also find it important to commend those whose performance has been responsible and restrained in this society. I find it appropriate at this time to destroy the myth that the cost of labour has been a dominant factor in contributing to the present inflationary round in Canada. That is not true. It is not the average working man who has exerted excessive upward pressure on prices. Certainly, labour over the past year in Canada has demanded and has received higher wages and better fringe benefits. No one can blame them for that. But the essential consideration is that labour in general has not used its great power in such a way as to impose an unfair economic burden on the rest of society.
Mr. Speaker, I believe in giving credit where credit is due. Inflation is not a new problem. It is the rate of increase which is new. During the past two years an unprecedented round of price increases and shortages of food and industrial raw materials has sent shock-waves throughout the entire world economy.

February 28, 1974
The Address-Mr. Trudeau
Because a fifth or more of Canada's gross national product originates in foreign trade, we have certainly not been immune from the adverse effects of worldwide economic pressures largely beyond our control. Nevertheless, Canada's performance in relation to other industrialized countries has been slightly better than average during the past three or four years. The Canadian dollar is among the world's strongest and most sought after currencies. This reflects the judgments of the money markets of the world on the Canadian economy. Our economy is buoyant and we have the confidence of knowing that economic trends in a resource-hungry world are moving in our favour. It is this which the Leader of the Opposition took such time to describe in one word-the word "failure". Surely here again we have the nostalgia for cliches coming back all the time. Had the Leader of the Opposition only yesterday looked at the figures published by Statistics Canada, he would have seen that the rate of real growth last year was the greatest in 17 years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: You have to go back 17 years to equal it. Statistics Canada also revealed that we created more jobs last year than in any year of our history.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if that can be described as failure by the Leader of the Opposition, and if the government can be blamed for that kind of failure, then we are willing to take credit for that kind of failure.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I think this is what every unbiased observer in Canada or abroad would call success, Mr. Speaker, and not failure. But I am not particularly surprised at the misunderstanding or misrepresentation of events, because again today the Leader of the Opposition, misunderstanding or misrepresenting-unintentionally, I am sure, because probably he did not refer to or see the words he ascribed to me-indicated that I was talking about 10 per cent when I talked of a rate of inflation last night on TV. I have his words. He indicated that "the Prime Minister is himself encouraging Canadian people to encourage further inflation at a rate of about 10 per cent per year. He said that." Mr. Speaker, I did not rise on a question of privilege, but I should like to inform the Leader of the Opposition that I did not say that and he is mistaken.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


An hon. Member:: Withdraw.


An hon. Member:: Resign.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Note, Mr. Speaker, I do not ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw and I certainly would not want him to resign, because I have myself seen reports of what I was alleged to have said in Toronto. They were erroneous reports. They were unusually erroneous, because the Canadian Press is usually accurate, I believe. But they were quoting what I had said about, I believe, the

problem of western alienation and the attitude of Albertans to federalism. I must inform this House and the Leader of the Opposition, who was made bloody-minded by that misquotation, that those were not the words I used. I would be happy to send the Leader of the Opposition a transcript of my words as it has been sent to members of the press gallery. I hope that the several editorials that were drawn to my attention based on these misquotations will cease being written, because the editorial writers should realize what this kind of thing does to the mind of the Leader of the Opposition.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I will add this to my collection of your misquotations.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: They inflame him beyond control, Mr. Speaker. He used out in Alberta, I believe, the word "bloody-mindedness"; he used the word "angry". He is using today the word "vigilante". Surely these are rather demagogic accusations to be in the mouth of a man who says that the causes of inflation are largely psychological.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I think there are a few inflationary circumstances existing in the words and ideas of the Leader of the Opposition. He is inclined to efface his feelings a little bit more than reality warrants.

Given these facts, Mr. Speaker, it is clear that our remedial action against inflation must take place on four fronts.
First, we must continue to protect those of our citizens who are most vulnerable to the effects of inflation, particularly pensioners and low-income families.
Secondly, we must continue to apply special selective measures designed to modify the impact of inflation upon Canada and Canadians-measures such as the indexing of income taxes, the oil export tax, subsidies on consumer products such as milk and bread, and controls on the export of certain commodities.
Thirdly, we must continue to take appropriate action to ensure for the Canadian consumer a secure and adequate and reasonably priced supply of those commodities, particularly food and fuel, which we ourselves produce for domestic and foreign markets. Top priority must be given to the elimination of damaging and unsettling fluctuations in the supply and price of our domestic products.
Fourthly, we must continue to seek the co-operation of other countries in reaching agreements which, as far as possible, will assure for Canadians a secure supply of imported commodities at reasonably stable prices.
Therein, Mr. Speaker, lie the main thrusts of the Throne Speech which has been placed before us. Its proposals in relation to food and energy are aimed directly at the problem of supply-at ensuring the healthy growth and stability of the production and marketing process.

With regard to our oil policy, the federal government sees it as its duty to manage the economy in the interests of all Canadians and to moderate the inflationary effects resulting from the oil crisis. To this end, we are discussing
February 28, 1974

with the provinces a domestic and export pricing structure directed toward three objectives: first, to protect the Canadian consumer; second, to encourage producers to explore and develop our non-conventional and frontier resources; third, to give the producing provinces a fair return for the value of their resources.
In insisting upon a federal share of the increased revenue deriving from higher oil prices, this government is not trying to stake a claim to provincial resources. Neither are we quibbling about the specific pricing and taxing mechanisms to be employed. But we are insisting that the government of Canada be allowed to discharge its duty to all the people of this country.
Where there are actual or potential conflicts between the interests of the producing companies and individual consumers, or between the producing and consuming provinces, there is a clear and fundamental obligation of the federal government to intervene in the over-all national interests. To intervene effectively we must have the financial capacity to direct the economy toward national goals and to spread the burden of higher prices evenly across the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do want to lend emphasis to that point, Mr. Speaker, because I think that many of the Canadian public, both on the producing and consuming side, have been led to see in this a quarrel of jurisdiction over natural resources. That is not the way we view the case and we are not using constitutional arguments in order to make a grab at anything. We are just explaining to the Canadian people what could be the effects of the oil crisis which exploded in the Middle East and which had dire consequences for the economy of the world. Here I would use the words used by the Leader of the Opposition just half an hour ago when he was talking about the effect upon world economies of the present situation. He referred to the deleterious effect.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It was longer ago than that.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I stand corrected; it was longer ago than half an hour; obviously, the Leader of the Opposition used that phrase earlier in his speech. Nevertheless, the point is the same. This is not a jurisdictional quibble. This is a duty discharged by the government of Canada to ensure that the kind of disorder and disruption, which has been brought upon the economies of many nations which could not find within their own borders policies to stabilize the impact of disruptive prices, does not take place in Canada. Canada does have power to avoid such disruption and it is in the discharge of its duty to manage the whole economy and to keep inflationary pressures down-this was eloquently pleaded by the Leader of the Opposition-that we are stating the oil policies which have been made known to the Canadian people.
If we abandon our duty in this regard, the alternative would be massive economic disruption leading to much more severe inflation, unemployment and regional disparity. In this regard, Mr. Speaker, we know our duty and we will not retreat from it.
The Address-Mr. Trudeau


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Our food production policy will encourage the farmer and the fisherman to increase and improve the supply of those foods which we can produce efficiently and economically in Canada. By working toward the stability of prices and incomes we will be helping our consumers, and we will also be giving to our producers the security they need to get on with the job of growing as much as they can for our domestic and export markets and for our foreign aid programs. The Leader of the Opposition made an eloquent plea for those programs at the beginning of his speech. I indicate to him now, again, that we are in agreement with him, although I am not sure from which side the ideas were stolen.
It is the cause of inflation that we are dealing with, not just the effects. Hence, we on this side of the House have earned the right to be suspicious of simplistic palliatives such as wage and price controls which attack the symptoms rather than the illness. It has been demonstrated in the United States and the United Kingdom, for example, that price controls, while offering some temporary relief to consumers, had the far more serious and damaging effect of drying up the sources of supply. The result of such controls has been a temporary fixed price for scarce and sometimes unobtainable products, followed by a surge in price when the controls are inevitably lifted.
I had a quotation from Mr. Nixon who is reported by the press as having said that price and wage controls had been found wanting. However, rather than quote authorities which I understand are rejected by the Leader of the Opposition-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Do you need a good tape?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -I am tempted to recall what I think must be the earliest joke I ever heard. The story involves a lady who went into the grocer's and asked if she could buy a pound of bananas. She was told they were 25 cents a pound: I believe those were the figures used in my childhood. She complained that down the street bananas were selling for 20 cents a pound. When asked why she did not buy her bananas down the street, she said, "They are all out of bananas." The grocer then said, "When I am out of bananas, I sell them for 15 cents a pound."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is a simplistic story, perhaps the earliest one I recall and probably the earliest which I was able to understand. However, simplistic stories serve to illustrate simplistic solutions and to underline them.
It is the necessity for flexibility in a period of rapid economic change which makes me dubious about the across the board, blockbuster type of controls suggested by the Conservative Party. Blockbusters are practical instruments if you have a block to bust. The problem is that inflation is not a homogeneous block. It is a shifting mass of moving and competing factors, all of which are not amenable at the same time to any single corrective action.
I much prefer a system such as we have been using during the past many months: selective measures applied to selected goods and services in different ways and at different times as the occasion warrants. It is a sensitive

February 28, 1974
The Address-Mr. Trudeau
system, appropriate to a society seeking to control change in the most effective manner. The government has applied such selective measures in the recent past to milk, bread, oil and some petroleum product and we will not hesitate to use other counter-inflationary measures as they become necessary.
We will not hesitate to go after the so-called big guys in the marketplace if action is necessary to protect the Canadian consumer. The people of Canada know that it was a Liberal government and a Liberal minister which secured from the powerful oil industry a freeze on the price of oil and petroleum products. It was a Liberal government which imposed the export tax on oil, ensuring that the people of Canada have received so far over $300 million that otherwise would have gone to the oil companies, the big guys, as windfall profits.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Tories say they would apply a 90-day freeze to incomes and prices and during that time they would look for less drastic and more permanent measures. Mr. Speaker, this has been the siren song of the Leader of the Opposition ever since the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies) reversed his stand last February.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Prime Minister if he will forgive me because I have to leave this chamber to keep an important commitment. I assure him I will not ignore the speech. I will read with great interest the rest of his speech.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I want to say that the Leader of the Opposition told us on this side that he had a commitment and he would have to leave at this time. I certainly understand the circumstances of his leaving as I, on several occasions, have had to leave in the middle of speeches made by the leaders of various other parties. I, too, had longstanding commitments to keep, so that his leaving is understandable. I just hope that when he is at the $100 per plate dinner tonight at Toronto he will not complain about the disincentive to work which is created by unemployment insurance benefits.
I was saying that for several months we were prepared to listen with interest to what the Tory Party, if it ever formed the government, would do after the 90-day freeze was over. Surely after a year we should be entitled to know what is going to happen after the 90 days. Surely this is the best demonstration possible of their inability to spell out effective, long-term solutions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We are all in favour of a 90-day study period if you do not know what is going to happen after it, but we do not feel we need that study period because we as a Liberal government have been applying corrective measures now and will continue to do so.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have spoken about the economic cost of the type of control advocated by the Tories which is beginning to be known as Tory wage controls.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: However, there is a social cost. I have been disturbed, Mr. Speaker, by the tendency of some advocates of general controls to try to convey the impression that controls could be imposed at negligible social cost to the people of Canada. This is disturbing to me because it smacks of political opportunism.
It is less than honest to dwell expansively on the pleasant prospect of fixed consumer prices, while at the same time diverting attention from the not so pleasant prospect of fixed incomes. It is less than honest not to tell the public that wage controls have their own set of injustices, that they apply most inflexibly to blue-collar workers whose pay can be easily monitored, and most flexibly to white-collar workers who can be given a salary increase under the guise of an artificial job reclassification. As to the possibility of sophisticated abuse by landlords, professional and self-employed people, it is self-evident.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: This is not said as an attempt to argue against the theory of controls. I am looking at the political aspects of it now. I think those who talk about controls as a simple measure should take the trouble to recognize the dignity and the right of their audience to know the difficulties I have just pointed out. For those reasons, income controls risk hurting the small and the poor more than they do the big and the rich; and while that might be of minor concern to the more conservative governments and political parties, it is of great and fundamental concern to this government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We do not believe that the workingman should be expected to bear an unfair share of the cost of solving the problems of inflation, and that is why we will ask him to treat with great skepticism any argument for general controls which does not set out all the facts, the pleasant as well as the unpleasant, those with political appeal and those without.
Aside from the 90-day freeze, what else does the Leader of the Opposition offer as an alternative to the proposals the government has put forward? He offers an energy policy which omits all the essential and potentially controversial details. He offers his concern about the impact of inflation upon Canadian individuals, families, communities and institutions, a concern which I know is sincere, a concern which is common to us all. What he does not offer is a package of workable solutions to inflation and the many other problems we face as a country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I heard the Leader of the Opposition say this afternoon, to the great applause of his supporters, "We have the will to do it." Of course, Mr. Speaker, they have
February 28, 1974

the will. They have shown us that ever since the day after the election. They have the will to be the government. They just do not have the means to govern, that is the trouble.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Leader of the Opposition calls for leadership, but surely he is not showing leadership. He is just inviting us to drift in a sea of uncertainty. He reminds me of a marooned sailor drifting helplessly in a life-raft in the middle of the ocean. When he sees a great ocean liner go by, he offers to rescue the ocean liner on condition that he be allowed to be captain of the ship. I draw a similar parallel to allude to the goings-on in the New Democratic Party. It has to do with an ocean liner but the parallel is a bit different. It has to do with seagulls. Because they were squawking and making a lot of noise, they thought they were actually running the ship.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: What else do seagulls do?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is the French equivalent of pulling someone's leg.

The people of Canada have a right to know where political parties stand on the issues of the day. The Conservative leader stands before the people of Canada and says, "Give me your support. My heart is filled with good intentions." We have told them where the Liberal Party stands.

The people have the right to know the fundamental philosophy and guiding principles upon which our policies are based. These, Mr. Speaker, are the principles of this Liberal government, the principles which are set forth in the Speech from the Throne and which will be reflected in the measures we will introduce before Parliament during this session.
We believe that Canada needs a strong central government to protect the national interest, prepared to stand up to provincial or regional interests with the confidence that it has the backing of the people of Canada.
We believe that the benefits of our wealth and the burden of our national problems should be shared equitably by all the people, wherever they may live.
We believe that Canadians are entitled to a sense of security, confident in the knowledge that they and their government can control the changing circumstances of our collective life, rather than be the victims of change.
We believe that Canadians should control activities within our borders which have a significant impact on our growth as a nation.
We believe that Canada must take full advantage of its potential to be self-reliant in the basic needs of life.
We believe that the government has a right and a duty to intervene whenever it is clear that private enterprise is unlikely or unable to act in the national interest.
The Address-Mr. Lewis
We believe that individual Canadians, especially those least able to protect themselves, have a right to be protected from the consequences of events over which they have no control, and protected as well from intimidation by big business, big labour or big government.
Those are the principles upon which our legislative proposals are based. That is the philosophy of this Liberal government in the important areas I have discussed today.
Mr. Speaker, we have presented to the House a Throne Speech which I believe is a solid working document, worthy of occupying the attention of hon. members throughout this session. It is a document which responds to the need for strong federal leadership in uniting Canadians in an attack upon our common problems.
It is a document which will help millions of our citizens to plan for the future in an atmosphere of security and optimism. It is a worthy agenda for a Parliament which has already done much more than was expected of it by those who predicted its early demise.
It is a document which commends itself to those hon. members who believe, as I do, that our common task is to make this Parliament work-work hard and effectively- for the good of Canada.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I can understand why the supporters of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) applauded him for so long. If you would permit me to say so, he spoke today as though he was not bored with his own words, and that was a very pleasant experience.
Much of what he said will be extremely useful to the New Democratic Party and to me. It was evident he was rehearsing in preparation for his electioneering, when the time comes, during which he will take credit, singlehanded, for all that the last session of parliament accomplished. Let me tell him, Mr. Speaker, that even though he said those things with a straight face, I could tell that he did not believe in them. He sounded incredible to me, and I am sure the people of Canada will not believe him either.
If I might be permitted to give him some advice-it has been suggested by many that I have been doing so for more than a year-I would say to him that the less arrogant attitude he has shown during the last session might work better during the next election and that the people of Canada might appreciate more honesty from the Prime Minister in admitting that the accomplishments of the last session-and, I hope, of this session-were those of a minority government in co-operation with New Democrats and others.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: As to the suggestion that some of us might be seagulls, I would say to the Prime Minister that at least a seagull is a beautiful bird, one whose flight is beautiful to watch, whereas there are fish in the ocean that are not worth catching, let alone watching.
I do not think I have ever, either in this chamber or anywhere else in my experience in politics, in the law or
38

February 28, 1974
The Address-Mr. Lewis
in contact with people in Canada or across the world, heard a statement further from the truth or more convoluted than the Prime Minister's attempt to blame the New Democrats for the fact that Mr. Benson and the Liberal government scuttled their own white paper in 1971. One really does need some quality or other-I do not know how to describe it, but perhaps "gall" or "insensitivity" or a combination of those words might do-in order to make a statement of that kind.
I have a clear memory of the back benchers of the Liberal Party running all over Canada in 1971 apologizing for the white paper and telling the people to oppose it. Some of them are still sitting in this chamber. What did the Prime Minister himself have to say? Dealing with this white paper on taxation, trying to explain why his government scuttled it, he said in the course of a television program on December 28, 1971:
I concede your point, too, that it is likely we heard more from the vested interests than we did from the Liberal taxpayer who did not have the high-paid lawyers to speak for him ... I suppose in participatory democracy there will always be someone whose voice is louder than others.
That was a true statement, but there was one important omission. The Prime Minister should have said, "It is likely we have heard and listened more to the voice of vested interests than to the voice of the taxpayer." This approach to the problems, described as seriously as the Prime Minister described them, baffles me. It baffles me when I hear him say, I am sure with sincerity, that his government does not believe the workingman should carry on his shoulders the burden of the fight against inflation. Those are not his actual words but that is roughly what he said. As I listened to those words I recalled what his majority government did in 1969 when it created massive unemployment in its fight against inflation. If that does not mean the workingman carrying the burden, I do not know what does.
I am happy to accept that the Prime Minister may have changed his mind and I am glad to admit that any person who is willing to change his mind and who is capable of changing it is a person who ought not to be attacked. But he ought not to speak in a way that suggests that never, as Prime Minister, has he tried to place the burden of fighting inflation on the workingman, because in fact no other government ever did this so heartlessly as did the Liberal majority government in those years.
I agree with both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) about the seriousness of events both national and international at the present time, and about the fact that we are meeting, in the second session of this parliament, at a time of crucial developments not only in this country but around the world. This is why I intend to try to deal with what I believe to be the contradictions and the dangers of our present system, which in my view are in major part responsible for the difficulties which face us.

Mr. Speaker, I agree entirely with the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who thinks that our difficulties, the difficulties of Canadians, the difficulties we face today do not result from war, shortages or famine.

Our problem-these are roughly the Prime Minister's words-is the problem of fair distribution of our tremendous wealth. I agree entirely on this.
Because I am in agreement with the Prime Minister's statement about what our problem is, I will try to deal with it in a way which my colleagues and I understand. The Leader of the Opposition said-again I cannot quote him, but these are roughly his words-one of the difficulties he finds is that the present government does not even begin to comprehend what is happening in Canada today. I agree with him in that, but my problem arises from the fact that the Conservative Party-and his speech showed this-fails to comprehend what the present situation is all about. In the competition of failure to understand, I am not at all sure that the Conservative Party does not win by a mile. In fact, in spite of all his speeches and statements, the Leader of the Opposition, as the Prime Minister pointed out, has not yet brought forward any such understanding or any program based on it.

Mr. Speaker, at the opening of this parliament in January 1973, the New Democratic Party decided to support the minority government in order to enable hon. members to fulfill the responsibilities given to them by their electors. We used our influence-I want to remind the Prime Minister of this-during the last session to have legislation and policies passed which we thought would benefit the Canadian people. And now, even those on my right who were eager to defeat the government a year ago claim for themselves the achievements of this Parliament because they know polls show that most Canadians applaud our decision, as well as the legislation which came from it. I think that given the success of the last session, hon. members of all parties must pursue the same efforts, that is to say they must run Parliament to produce constructive legislation and policies. We do not want to play politics as far as the Speech from the Throne is concerned. Our energies will rather be directed towards an evaluation of the bills resulting from the speech.

Having said that, let me emphasize that we want progressive action and a concerted effort to deal with the difficult problems facing every Canadian. I suggest that a failure to come to grips with these problems, even though the problems are not easily soluble, will mean a failure of this parliament and a failure of this country.
The task before all of us is certainly difficult, but that means in my mind that our determination must be correspondingly expanded to see that parliament does not fail the Canadian people. I suggest to you, sir, that history often produces moments which illuminate the conditions of a society more clearly than at any other time. I say this is one such occasion-and that it is such an occasion is graphically underlined by a Gallup poll published in several newspapers yesterday. The poll reported that almost half the Canadian people fear we are heading toward another depression despite the apparent affluence which now surrounds us.
February 28, 1974

The basis of this fear is easily identifiable. In half the country we face potential petroleum shortages and higher prices in spite of the fact that we have Canadian reserves sufficient to meet all our needs from coast to coast. We are told that food prices must continue to rise because of shortages, in spite of the fact we have one of the most productive and comprehensive agricultural industries in the world. We have a host of supply operations which plague the home building industry, despite the fact that the timber and raw material reserves in Canada are the envy of the world. In short, the incomprehensible contradictions that spell economic hardship for too many, and constant juggling of family budgets for almost all, have raised the spectre of a system almost completely out of control.
The individual family knows that its income can no longer keep pace. Today, as members of this House know, Statistics Canada research reported that in the last half of 1973 wages and salaries fell behind the rise in the cost of living by a full percentage point. Yet at the same time the same family has watched in awe the parade of profits strutting shamelessly across the financial pages of our newspapers. Even the hard-boiled editors of these newspapers admit that these increases in profits are embarrassing. The level of increase in corporate profits is almost unbelievable. I cannot accompany their parade with 76 trombones, but each one of the figures demands, "Hey, look me over".
The Prime Minister said, not once but several times during his speech, that his government would not permit profiteering and gouging of the people. I hope he is right. I hope his words are not merely said for their effect on the House and on the people of Canada, but that they reflect a determination that will result in legislation and action in this parliament and during this session.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: Increases in profits have already been unbelievable and unjustifiable. Let us look at a few of them. In the resource industries we find that the increase in profits in 1973 over 1972, by Falconbridge Nickel Mines, was 770 per cent; International Nickel, 107 per cent; Abiti-bi Paper Company, 260 per cent; Gulf Oil, 58 per cent. This is not limited only to the mining and petroleum industries. In the food processing and retailing industries, an area which hurts the Canadian family most directly, we find that George Weston enjoyed an increase in profits in 1973 over 1972 of 86 per cent, with an increase in revenue of about one-quarter or one-fifth of that percentage; M. Loeb had an increase of 73 per cent for a 40-week period; Canada Packers had an increase of 36 per cent for a 39-week period, and Schneider's showed an increase of 45 per cent during a similar period in 1973 over 1972.
Looking at real estate-I am going to give only one example-Cadillac Development Corporation showed an increase in profits of 59 per cent in nine months. Keep that in mind when I get to the subject of housing. Our "poor" banks that were at last permitted to use their money for mortgages in housing did not show an increase of 700 per cent in profits in 1973 over 1972, but Toronto-Dominion had an increase in profits of 25 per cent, and during the five years from 1966 to 1971 showed an increase in prof-
The Address-Mr. Lewis
its-I give this from memory-of around 85 per cent, while the Banque Canadienne Nationale showed a 52 per cent increase in 1973 over 1972. I could go on for some time giving many figures just as startling and just as damning.
I am not suggesting that high corporate profits are the only cause of rising prices, but I do say they expose unjustifiable gouging of the Canadian consumer. I am glad to hear the Prime Minister undertake to end this unjustifiable gouging in the future. I regret that even this minority government did not have the courage to end it in the past.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: I do say that parliament can act to reduce the level of price increases by taxing excessive profits and by selective price controls on basic materials such as steel, lumber, nickel, lead and zinc, just as we have done in the case of oil. These enter into the production of goods which Canadians need and consume, and every large firm-most of them multinational-which mines and produces these minerals and materials from the minerals has made immense profits in the last 12 months or so, and every one of them is continuing to raise prices totally without justification and at the expense of the Canadian people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: I want to make clear that we continue to reject the unjust and unacceptable proposal of over-all freezes and controls that the Conservatives still throw at this House and at the people of Canada. These have not worked anywhere else and they would not work in Canada. But at the same time we also reject the resignation and inaction of people who say that nothing can be done. We believe that a great deal can be done, not to eliminate inflation but to reduce the rate of the rise in the cost of living and to reduce the gouging by the corporations of the ordinary Canadian family.
Profits are a measure of what the corporate establishment takes from society directly. But Canadians are also aware that in addition to this rip-off at their expense as consumers, the corporations, many of them foreign-owned, enjoy a tax rip-off which compounds itself annually, a rip-off that costs the ordinary Canadian taxpayer hundreds of millions of dollars each year. By the end of 1973- I ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) and every member of this House to recognize what this means-the corporations, again many of them foreign-owned, held in their coffers the incredible amount of $4.7 billion in deferred taxes, most of which will never be collected by the public treasury. The Minister of Finance shakes his head. He should be ashamed of himself for suggesting that my statement is not right. He knows it is a fact that except for the small, penurious companies, the large corporations are not likely ever to pay back these deferred taxes.
At this point I should like to quote from the 1972 annual statement of Shell Oil. It said that it was not showing its deferred taxes in its accounts because it did not recognize them as a liability and did not expect ever to have to pay them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
40

February 28, 1974
The Address-Mr. Lewis


David Lewis: Every accountant, every auditor in this country and indeed in the United States knows that that is a fact. I remember vaguely that there was a report from one auditing firm suggesting that these deferred taxes should not be carried on the books because it was dishonest to suggest that they were a liability when in fact they would likely never be. I suggest that even a modest interest rate of 8 per cent or 9 per cent on this $4.7 billion would produce revenue of about $400 million a year. By gad, we could do much with this huge sum. For example, we could reduce the burden of the harassed individual taxpayer by $70 or $80 a year, instead of letting these corporations have $4.7 billion without interest.
I say to you, sir, that not until we rein-in the runaway power of the corporate monoliths can Canadians expect to regain economic sovereignty in their own land or move to build viable economies in the many regions of disparity, or take the steps domestically that can and must be taken to contain and restrain the upward rush of the cost of living.
My colleagues and I are fully aware that many elements of the cost of living are beyond national control. But we also know that many other elements of this worldwide bogey can be controlled if there is the will and the desire, and I suggest to you that this parliament must not lack either.
I want to give an example of big business domination, an example that every housewife in Canada knows about. I ask hon. members to consider for a moment sugar, an item essential in every kitchen across this country. The price of sugar rose 35 per cent in the month of January alone, and that brought about a 47 per cent increase above the price of a year ago. Obviously, such an increase affected the price of every foodstuff that has a sugar component, and this in turn must have been an important factor in the consumer price index for January.
There is no doubt at all in my mind that Canadians are paying an unjustifiable price for sugar. Why? Because we have failed to control the sugar cartel dominated by three majors in this field. I remind the House that those three companies-Atlantic Sugar, Redpath Sugar, and St. Lawrence Sugar-were convicted only ten years ago, in 1963, of price fixing and collusion. The same three companies are again before the courts on the same charges, despite their earlier convictions, fines and restraining orders. The court documents estimate that the price fixing activities of this sweet little trio has cost the Canadian consumer $125 million in about a decade.
One can forgive the harassed shopper who asks why in God's name these companies were not hauled into court long before this. Indeed, I ask, why have we not taken the action necessary to break up their monopoly which has fixed prices, prevented competition and conspired with foreign firms to guarantee their rip-off? I answer that the reason we have not taken such action is that Liberal and Conservative governments alike have had neither the will nor the desire to curb corporate power in this country.
I would ask you now, sir, to look at my favourites in the corporate rip-off family, the royal family of corporate chicanery, the petroleum companies which have had untrammelled freedom net only in this country but in most other countries in the western world. These multinational brigands-and I say to you, sir, that the word is not

too strong-have cost every nation dearly. Yet, what price Imperial today?
Even my friends on the right, even the leader of the Conservative opposition, have come to the conclusion that maybe we should take an informal look at the oil companies, I think he said, and the terrific windfall gains they are enjoying. Here in Canada they control our industrial lifeblood. They pay next to nothing in income taxes. In fact, they are enjoying interest-free loans which now amount to more than a billion dollars, and they charge for their products not in relation to cost but, as a top Imperial Oil officer recently said, what the market will bear. I say on behalf of the NDP, that the time has come to say to these companies that the people of Canada will bear it no longer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: I think it is right to say that most Canadians recognize that some increase in the price of petroleum products is unavoidable, and that most of them are prepared to pay such an increase on two conditions-two conditions which we support. One is that the increase in the price of Canadian produced oil be reasonable and not the exorbitant international price, and the second is that the revenues from such price increases do not line the pockets of the multinational corporations but go into the public treasuries, both federal and provincial, to be used for the development of new sources of energy for future generations of Canadians.
I say to the Prime Minister that no policy which establishes a national petroleum corporation only to be the handmaiden of the large multinational companies, to assist them retain their control and maintain their profits, can be acceptable to any thoughtful Canadian and will not be acceptable to thoughtful members of this parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: On behalf of the New Democratic Party, I say to members of this House, in accordance with the resolution my party adopted at its convention last July, that the developments of the past year in the petroleum sector of our resources have shown clearly that petroleum and its products should be treated as a public utility, serving not the interests of Exxon and the other international giants but serving the interests of this country and its people to whom these irreplaceable natural resources belong.

It is absolutely clear, Mr. Speaker, and we emphasized that during the last session, that the Food Prices Review Board is a complete failure. The New Democratic Party had suggested to the government to establish a board provided with powers to reject any unjustifiable price increase but the government preferred to create a powerless board. The efforts of that board are laughable except that it is at the own expense of the Canadian consumer. Here is an example: recently the board realized that a 4 cents increase in bread prices was unjustifiable and it could not do anything to stop the increase but to issue a press release. The New Democratic Party still believes

that the board could be useful to control food prices if the government would want to provide it with the necessary powers to roll back any unwarranted price hike.

Probably the most significant cost of living area-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Since at this point the hon. member's time, as provided by the Standing Orders, has expired, perhaps I should ask if he has unanimous consent to continue.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Lewis: I am grateful to you, sir, and to the generosity of my colleagues in the House.
Probably the most significant cost of living area in which Canadian legislators can immediately do something, if only the will were there, is in the field of housing. As parliamentarians it must be our duty, in this session, to stop tinkering with this basic right of Canadians, to stop treating housing as an economic mechanism, to stop relying solely on the profit incentive and to begin to give housing the social significance it demands and always has demanded.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: I notice that the Leader of the Opposition said something to the effect that he did not accept that we cannot put order into the housing situation. He did not go on to say how he proposed to put such order into the housing situation, but I agree with him that we ought not to accept the present situation. I do not have the time-I have already exceeded my allotted time-to quote the outrageous prices now demanded for homes, for mortgages, for rents in the new sterile tenements that stab our city skylines, or the usurious rents charged for the unkempt older buildings in city cores. All of us are too familiar with the $40,000 house that a year ago was worth $30,000, or the family income of $20,000 a year now needed to manage a first mortgage. I do not have to elaborate those facts.
I say that this parliament can and must take steps to end the rampant land speculation that is a blot on every community. We must take bold steps and make far greater sums available for public assembly of land to stem further gambling with this basic right. Our housing programs will have to be far more imaginative and much broader than any previously advocated by Tory and Liberal governments or we will stunt the family development of several generations. And precisely because this is a parliament of minorities we have the opportunity to replace past policies and to launch new approaches for the provision of shelter for Canadian families.
I therefore say, on behalf of my colleagues and myself, let us have the courage to enact legislation that will require financial institutions to make available an adequate percentage of their annual investment for completing homes at a mortgage rate not exceeding 6 per cent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: And let us have the courage to make regulations governing such a program so as to provide priority
The Address-Mr. Lewis
for the 6 per cent mortgages for families in the middle and low income brackets. If someone suggests that this would create inequities in respect of those who already have mortgages at higher rates of interest, or with respect to renters, the obvious answer is that the taxation system can be adjusted to relieve the victims of usurious mortgage rates.
What I am trying to say-I hope I have succeeded-is that if we as Canadians are going to come to grips with the economic difficulties we face, we will have to go to the roots of what we call our system. Without fundamental change, without action to curb corporate power, particularly the control of multinationals, we cannot meet the challenge of the seventies. We risk allowing more and more of our people to fall below the standard of living we have come to accept as fair and equitable. For our society is still riddled with inequity and plagued by unnecessary poverty.
If there are members in this House who have any illusions about the distribution of wealth and income in this country, let me cite a few figures which underline the devastating inequalities which still darken the face of Canada. I want the colleagues of the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) to convey to him some of these facts in view of his fatuous statement about the little fellow owning Canada Savings Bonds in this country. He ought to look at some of the facts before he makes that kind of fatuous statement. I deal with statistics before 1970 because they are the latest available, but I have no doubt that the present situation is at least as bad and probably worse.
The fact is that more than half Canada's families and individuals-to be exact 53.5 per cent-had no saving deposit in any bank at all in 1970 and that 13 per cent of all the people in Canada held 55 per cent of the total deposit value.
The fact is that 80 per cent of Canadians did not even own a single Canada Savings Bond. But the little fellow, says the Leader of the Opposition, owns Canada Savings Bonds, the 20 per cent being the little people of Canada and the 80 per cent the big people of Canada, according to him. Mr. Speaker, as I say, 80 per cent of Canadians did not even own a Canada Savings Bond in 1970, but 4 per cent of Canada's people owned 65 per cent of the total bond value distributed. As well, 86 per cent of Canadian families and individuals did not own any stock at all, whereas 2 per cent of all Canadians owned 64 per cent of total stock value.
Perhaps the most important, most telling, most revealing statistic of all is the fact that the top 10 per cent of Canadian families and individuals on the income scale receive more in salaries and wages than the bottom 50 per cent. Nothing can be clearer. We have extreme inequities in our country, inequities which make it impossible for most Canadians to retire from the labour force after a reasonable lifetime of service.

My colleagues and I are proud to have participated during the last session in the enactment of a series of laws which resulted in a substantial increase in old age security

February 28, 1974
The Address-Mr. Lewis
pensions and veterans' pensions. However, the old age pension scheme still does not provide enough to meet in full justice the needs of older citizens.
I want to point out, Mr. Speaker, that we the privileged of society have a tendency to forget that most jobs which are necessary for the good operation of our society are monotonous jobs which provide no personal satisfaction or esthetic reward. Picking up other people's refuse is neither a pleasant job nor one that pays. A man or a woman who must work at this kind of job for thirty or forty years is entitled to retire at 60 if he or she wishes to do so. And in order to do that society must assure them of a reasonable rate of pension because I am convinced that a great many Canadians who would like to retire at 60 do not have the means to do so.

Mr. Speaker, it is impossible in 30 or even 40 minutes to touch on all the areas with which I should like to concern myself today, but in concluding I want briefly to mention two other matters. I want to declare my deep disappointments in the government's failure even to mention the north of Canada or the native peoples of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: This is a heartbreaking failure, particularly because there are so many vital questions affecting the destiny and future of our native peoples. It is to me totally incomprehensible how the minister responsible could have permitted such neglect, a neglect that is as insensitive as it is dangerous not only to the native people but to the future democracy of this country.
The Speech from the Throne uses many words about agriculture, regional disparities and freight rate injustices. We have heard these words before. We have heard them many times and in many parliaments presided over by Liberal and Conservative governments. But the fact is that insecurity for the farmer remains, that the disparities grow across this country and that the national transportation policy of Canada continues to be a glaring failure under whatever minister presides over the department.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that we of the New Democratic Party want this parliament really to act, to stop being satisfied with words and to act so that the west, the east and the north of Canada may enjoy the same standard of development now enjoyed by the centre of our country.
I believe that the challenge that faces Canada now is the capacity of parliament and government to curb the powers and irresponsible actions of the corporations. Many of them have interests outside Canada because they are multinational. The challenge lies in our capacity to take effective steps to tax the exorbitant and excessive profits of the corporations; to make the corporations at last pay their fair share of the funds needed to run the country and to carry the social programs which alone give us the right to describe Canada as a civilized society. Above all, Mr. Speaker, we must take control of the Canadian economy out of the hands of the multinational corporations which treat our country, as they treat every other country, merely as another source of exploitable natural resources.
It is my firm belief that in this session we must, on behalf of all Canadians, reassert government leadership

and direction over the economy by new methods of social planning. Failure to do this will be failure to come to grips with the cost of living, with family security and with our economic future. I say in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, it will be a failure not of the Canadian people or of Canada; it is the future of the Canadian people and of Canada that will be seriously affected by the failure of this parliament to act.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I wish to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne (Messrs. Stollery (Spadina) and Pelletier (Sherbrooke)) who, according to the custom, have had the privilege to open this debate and, I must admit, they have carried out this task with spirit. If the Speech from the Throne had as much substance as theirs, Mr. Speaker, I would probably make different comments.
I listened with surprise to the Prime Minister's speech that I qualify as a political speech. And the interventions from the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) will be forgotten because for a long time he has been repeating the same thing. All that he is saying is, in effect, that if he were in power he would do better than the Liberals.
As far as the NDP is concerned, their members are again boasting for making the government work as they wish. Mr. Speaker, in view of the present situation in Canada, I wonder if it is the interest of the New Democratic Party to brag about their friendship with the Liberals.
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleagues and I have just returned from a tour of our own ridings as well as neighbouring ones in the province of Quebec. We have met people from every walks of life; industrialists, professionals, labourers, unemployed people and even people on welfare.
I suppose that some hon. colleagues from the other parties have made the same experience, that is, to return to the people to find out what they think in order to better express their feelings to the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker, this experience proved very rewarding to us because it has shown us some of the good and bad aspects of a number of legislative measures.
Following that, we had meetings in order to pool our experience. We want to be unbiased in the House. I think too many members in the House are playing politics more or less honestly and that delays our progress.
Excellent measures are brought forward in the Speech from the Throne and I wish to congratulate the government. It was about time we began for instance to encourage people to keep their farm.
We are anxious to see the content of the bills. Mr. Speaker, as I said a while ago, we are going to assume, as during the first session, an unbiased and honest stand, and go through what is brought forward in order to improve if possible certain pieces of legislation.
February 28, 1974

Mr. Speaker, I believe it is my duty to state in the House the measures we do not like. After all, the Parliament of Canada is the place to say what goes wrong in our country, to try to improve conditions and solve problems.
Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the rising cost of living is Canada's greatest problem. The cost of food, of clothing, of housing, of oil, everywhere we must face the gloomy picture of inflation. Prices increase and the individual's purchasing power cannot cope with that increase.
In Lotbiniere and other ridings I have met people with fixed incomes and salaried people who are completely overcome by price increases and who cannot face those increases.
I would like to deal with those Canadians who are building our country and who are called medium or low income people. When they get their pay cheque on Friday as often stated by the leader of the Social Credit Party (Mr. Caouette), the stub of their cheque is longer than the cheque itself. The balance is then clearly inadequate to meet the increasing cost of living.
This problem is most serious and I am disappointed that the Speech from the Throne did not include or announce specific measures to help those people.
Mr. Speaker, when a father of two, three or five children with a fixed income of $100, $125 or even $150 a week walks into a shop, a grocery or drives into a gas station and must pay the same price as everyone, this is revolting.
This worker, with his purchasing power, gets fewer commodities for the same working hours. This is currently due to our way of thinking and an individual's income has always been based on the value of his work; he is paid a salary in proportion to it and he is told that with that money he will be able to meet his food, lodging and leisure requirements.
Even though the workers have today the same working potential as in 1971, they get about the same income but fewer commodities in return.
Now we are told that the quality of life in Canada is improving, that our goods are better, that their quality is excellent. Mr. Speaker, if the individual does not earn an adequate income to encourage him to continue to work, he is caught in a vicious circle, he becomes a second-class citizen and he then becomes dependent on a whole series of welfare measures which are extremely costly for all governments.
Mr. Speaker, the citizen is discouraged, because if he works hard, he does not earn enough to meet his obligations. In addition, this is more serious, as a result of inflation his money having less value, he gets less for his dollar.
Mr. Speaker, hence the many welfare measures bringing the individual under the control of the rotten Canadian bureaucracy. Finally, this individual becomes an entirely second-class citizen.
The Social Credit Party of Canada has long identified with the consumers; for quite some time, we have been telling the government that there should be measures to help the consumers directly, not necessarily by controlling prices, but by protecting the consumer against abuses and specifically by helping him buy products.
The Address-Mr. Fortin
Compensated discount is a measure which, while not controlling prices, restrains them by helping consumers buy something that their purchasing power no longer allows them to buy. Members of this House find it funny when we mention compensated discount because it is a Social Credit measure. When we ask for direct help for the consumer through an increase in his purchasing power, some members of this House find it funny and say that we should not help the consumers. And now because this has become a major problem, everyone is talking about a guaranteed annual income, and even those who used to laugh at the Social Credit are talking about it; there are even some tests going on in the present system.
Mr. Speaker, the meetings that we have had in our constituencies confirm entirely the statements contained in some newspaper clippings. I would simply like to read you the titles of a few articles. I invite my colleagues who laugh at the Social Credit Party to listen to these titles taken from newspapers that are basically defending their system and to see if all goes well with their system about which we must not laugh and which we must certainly not attack.
Here is an article from the December 18, 1973 issue of La Tribune:


THE PRICE OF CLOTHING WILL GO UP
[Stage Direction]
Good news for everybody! Another publication gives the profits of oil companies for 1973; British Petroleum made $135 million; Exxon (Esso), $638 million; Gulf, $210 million; Mobil, $231 million; Shell, $413 million; Texaco, $307 million.
Those are the profits of the petroleum companies. I shall say more about this later.
I have here an article published in the magazine Actua-lite and entitled "Where will shortages and inflation strike in 1974?" It tells a sadistic tale of increasing prices to prove that nothing has gone up.
I also have here an editorial from La Tribune entitled "The Year of Frustrated Hopes". Another newspaper entitles an article on housing and higher prices "Ottawa agrees with all provinces save Quebec". The newspaper Le Nouvelliste carries the heading "Violent Sally of Liberal Member for Longueuil in House of Commons-Petroleum Companies Can Even Have Government Change-Olivier". In La Presse I read this "Bread-4 cent Increase"
Everything is just fine, Mr. Speaker, in the Liberal and Progressive Conservative system. Who is responsible for the petroleum crisis? The producing countries or the great multinational companies?
I have here another article which gives the consumer price index based on Statistics Canada data. I quote:
The consumer price index reached 155.5 in November 1973, that is 9.3 per cent more than 1972. Food prices went up 18.2 per cent. This graph shows the rise in consumer price index, based on 1961 prices from 1941 to November 1973.
And then we are told, Mr. Speaker, that all's well in the best of worlds.
Another newspaper reports the following, and I quote:
Sugar-another high increase item.
[Stage Direction]
February 28, 1974
The Address-Mr. Fortin
And on the same page:
The oil increase will cause the price of ... vegetables to rise.
I have here another article and I will just quote its heading:
22% increase in housing.
Here, analyses are made on consumption.
Here is another article from Le Nouvelliste which will surprise many people. I am sure that no one suspected that and I quote:
Oil firms subscribed $49 million to Nixon's campaign.
In La Tribune of January 2, 1974, there is an article headed "Oil: Quebec disadvantaged". In the December 24, 1973 issue of the same paper, one can read the following heading: "Inflation and unemployment cast their shadows over expectations for Canadian economy."
In the same newspaper of December 20, 1973, we read that:
Although the average salary has been increased by $12.08 from October 1972 to October 1973, it was not compatible with the 9.3 per cent rise in the cost of living for the same period.
This, Mr. Speaker, proves what I have just stated. And to add to the picture, La Presse of February 16, 1974, informs us that we have now 240,000 unemployed people in the province of Quebec-9.5 per cent.
In that respect, here is the conclusion reached by the right hon. Prime Minister and offered as a Christmas gift. I quote a headline of the December 23, 1973 issue of La Tribune " ... It is a distress sign of the Earth . . . ". These are the now famous words of the right hon. Prime Minister about the oil crises. "A distress sign of the Earth". It is self-explanatory. No solution, just a statement. But in the meantime, Mr. Speaker, this does not prevent the oil companies from making profits. Our Food Prices Review Board, under the presidence of Mrs. Plumptre who is overpaid at $40,000 a year, establishes simply that prices increase and cannot do anything about it.
Mr. Speaker, people in our ridings do not tolerate this anymore. We were told to fight in this House to convince the government that powers be given to the board, that measures be taken to prevent abuses and to end the exploitation of those who cannot afford such a critical inflation which is out of control.
I want to attract the attention of the right hon. Prime Minister who honours us with his presence to remind him that the individual's purchasing power is a most important issue. As I was reading the speech terminating the last session, I noticed in fact that the Prime Minister believed "that the productive capacity of the economy had reached its physical limits in Canada", in other words, that production was at a maximum level.
Also, the right hon. Prime Minister cannot ignore that Canadians from coast to coast are totally excluded from the economic flow, and because of their lack of income are unable to keep up with these cost-of-living increases.
Mr. Speaker, the right hon. Prime Minister will also recongize that for the last 10 years at least, successive government measures have all been directed towards production growth. They invested in production through the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the

Industrial Development Bank. It has been announced in the Speech from the Throne that a new federal bank will be established. I do not want to judge the value of these programs, but I simply want to enumerate them to suggest to the government that large amounts were invested in production but that not much has been done yet as regards consumers, Mr. Speaker. A few efforts were made, such as the old age security pension, family allowances, but when the latter are granted, Mr. Speaker, they are taxable so that the purchasing power at the end of the year does not increase. They even made some calculations and, in some cases, they will give people, through family allowances, less money than before. Why? Because they are taxed.
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian people want to build their country. Five years ago, for instance, when we passed in this chamber some measures designed to discourage agriculture by imposing controls and quotas on production because there was a surplus, the problem, consequently, did not lie in production at that time, Mr. Speaker, but in the distribution of products. There are people who are exploiting and abusing our wealth, Mr. Speaker-and I say so while I strongly believe, as my colleagues, in private enterprise-who take advantage of the situation and who exploit people and who, therefore, make us believe that there is in Canada a shortage of products, which is not true. Everybody must admit that there is no shortage of products in Canada. We have enough oil. We have enough wheat. We have enough milk producers. We have enough cheese. We have adequate supplies of almost all commodities that we need in order to secure a good quality of life. What we need, Mr. Speaker, is a distribution system that would be equitable and fair for all Canadians.
When I am told that there is concern about that problem I will have to part with those people and discuss very strongly because that is untrue. For example, there is talk about the oil policy at a time when supply is very high. It will have taken a crisis, it will have taken hand-outs from the government to oil companies for them not to increase their prices, it will have taken an extraordinary crisis to realize that we have resources in the west but, on the other hand, that there was a shortage of products so that we have high prices for those products. Who pays for that, Mr. Speaker? The people.
In Canada we have what is needed and because we did not foresee the use of those resources we ended up with one policy and two sets of weights; in other words, Quebecers are now paying more for oil than all other Canadians. Is that fair? The problem is in the distribution of that resource that is oil and that distribution should be thought out by the government so that all Canadians wherever they live will be treated on an equal basis. Such is not the case now and Quebecers among others and the rest of this country are paying for that policy.
Let us take, for example, wheat which was controlled. There was a time when producers were even paid not to sow, not to produce. We have now been told that there is an alleged shortage of products. That finally results in high prices. Who pays for that policy? Again the other part of this country because we did not set up any distribution system so Canadians would actually be treated on an equal basis.
[Stage Direction]
In other areas it is the opposite; the west is charged higher prices than Quebec and that, Mr. Speaker, is also not acceptable. We Social Crediters say that the problem is not in the production. The needs are there. Nor is the problem in the consumption. People are not crazy, they can select the quality of product they want. The problem lies in a sound distribution of these products, of this wealth across our country. Secondly the difficulty is to have a sufficient purchasing power to buy these products in order to meet our needs.
Mr. Speaker, this is briefly how I see the present situation and those people who are most affected by it. I repeat, and I will never repeat it enough as long as I feel that this message is not understood, the ceiling is for those people in the low and middle income brackets.
Mr. Speaker, the problem lies in the distribution of wealth and as long as we will not really tackle this problem by setting up effective organisms rather than puppet organisms of control like the Canadian Wheat Board, for instance, which makes prices increase, controls production and forces the Quebec people or other Canadians to deprive themselves, things will get worse and worse.
Mr. Speaker, like my leader, the hon. member for Temis-camingue, like the right hon. Prime Minister, we believe in Canada that Canadians can build the country; we believe Canada is a very large country in the world-you just have to travel to see it-in spite of its very low population. At the same time, we see nothing wrong with the unemployed, Mr. Speaker, with people who live on welfare, with an alleged scarceness of products which is an excuse for their high cost. At the same time, workers pay enormous taxes to support people who would like to be productive but who are not given this opportunity. I think the situation is too serious to let it deteriorate further.
I think the second session give us a marvellous opportunity to grapple with this problem outside the political tracks.
Mr. Speaker, even if the Progressive Conservatives told me they were going to do better than Liberals, I would not believe it. They were already in power and they did nothing better. Even if the Social Crediters were there it remains to be proved that they would do any better. I think it is time to be honest in this House. Even if the Liberals told me that things are going well in this country that people enjoy a nice living and security I would also say it is false. Mr. Speaker, you just have to go with people. Even if the New Democratic Party members told us the same thing, it would be false.
I think there is some good in every party. If we were to be honest there would be good ideas to pick up on both sides of this House, we should adopt some ideas of the Social Crediters. Since we speak about product distribution, we find that strange. Mr. Speaker, I should be ready to go anywhere in Canada to support this principle because now everybody feels in his wallet the effect of the distribution problem and the dissatisfaction that occurred.
I should like to ask a little favour of this House, Mr. Speaker. I see it is six o'clock and if I had two or three minutes more I could finish my remarks.
Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?
The Address-Mr. Roche


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The House agrees.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to concentrate my comments on that matter because in our opinion it is a great problem in Canada, a problem which requires a global solution.
I think that the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) would have the support of all parties in the House if he could conceive with the co-operation of all members a fair and just distribution system of our resources for all areas in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, we are here to work hard, we want to be effective and objective, and we say to the government that we are ready to co-operate, that we are ready to work very hard to support it or any policy aimed at solving the resource distribution problem, so that we could be proud to be a Canadian, from British Columbia or from Quebec, in order that the measure could be the same everywhere in Canada, also in order that every Canadian could take advantage of our fantastic resources. To that extent, we are willing to co-operate. But if they refuse to support that position, we will protect the people who have no income. Then, Mr. Speaker, we will have to withdraw our support to the government.
With such an honest position and to prove to the government that we are serious, in conclusion I would like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert), the following sub-amendment:
That the period be replaced by a comma and the following words added:
"particularly for not having taken effective and immediate measures to stop the increase in the cost of living which seriously affects persons on low and medium incomes."
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to move that motion because I know that it reflects the views of the great majority of Canadians who are only too willing to build their country and expect to be encouraged, stimulated and supported by their government and our party.


Mr. Speaker:: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.

At 6.04 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, last spring I spoke in this House putting forth the voice of the new west. I want to return to that theme tonight as I consider the real meaning of the energy crisis for mankind today.
First may I offer the sincere congratulations of the people of Edmonton-Strathcona to our new Governor General and to wish His Excellency and Madame Leger health and happiness as they begin their arduous travels across

February 28, 1974
The Address-Mr. Roche
the land representing Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth. They will be following the illustrious tradition of dedicated service this country received from that stimulating and widely acclaimed couple, Mr. and Mrs. Roland Michener. [Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell you once more my appreciation for the admirable way in which you and your officials have steered the debates of this assembly in a parliamentary context which is all but calm.
I also congratulate the mover (Mr. Stollery) and the seconder (Mr. Pelletier (Sherbrooke)) of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne and more particularly the hon. member for Sherbrooke who has displayed such a fine understanding of Canada's responsibilities towards the international community.
Speeches like the one delivered by the hon. member for Sherbrooke restore my faith in the willingness of members of all parties and from all regions of the country to co-operate for the common good of our society.

But, Mr. Speaker, I do not want this praise to go to the government's head, for the gap between what the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Pelletier) was talking about and the program of the government as outlined in the throne speech is so wide that they might as well be in different worlds.
The throne speech gives only lip service to the vigorous steps that must be taken to "reduce disparities" between the rich and poor nations. It gives only a superficial glance at the reasons for these disparities, which are the central issue in the world today. The government rather contents itself with enlarging its own bureaucracy, seen in the creation of at least four new national bodies, as the supposed solution to the problems of our times.
The people for whom I speak certainly want our domestic problems of high inflation and high taxation solved, but we look beyond our own special interests and borders into the larger scene of our whole country and, indeed, the world. In Edmonton-Strathcona we want two specific advances that will bring about a more secure Canada: first, the use of arbitration to replace strikes in labour disputes involving essential services should be made compulsory; and second, the government should promote the formation in each province of an advisory council on technology, with representation from business, labour and the professions, to ensure that technological benefits are received by all mankind.
These are two steps that will help the west and all of Canada to develop in a way that contributes to economic and social stability. We want the economic discrimination against the west to stop so that the west can develop and play a stronger role for the good of Canada. That is the spirit of the new west that I represent.
We want to participate in the development of a modern Canada in which decentralized decision making restores the vitality of all our diverse regions. It is through the application of genuine decentralization, in the constitutional division of powers, the spreading out of federal government departments, and better intergovernmental relations, that the country can be pulled back from overdependency on federal government programs. What we

want in the new west is the chance for all Canadians to develop their opportunities.
It is time to bury the canard that the west, and particularly Alberta, is alienated from the rest of Canada. Nothing could be farther from the truth. It is time for the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to stop promoting the alleged opposition of Alberta to the national interest. Nothing could be farther from the truth. It is time to cease the slander that western members of parliament have come here to obstruct parliament and not share in the creation of a better society. Again nothing could be further from the truth.
No, the west is not alienated from Ottawa, parliament, the Liberal party or even the person of the Prime Minister. What the west is alienated from is this government that has demonstrated it is hopelessly incapable of managing the economy. We are alienated from a government that has thrown hundreds of thousands of Canadians out of work and savaged us through inflation. We are alienated from a government that relies on massive social spending which is keeping tax levels excessively high.
There is a modern spirit in the new west that rises above pettiness, that refuses to be diverted from the great problems and potential of the times we live in. We are not looking for easy answers; rather, we want to share in formulating the right questions. For in looking beyond short-term and narrow interests we can identify three principal issues responsible for escalating international tensions today: resource exploitation, population and terrorism.
This winter's energy crisis has triggered great questions, for suddenly the experience of a limited oil shortage brought home to north Americans and west Europeans the previously unimaginable possibility that our way of life might not be indefinitely sustainable. Economists and ecologists have been telling us for years that our resources are limited; but as long as the heating oil arrived, the gas pumps flowed and the electrical gadgets hummed, no one took them very seriously. Now we know that we are vulnerable to the turning of a spigot. The jolt we have sustained is a blessing in disguise, because it is refocussing our minds on a new necessity: survival without abundance.
The ideas of progress, creative growth, expansion, surpluses, inexhaustible resources, have been synonomous with the development of western man since the industrial revolution. Science and technology have been the driving forces behind us. This is true no matter whether people live under a capitalist or a socialist system of government.
Industrial civilization is predicted on expansion. When our economy is not growing, we are in trouble. Growth has thus become an end in itself. Bigger is better. More and more harnessing of inanimate physical energy through the application of science to technology enables the economy to grow and the gross national product to accelerate at 7 per cent a year. And all of this is the hallmark of a successful society. Or is it?
How do we account for the barrage of confidence-shaking events that have filled us with a sense of unease and foreboding during the past decade? The Viet Nam war was
February 28, 1974

only one of many such events. The explosion of street crime, race riots, bombings, bizarre aeroplane hijackings, shocking assassinations, government intrigue at the highest levels, have brought home with terrible impact the recognition of a barbarism hidden behind the amenities of life. How do we account for the failure of the present middle aged generation to pass its norms and values along to its children? The ubiquitous use of drugs, the extreme sexual relation, the unprecedented phenomenon of "dropping out," especially among the children of the most successful classes, all have added their freight of disquiet and disconcert to the mood of our time.
Nor should we adopt a superior attitude in Canada because we have been spared so far the extremes of reactions to the age of discontinuity. If material progress and the quantity of life are the source of happiness, why is it that five million Canadians still live below the poverty line? Why have crimes of violence doubled in the past decade? Why are so many resorting to alcohol and other drugs to help them contend with the challenges of existence? Why are we becoming unbalanced as a country, millions congesting in a few metropolitan areas while vast regions suffer population decline?
Today we find a growing number of observers attributing this disorientation to a regression of ethical values directly traceable to the voracious demands of industrial expansion. Progress has been simplistically graphed and calculated in terms of ever escalating numbers. Capital gains have to be turned back into the system to create further growth, as though the cycle could never end.
In such a thought pattern, human cogs could easily become labour input and eventually secondary beneficiaries of progress. The health of the economic system, demanding unlimited growth, achieved top priority in government planning. It has been assumed that people would accommodate themselves to the system and prosper, and that those who could not, those who became casualties, would be taken care of by remedial social legislation. The value of man for his own sake has been sublimated by the value of man as an instrument of progress.
In this mockery of values, the life of greed has become a virtue. As Arnold Toynbee tells us:
Modern man has been induced to overcome traditional scruples about giving freer rein to human greed by a doctrine that has made greed look respectable.
For it has been argued that the selfish pursuit of individual, sectional or national economic advantage is socially beneficial. The unleashing of greed, of acquisition and affluence for their own sake, has been the psychological driving force behind the modern way of life in the technologically developed countries.
It is this ethic of growth by exploitation that has rendered the designation "Third World" a misnomer. There is now only a first and second world-the first world of the rich and the second world of the poor, and the gap between them is widening. In all the contradictions of our time, none is more difficult to grasp than the fact that technology has made it possible for the world to become a global community-which is good-and that within the community the preferred position of the minority enjoying most of the resources and wealth is producing anger, terrorism and revolutions-which is bad.
The Address-Mr. Roche
The argument that a civilization directed to material improvements is unable to satisfy the human spirit has been regarded as some kind of poetry. Pleas for social justice, domestically and internationally, have attracted but a handful of adherents. Statements that the quantity of life syndrome should be replaced by a quality of life ethic have been put off as philosophies to be approached gradually. The business of the day, politics as usual, must go on because, after all, growth is the standard and band-aids are the remedy for breakdowns.
Now, however, thanks to the energy crisis we have suddenly come up against a hitherto inconceivable prospect: maybe unlimited industrial production and economic expansion will have to come to an end. Maybe the rich of the world have over reached themselves. Maybe a whole new assessment of how we live will have to be made, and made exactly.
It is no longer an intellectual, philosophical or religious exercise to consider the role of man on planet earth; it is a hard headed, pragmatic necessity because human survival is at stake. The Arabs have done us the favour of forcing us back to the age old question: Who is man and what is his future?
We can get an overview of the human predicament by examining, first, resources. The availability of resources is necessary to sustain industrial output. In the developed world, industrial output, growing at 7 per cent a year, doubles in a decade. If we project this growth rate for another 50 years, the demand for resources will have doubled five times, requiring a volume of resource extraction 32 times larger than today's. Looking ahead over the ten doublings of a century, the amount of annual resources requirements will have increased over a thousand times.
Closer to home and more comprehensible perhaps is the simple fact that Canadians today consume energy at a rate approaching five times the global per capita average, or some 47 times the Indian per capita average-the result of a high standard of living, large scale resource extraction, a rigorous climate and the great size of the country. Whatever the next century brings, over the next 35 years the world will consume more metals and more energy since the dawn of human history; the energy mix and the rate of growth of consumption have already been determined. We in the western world have irresponsibly and immorally demanded the lion's share of the world's resources, and I see no sign of this thirst slackening. It is not solutions to local shortages this winter and next that should preoccupy us but long range planning, since present growth cannot be sustained indefinitely.
Second, we should examine population. The conditions of exponential growth are especially observable in population. Barring some global holocaust, world population now appears certain to exceed six billion by the year 2000. It could reach 7.4 billion if the trends in growth established since world war II were to continue unmodified until that time. Even with population control programs it is difficult to visualize human numbers levelling off until well into the next century, because almost 40 per cent of the world's population today is under 15 years of age. Thus the potential for births is very high. It is now generally anticipated that at least 800 million people will be added to the world population in the coming ten years. Moreover, the present

February 28, 1974
The Address-Mr. Roche
ratio of 30 to 70 between the population of the rich and poor nations will swing inexorably to 10 to 90.
The continuation of such growth constitutes what many now consider to be the overwhelming threat to the future wellbeing of man. What are the consequences of adding 75 million to the earth's numbers this year-of populating the equivalent of the United States in three years, or of populating another China in less than a decade? And, of course, the impact of population growth is intensified by the rising expectations of all men, rich and poor, and the desire of every nation to expand its industrial base. Urbanization compounds the population problem. The one billion urban dwellers of 1960 will become three billion by the year 2000, requiring the equivalent of building 70 new cities yearly, each housing one million people.
Any commodity in over abundance tends to lose its value, and the brutal fact is that people have become a commodity. Because we have disregarded the elementary, universal quality of human dignity, hundreds of millions today live in abject poverty, are illiterate, are ravaged by disease and are chronically malnourished. Their lives have a bleakness and hopelessness difficult for us to comprehend. What worth is the individual in such circumstances? How valuable is the human person? The current famine in the southern Sahara has produced a tragic comment on technological man: the undernourished children of a tribe in Chad were too weak to resist an outbreak of diptheria. None the less the tribe elders pleaded with UN officials not to send drugs. Starvation, they said, would be too slow a death; let diptheria rage.
The impoverishment of the human spirit and the cheapening of human life have profound consequences now that technology gives man the technical power to shape his own future. It is a myth to believe that the problems of under development will be solved simply through the implementation of birth control programs, although I believe that acceptable ways of stabilizing world population must be found. Birth control measures are too often mistaken for true family planning. I believe that the mentality which we have in the western world, which favours reducing the number of people in the world so that we will not have to reduce our share of the world's goods, is the wrong mentality.
Sharing what the world community possesses is a prerequisite to stability. Before introducing massive birth control programs into the various countries of the world, considerable investment is needed in the key sectors which determine economic growth. Giving priority to the population problem, over and above the economic and social one, means we are bound to fail.
It strains credibility to suggest that the interlocking problems of population growth, urbanization and energy demands will not lead to extreme social disorder. Greater shortages of basic goods, including food, deeper poverty and more environmental damage are ahead. Is it possible that we, in our affluence, can blithely consign millions more people to a human state comparable to the worst regions of India or Pakistan without sowing the seeds of massive revolutions? At the very least we can expect the 
rise of authoritarian governments whose demands for social changes will not stop with family limitation.
Today the political winds blowing across Latin America are nationalist and authoritarian. Right-wing military dictatorships hold power in Brazil, Chile, Bolivia and Uruguay. Argentina is experiencing a neo-Peronist threat to freedom. The political and military strife we now see within and between nations will escalate as the universal social-economic situation deteriorates.
Third, warfare. The good work of the United Nations notwithstanding, there is not the slightest reason to hope that we can escape mounting terrorism, revolutions and international warfare if we continue on our present path. Sheer desperation will drive individuals, bands of terrorists and nations to fight for survival. Nothing is more basic in human nature. The picture of two men fighting over the last gallon of gas in a Florida service station is but an amusing reflection of the spectre of inevitable wars of redistribution. When to this age old manner of deciding who gets the spoils is added the modern factor of nuclear weapons, the prospect is grim.
Even small nations, or groups within nations, possessing no fully developed industrial base can gain possession of nuclear weapons. They will be a by-product of atomic power plants that will soon be common around the world. These warheads will not require complicated delivery systems but can be easily smuggled into enemy harbours or cities.
If a band of desperadoes in California can kidnap the Hearst heiress and demand massive food distribution to the poor as ransom, it does not require much conjecture to envision the developed world being blackmailed by nuclear terrorism, even by small groups, demanding the transfer of large amounts of wealth to the poverty stricken world. Our world pattern is undeniably producing terrorism. Airplanes and airports, even in this country, are not safe today without the tightest security. Why should we regard whole cities as any safer? What have terrorists got to lose?
I am not purposely trying to paint a grim picture of humanity in the days ahead just for its shock value. Rather I am trying to show that the energy crisis of the past few months is but the tip of an iceberg whose dimensions and power can now be charted. Put as plainly as possible, industrial man has constructed this mammoth iceberg which threatens to capsize us. We may think our accomplishments are magnificent, but the truth is that never in the history of the world have the times been so dangerous.
Of course, it would be folly to think that we are helpless. For population growth, war, environmental damage and the use of technology are all social problems originating in human attitudes and capable of solution by alteration of our behavior. Thus, says Robert Heilbroner, in an analysis he calls "The Human Prospect":
-whether we are unable to sustain growth or unable to tolerate it, there can be no doubt that a radically different future beckons. In either eventuality, it seems beyond dispute that the present orientation of society must change.
Well, now, what is to be done? Without backing away from the bleak picture I have sketched, I reject any implication that all these complications amount to a death

sentence on mankind. Neither do I wish to offer any bromides. There is a way out if we apply our knowledge and willpower. That, of course, is a very large "if".
It is certainly the job of politics, religion, philosophy and the academic world to animate us. I do not think any of us alone can do the job, the scope of which is totally unprecedented. I believe there is absolutely no hope if politics remains devoid of spiritual principles as a priority, and religion remains aloof from deep involvement in the human condition.
We must not think that we are struggling here alone in the darkness. Great minds are at work on the problems before us. But solutions in the practical order will be possible only when we have recovered the direction of man who lost his way long before the age of future shock.
Twenty years ago Walter Lippmann pointed us in the direction of a truly human society with his call for the revival of a "public philosophy." In a public philosophy the highest laws are those upon which all rational men of goodwill, when fully informed, will tend to agree. All men, governors and governed, are always under, never above, these laws which can be developed and refined by rational discussion.
The revival of the public philosophy-
Lippmann says
-depends on whether its principles and precepts, which were articulated before the industrial revolution, before the era of rapid techological change, and before the rise of the mass democracies- depends on whether this old philosophy can be reworked for the modern age. If this cannot be done, then the free and democratic nations face the totalitarian challenge without a public philosophy which free men believe in and cherish, with no public faith beyond a mere official agnosticism, neutrality and indifference. There is not much doubt how the struggle is likely to end if it lies between those who, believing, care very much-and those who, lacking belief, cannot care very much.
To give a vivid projection of Lippmann's public philosophy we can look at our environmental dilemma as but a symptom of the much deeper problem facing us. No one decided to dehumanize life with crowding, traffic jams, noise and squalor. No one decided that air pollution and dying waterways should be the price of unlimited growth. No one decided these things, but neither were they accidents. They are what we have done because we have assumed, unconsciously, that we had the right, indeed the obligation, to do them. But now we are forced to change our thinking from plunderers to stewards.
How, then, does Canada fit into this global perspective? As Maurice Strong observed at a recent meeting of the Canadian Club in Ottawa, the question is going to be raised as to the rights of 22 million people to a substantial fraction of the world's land area, fresh water, agricultural and fish resources, and mineral wealth. Although we may regard our natural resources as an heritage to be dispensed and utilized at our pleasure, other less fortunate members of our global society may tend to view us as custodians of natural wealth to be shared more generally for the good of men.
With the broader and more rapid dissemination of information around the world they are going to expect more from us. The present rate of population growth, as I have indicated, really means that in the next few years produc-
The Address-Mr. Roche
tion and growth rates will have to increase by factors of 10 to 15.
Given the environmental disruption, the increased economic and energy costs, and the mineral finding rates that this implies, such massive development hardly seems likely on a time scale of three or four decades. In other words, the tremendous gap that exists today between the rich and the poor, between the developed and the under developed, does not seem likely to become very much smaller in the year 2000. Rather, given the present course of events, it seems that there will be greater shortages, deeper poverty, and more environmental damage than society experiences today. The have-nots in world society will not tolerate such conditions.
Canadians will not, however, simply be facing difficult situations of external origin. Failure to look beyond the immediate future can lead to internal problems of a vexing nature. Once again the energy situation provides us with a good example. Even though we like to think we are going to become self-sufficient from the production of oil in western Canada, if our present growth rate persists, then in the 1980's we will still be suffering a deficiency in oil production, given the methods that are now being used.
Three variables bear on the extent to which the supply short-fall will develop over the coming decade: the finding rate for conventional oil in western Canada; the rate of oil export to the United States; and the extent to which the rate of growth in domestic demand can be modified. These are not perfectly clear.
Whether or not Canada subsequently re-establishes its net self-sufficiency in oil depends upon the rate at which the Alberta oilsands are developed beyond 1985; it depends upon the future availability of oil from frontier regions; and, most important, in the final analysis it depends upon the degree to which Canada views this as a desirable goal.
Such problems of national concern, of which future oil supply is but one example, will require for their handling a spirit of co-operation between the provinces and the federal government, which spirit is at present lacking. Lengthy debates over short-term interests and problems are not conducive to attacking the longer term difficulties which we face. Moreover, I suspect that the bickering exhibited by officials and politicians at the international and the national level over frequently inconsequential issues tends to promote feelings of cynicism and demoralization amongst the general public.
There seem, then, to be several factors mitigating against our chances of anticipating and successfully overcoming the fundamental and rapidly worsening problems of world society. One is the unwillingness of both government and individuals to look beyond immediate term interests. Another is the feeling of cynicism or perhaps helplessness engendered in the individual in witnessing the failure of man's institutions to deal with the complex social problems of today. The individual tends to be overwhelmed by, or indifferent to, problems which seem completely beyond his capability of either understanding or solving.
It is, then, to a considerable extent the responsibility of government and parliament to overcome this indifference

February 28, 1974
The Address-Mr. Herbert
and to provide strong leadership in anticipating and, most importantly, educating people about the fundamental issues facing society today. Feelings of provincialism or nationalism, although useful to some degree, must ultimately be submerged in a concern for the broader affairs of society. For, after all, there is little that happens in the world today which is not reflected more generally throughout society. If humanitarian reasons alone do not prompt us to feel concern, there are very good pragmatic reasons for not ignoring the immense problems facing society today.


Harold Thomas Herbert: Mr. Speaker, in speaking on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, I would like to record my personal congratulations to the mover (Mr. Stollery) and the seconder (Mr. Pelletier (Sherbrooke) of the motion. The hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Stollery) has that rare ability to be able to introduce humour into his speech to emphasize the point he is making and to hold the attention of his audience. The hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Pelletier) included in his remarks an illuminating reference to the poverty that exists in the world today, not forgetting the poor people in Canada. May I underline his statement that it is imperative that Canadians as a nation give particular attention to poorer and less fortunate countries.
I would also like to add my congratulations to our new Governor General and wish him an enjoyable and rewarding term in office. His Excellency, Governor General Jules Leger, spent his youth and was educated, as was his brother, His Eminence Cardinal Paul Emile Leger, at St-Polycarpe, in the county of Vaudreuil, the county I have the honour to represent.
Many noted persons in public life have come from the county of Vaudreuil, a county named after the Marquis de Vaudreuil, who left his mark on the city of Montreal at the beginning of the 18th century. A former and very competent Speaker of this House, the Honourable L. Rene Beaudoin, represented the county for 12 years.
However, we are especially proud that a former Prime Minister of Canada, the Right Honourable Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the second Liberal Prime Minister since conferer-ation and our first Prime Minister born in the province of Quebec, was the member from the county of Soulanges, which now forms a part of the much larger county of Vaudreuil.
Last year the town of Vaudreuil celebrated its bicentennial. Canada may be a relatively young country but in counties such as that which I represent there is a wealth of history of which we can be very proud.
I want to discuss today my thoughts on the Speech from the Throne. The intention to expand employment opportunities and to increase employment through providing workers with improved access to available jobs is particularly necessary today when there are such great regional disparities that show some areas of the country with effectively zero unemployment whilst other regions have serious unemployment problems. Not only must there be a greater effort to match the unemployed to the available jobs but a substantially larger program must be introduced to provide the unemployed with the skills necessary to fill the available positions.

Particularly in the lower age bracket where youth have already spent some time as a part of the labour force, the opportunity must be offered them to acquire the skills necessary to give them permanent and more productive employment. Training-on-the-job programs should be expanded to include classroom instruction and controlled courses in industry and commerce. These courses would last from one to two years and a participant would be required to show adequate progress at predetermined intervals.
Greater use should be encouraged of the program that pays the transfer costs to transport an unemployed person to a job opportunity in another area. For the unemployed that are past middle age, legislation must effectively eliminate discrimination. I will come to this point again when I discuss human rights.
I am particularly pleased to see that there will be amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act. I per-sonnally believe that a benefit limit of $100 per week should be reimposed and the qualification period should be lengthened. There should be greater encouragement, through revised tax measures, to take temporary or part time employment and at the same time much stiffer penalties to encourage full declaration of part time earnings.
I am most pleased that this session will see amendments to the Bank Act. The Canadian banking system is substantially non-competitive and is run from Bay Street. This statement will bring vehement denials from our chartered banks but almost 100 per cent agreement from the banks' customers. The opportunity for provincial participation will bring greater consideration of regional needs. Increased competition in the banking industry is an absolute necessity if the present antiquated and uneconomical practices are to be eliminated.
In a related area, I note that proposals will be made to ensure Canadian control of the computer communications field. The private citizen is and should be genuinely afraid that the fantastic, and certainly beneficial, advances in computer technology can leave him exposed and uprotect-ed. There is no doubt in my mind that insufficient attention has been paid to the provision of an adequate number of trained personnel to handle the computer hardware and software being sold and leased today.
We live in a world where many of us are unaware that changes are inadvertently being made to our accounts kept on computer records. Persons remitting mortgage payments are blissfully ignorant of untraceable errors that can leave them still owing large sums at the completion of the time period at which they believe their mortgage would be paid off. As one man said to me last week, "I took it for granted the computer did not make errors". When he, in casual conversation with his bank manager, discovered an error in his account, he naturally wondered for how long there could have been similar errors.
We must ensure that easily erasable records, as has been amply demonstrated south of the border, should be duplicated and also printed out in permanent format before changes, corrections and erasures, intentional or otherwise, can be made.
Whilst on the subject of computer records, it is essential that tough legislation be introduced to protect the privacy
February 28, 1974

of the individual. No information that can in any way be considered detrimental to an individual should be communicated to a third party without the prior knowledge of the individual concerned. Information, even though itself accurate, can, because it is incomplete, be at the very least misleading. Everyone must have the automatic right to correct or explain credit and character records.
Canadian control of the computer communications field should receive all party support. Similarly no member is likely to argue against the requirement that boards of directors of foreign controlled companies should be 51 per cent Canadian. Not one multinational or foreign controlled company executive to whom I have spoken has argued against such a regulation.
However, these gentlemen have unanimously rejected, as have executives from wholely Canadian companies, the provision that employees be excluded from the listing of the 51 per cent Canadian content of a board. This is a distinctly anti-Canadian provision that will accelerate the brain drain to the United States whilst serving no useful purpose whatsoever in this country.
I am pleased to see included in the throne speech the provision that additional measures will be proposed to aid small business. Also to be underlined is that steps will be taken to obtain greater returns from industrial research and development as well as technological innovation in Canada.
In the pharmaceutical industry, for example, we must face the issue of whether, in our desire to press for the lowest cost drug of an acceptable quality, we are prepared to write off the Canadian industry. If many provinces follow the example of Manitoba we could become an importer of the major part of our drug requirements.
In the field of agricultural research we must redirect our thinking and give greater concentration to research that will aid and encourage our youth at the university level. These young people will be the backbone of our future agricultural development.
It is imperative that there be greater encouragement to our inventors and scientists, and patent legislation must reflect our wish to see ample reward for new ideas.
In noting that legislation will be introduced to create a federal commission on human rights and interests, I want to refer to an earlier remark I made concerning employment of middle aged persons. We must include in any such legislation provisions that will prevent discrimination on the basis of age. Thus no employee should be excluded from a position because of a restrictive pension plan. It is completely contrary to our concept of fairness that a competent prospective employee should be barred, because he is over 50 and the company has a compulsory pension plan, which he would be unable to join.
Furthermore, the government should consider methods by which pensions can be made portable from plan to plan in order, also to protect the older members of the work force. In this respect it is, in my opinion, highly immoral that an employee should lose moneys contributed by a company on his behalf to a pension plan if that employee
The Address-Mr. Herbert
resigns or is fired before he has a vested interest in the plan.
It is equally unjust that a prospective employee who has passed all other qualifying tests should be refused employment because a doctor's examination shows that he does not meet the requirements of the company's medical plan.
I am ready to accept that special positions require a certain level of fitness-air line pilots, for example. However, to exclude a capable person from a sedentary position in a financial institution because of a minor physical defect is grossly unfair. Such discrimination must be prevented by legislation.
It is commendable that the provision of adequate shelter at reasonable prices is mentioned in the Speech from the Throne. In this connection there are two points I want to make. At the present time our domestic building material manufacturers are protesting their export markets even though there is a critical shortage of certain building materials in Canada. The supply houses are repurchasing these same materials in the United States and bringing them back to the domestic market. This practice is not only wasteful but is obviously inflating prices at a time when price increases are a cause for serious concern.
I also want to suggest that the human rights legislation referred to earlier should include provisions to free the individual from the restrictive practices of unions in the field of apprenticeship training. Union control of the number of trainees has created labour shortages in several trades in the construction industry that are adding unnecessarily to the cost of housing. Union legislation may be under provincial jurisdiction, but human rights are a federal responsibility.
I should like to make brief reference at this time to the conduct of business both in this House and in the various committees. One of the unfortunate aspects of our media coverage is the emphasis on the question period. The press gallery is then full. For the debates that follow there remains only the "on duty" press representative who may not be greatly interested and, in all honesty, is not likely to find too much to interest him. Similarly in committee, press coverage is spotty at best. This tends to give the country a somewhat unrealistic view of the work of the members. Undoubtedly our own conduct is a contributing factor.
I am inclined to agree with the member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) that the preoccupation of members should be less directed towards the next election and more towards the passage of legislation beneficial for the country. Incidentally, I mention the county of Bellechasse, even though it is represented by an opposition member, as it is the county of birth of my wife's mother.
However, returning to the subject of House business, I sincerely hope that changes to our rules will help to eliminate wasted time. There is certainly a monumental task facing us and maximum efficiency is required of all of us.
The official opposition were complaining, for example, of the lack of time to discuss the supplementary estimates. Yet a perusal of the record will indicate that tardiness and poor attendance by the opposition lost this committee 15 per cent of its available sitting time. On one occasion the

February 28, 1974
The Address-Mr. S. Knowles
official opposition had only one member present which, together with the eight government members, was not enough to form a quorum. When the government holds only eight of nineteen seats on a committee, Mr. Speaker, and when one of the eight is a non-voting chairman, there is absolutely no reason why the resulting legislation should not be the best possible product of the several points of view represented in this House.
The official opposition have, in fact, amply illustrated their committee control by arbitrarily terminating debate, using a closure procedure which they have themselves found so distasteful in the House on certain previous occasions.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Harold Thomas Herbert: I want to make one closing remark to the official opposition. If you want to illustrate to the people of this country that you have the ability to govern, stop being hypocritical. When you talk of inflation, produce constructive and specific ideas. Read the speech made by Chairman Earl McLaughlin to the Royal Bank's last annual meeting. All of us supported the social legislation passed by this House in the last session. Let us not turn our backs on it by indirect reference. This government's accomplishments in the last session, despite its minority position, make us all very proud. Co-operate and make this session equally good for Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, it is true that during 1973 this parliament enacted a number of pieces of very worth while social legislation. I refer in particular to the increases that were made in the pensions and supplementary benefits paid under the Old Age Security Act, to improved family allowances, to improvements in pensions and allowances for veterans, and to other, similar measures. I also have in mind the arrangements which were made for escalating almost all pensions that come under government jurisdiction, namely to increase them not just by 2 per cent per annum but by the full percentage increase in the cost of living.
As I say, all of us in this House can regard 1973 as a year when we did a pretty fair job in the field of social security. I want to say that I am not unduly concerned when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) tries to take the full credit for that legislation to the Liberal party. The fact is the people of Canada realize that a great deal more was done in one year in this parliament of minorities than would normally be done in five or six years in a parliament in which there is a government majority. The people know why we got some good legislation in 1973.
However, I want to say that I am deeply concerned over the almost complete lack of reference to this whole area in this session's Speech from the Throne. The government is already acting as though it did enough with respect to social security in 1973 and so it can just coast along, leaving this question alone in 1974.
I recognize that in the Speech from the Throne there are one or two references to the Canada Pension Plan where improvements will be made. I am also aware of the discussions about welfare policies that are taking place among 
the health and welfare ministers of Canada and the provinces. However, as far as this session's Speech from the Throne is concerned, one gets the impression that the government thinks that nothing needs to be done this year in the social security field. I challenge that proposition as strongly as I can.
I say to the government and to members in all parts of this House that already the values that were added to pensions and other social payments last year are running short of today's cost of living. Already those who are on the receiving end of these various programs are justifiably feeling the time has come for still further adjustments.
It is not good enough to say that arrangements were made in 1973 to escalate most pension benefits by the full percentage increase in the cost of living, as though that is all that needs to be done. There are two things to say about that. First, in most cases the base itself was not high enough. Second, welcome though it is that the escalation is not limited by a 2 ner cent ceiling, it is still a fact that the escalation is always a few months behind.
A few days ago the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) put out a release about the automatic increases in old age security and the guaranteed income supplement that will take place in the month of April, a few weeks hence. That increase will be based on a rise in the cost of living that began in the month of November. In fact, it is based upon the cost of living in November, December and January compared with the three months immediately preceding the month of November. When pensioners do not get an increase in their pensions until the end of April for the purpose of meeting the cost of living increase of the previous November, they are always getting behind. Therefore, I call upon the government and this House to shake off any lethargy it may feel about this issue.
I call upon the government and I call upon the House to realize that the pensioners of Canada very soon will not be saying "It is wonderful what you did for us in 1973." They will be saying "Why did you forget us in 1974?" Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I plead that in this session of parliament this House must put on the government the kind of pressure that will force it to act in this important field.
When Notices of Motion and Private Members' Public Bills appear on the order paper in a few days, hon. members will see among those Notices of Motion one in my name which calls on the government to give consideration to increasing the basic amount of the old age security pension to $200 a month, payable to all. I urge that this be taken very seriously. That figure is already becoming a minimum figure for pensioners, provided they meet certain tests, in a number of our provinces. Surely no one can argue that anything less than $200 a month is an amount upon which anyone can live in Canada today.
My resolution that will appear on the order paper in a few days not only calls for the pension paid under the Old Age Security Act to be increased to $200 a month. It also calls for the pension age to be lowered to 60 under both the Old Age Security Act and the Canada Pension Plan.
As hon. members are aware, this matter came in for a good deal of discussion during the session of parliament that occupied 1973. When it was under discussion, whether
February 28, 1974

in this House or in the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, there was wide support for the idea that the time had come to bring down the pension age. Whether we do it all at once or whether we do it a year at a time is open for discussion, but it is important that we get started.
I am disappointed with one of my favourite ministers. There are not very many over there whom I can call favourites, but there is one for whom I have a good deal of fondness and respect, the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I deeply regret the statements he has been making that suggest that nothing can be done in that area at this time. I recognize the validity of his contention that there are other areas that have to be attended to as well and that we must deal with the problem of the inadequate income of the working poor, and I am glad the minister is meeting with his counterparts in the provinces to grapple with that issue.
I am proud of the fact that in my province of Manitoba, under the joint auspices of the federal and provincial governments, an experiment is being undertaken with regard to a guaranteed annual income directed toward this very goal of improving the income status of those who are working but whose incomes from their employment are inadequate.
The readiness to face up to that problem, however, is no excuse for trying to slough off the other one, namely the problem of getting the pension age down to 60. I know it is not very long ago that the pension age was 70. I can remember that in my first speeches of this House, more than three decades ago, I argued that the pension age should be brought down to 65. Some people will ask "Are you never satisfied?" That is a good question. They know the answer.
The point I make is that as conditions have changed, the rat race of industrial life and economic struggle is such that there are all kinds of people-they write me every day of the week-who find it almost impossible to keep going physically, to make ends meet until they are 65, and my mail every day contains urgent pleas that I use my voice in this House of Commons to get pensions payable at age 60.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I insist, Mr. Speaker, that this is a goal toward which we must work and it must apply to both the Old Age Security Act and the Canada Pension Plan. I am prepared-indeed I have advocated it in the past and I so advocate it in the resolution to which I have referred-, to make pensions payable under the two pieces of legislation I have mentioned between the ages of 60 and 65, only to those who are out of or who leave the labour market. We should be prepared to apply an employment test similar to the one we provided under the Canada Pension Plan for those aged between 65 and 69 but which is very shortly to be removed from that age bracket. I submit it would be a decent and humane response to the pleas we are receiving from all over the country to say to persons who are out of the labour market or who are prepared to leave it that they can draw the full
The Address-Mr. S. Knowles
old age security pension at any time after the age of 60 and that they can draw that portion of the Canada Pension Plan they have earned up to that age at any time after age 60.
I have a great many interests in the field of pensions and I intend to speak to as many of them as time will permit tonight. I think I place the two suggestions I have just laid before the House, raising substantially the amount of the basic old age pension-I suggest $200 a month across the board-and lowering the pension age, at the top of the list. I say to my good friend the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and I say to the members of cabinet as well as to all members in all parts of the House, that this issue will not go away. Just as I was sure many years ago, when I started out arguing for the removal of the means test, when I argued in favour of raising the amount of the pension and for lowering the age requirement, that we would win those battles, I am equally sure we will win these two battles for a higher amount and for 60 to be the pension age.
But let it not be necessary for some of us to fight for another 30 years to win these things. They are possible of achievement now, and they should be brought into effect right away. So, Mr. Speaker, I call upon members to give serious and favourable consideration to the proposition that I am placing before the House and to the motion which will appear on the order paper in a few days' time for amendments to these two statutes, the Old Age Security Act and the Canada Pension Plan, raising the basic amount of the old age pension to $200 a month, and lowering the qualifying pension age under both pieces of legislation to 60, on a voluntary basis so far as each individual is concerned.
I move on to say that I think there are further improvements which should be made with regard to the pensions of retired public servants, retired members of the Armed Forces, retired R.C.M.P. personnel and others. We have made improvements in this area quite dramatically in the last few years. It was a good move we undertook last year in removing the 2 per cent ceiling from the escalation clauses so that the pensions now rise every year to meet the full amount of the cost of living increase. But, as with other pensions, that escalation is delayed. It is assessed only once a year. It can be 10 or 11 months behind the time the cost of living starts to go up. There are the difficulties faced by retired R.C.M.P. and Armed Forces personnel arising from the fact that the escalation does not start until age 60 except in certain special cases. I think those difficulties should be resolved.
I wish to use these few minutes I am devoting to retired public servants, retired R.C.M.P. and Armed Forces personnel and others to highlight an issue which applies to these groups and which also applies to all pension groups. That is the question of the amount of pensions paid to widows. We have accepted for years, for decades, that somehow a pension belongs to the man and that he should get 100 per cent of it. If his wife dies he carries on to draw the 100 per cent. However, if he dies first we think we are being generous to accord a 50 per cent pension to the widow. In the case of Members of Parliament we have done a little better. We have provided them with a 60 per

February 28, 1974
The Address-Mr. S. Knowles
cent pension, and certainly no widows' pensions should be less than we provide for our own widows.
However, I am questioning even that limit of 60 per cent. Surely, when a pension is earned and the husband and wife have been a team, it is their pension. Just because one dies first rather than the other should not result in a different rate of pension. I submit, therefore, that whatever pension is paid to the pensioner himself, let us say the husband, that same rate of pension should be continued to the widow.
When members opposite talk about ending discrimination against women, I suggest that they talk about ending this problem. I suggest it is no longer fair in an age in which we talk about equality to carry on this kind of discrimination against widows. Again, I am conscious of the mail I receive every week and of the scores of cases of which I know personally involving widows who are left with 50 per cent of what the husband's pension was and who find, especially with today's rising costs, that they have to upset their whole way of life because of that reduction. On the other hand, if the wife dies first the widower carries the full pension and can ride along just as he did before. I submit that this is a correction which needs to be made in the whole area of public service pensions where the federal government is in control. It should be made in other places as well, but surely where the federal government has control is the place to start.
I move on now to say a few words about railway pensions. In the main I have to talk in this chamber about Canadian National pensions because the Canadian National is ostensibly owned by us, although I think the Canadian Pacific has just as much responsibility to the public as the Canadian National in consideration of what we have done for that railway over the last century or so. If therefore wish to talk about railway pensions.
Last summer, as hon. members will recall, there was a dispute as a result of which we spent a few days of special sittings in parliament and passed legislation putting the workers back to work. One of the issues in the dispute was that of pensions, and when Mr. Justice Hall was appointed as arbitrator on the wage issue a side appointment was made, namely that of Dr. John Deutsch as a commissioner to inquire into the pension question. We knew then very clearly the limits of Dr. Deutsch's commission. All he was empowered to do was to assess the percentage value of the pension changes which had been won in the negotiations in relation to the total wage package. He had no authority to review railway pensions as a whole and he had no authority to improve the position of retired railway workers already drawing their pensions. A great many of these people took hope in the thought that since a famous man like, Dr. John Deutsch had been appointed the commissioner dealing with railway pensions, something would be done about those pensions. I have had to write scores of retired railway workers defending Dr. Deutsch, pointing out that this was not his commission, and that all he had the right to do was make that one very narrow judgment.
During the course of that debate last summer the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) admitted that the assignment given Dr. Deutsch was a very narrow one. He said that at

an early date he would appoint another commission to go into the broad question of railway pensions, in all their aspects.
A few days or weeks ago in Edmonton the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) repeated that promise, but we are still waiting for this to be implemented. I implore the Minister of Labour not to delay any longer. As a matter of fact, Canadian National retired workers for a number of years have had a 2 per cent increase each year but have not even had that for 1974, and nor is there any sign of it. All other government pensions are now being escalated by the full extent of the cost of living increase and railway workers should get that as well; yet so far in 1974 they have not had any sign of any escalation at all. It is a crime that these employees are having to wait to find out what is going to happen. They have been left out and forgotten, and I call upon the government to face up to this issue and deal with it just as soon as it possibly can.
Another area of pensions that this parliament must deal with is the whole question of how private pensions operate. Far too many of them fall short, and most of them fail on the important point of escalating pensions after retirement. I insist that the Pension Benefits Standards Act be amended in many respects, and one of the things that is required is that every pension plan have in it provisions for the escalation of pensions after retirement. There must be further provisions to make sure that pension funds are safe and that people get value for what they put into them. As a matter of fact, the day may well come when these private pensions will have not only to be integrated and made portable, but brought more directly under the aegis of the federal government.
More and more individuals are realizing the shortcomings of private plans. I am amazed, at some of the people who have spoken to me, people who do not have any interest in my particular political philosophy, and who have said to me: "Stanley, why don't you speak up for an improvement in our private pensions plans?" I certainly do, and I think this is an issue with which this parliament must deal.
I should like to say a few words about another area of pensions, and I refer in this instance to war veterans. Here too we did fairly well in 1973, though not enough to jump for joy, boast and all of that, particularly when one considers the sacrifices which were made and the fact that we are falling a long way short of the promises made to these Canadians. However, we did improve the basic pension for the disabled under the Pension Act, and we did make improvements in the War Veterans Allowance Act.
However, as an example of something I think is most unfair, I draw attention to the treatment which has just recently been accorded recipients of war veterans allowances who are 65 years of age or over. As hon. members know, war veterans allowances, like disability pensions under the Pension Act, are now escalated annually by the full percentage increase in the cost of living, and that increase takes place in January. Hon. members also know that old age security and the guaranteed income supplement are escalated by the full percentage increase in the cost of living, but that escalation takes place every three months.
February 28, 1974

On December 10, not many weeks ago, I asked the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) a very specific question. I asked him whether the necessary arrangements were being made so that veterans 65 years of age or over who were receiving both old age security and the guaranteed income supplement on the one hand, and the war veterans allowance on the other, would get both the escalation payments due in January, the one on the OAS-GIS being quarterly, and the one on the WVA being annually. The minister's answer on December 10 was that those arrangements were being made.
On January 3 I asked again whether arrangements had been made so that those veterans 65 years or over would get the escalation in both parts of their income, and the answer was: "Yes, those arrangements have been made" Things have not worked out that way.
What has happened is that veterans 65 years of age or over who are in receipt of both OAS-GIS on the one hand and WVA on the other got the January increase in their OAS-GIS, and fortunately they were allowed to keep it; but their was veterans allowance stood at precisely the same level with not one cent of an increase. The promise made to me by the Minister of Veterans Affairs on December 10 and January 3 was not reflected in the order-incouncil that was passed or in what happened to the veterans themselves.
So while we boast about the fact-and the government does this all the time-that at least those who are in need or on fixed incomes are getting an escalation of their incomes in accordance with the rise in the cost of living, here are veterans, of all people, 65 years of age and over, and veterans' widows, whose income is made up in the main of two elements, OAS-GIS on the one hand and WVA on the other, and who are receiving the escalation on only the OAS-GIS portion. In other words, the cost of living may have gone up three or four percentage points during a certain period of time, but they receive a three or four percentage point increase on only a portion of their income. In other words, they are being shortchanged. I dislike shortchanging being perpetrated on any of our people, indeed on any of our retired people, senior citizens, railway workers or any others, but I think to shortchange our veterans 65 years of age and over and veterans' widows is really incredible and unthinkable.
Those on disability pensions, if they have enough that they do not have to fall back on war veterans allowance, of course get the full percentage increase in their disability pensions. If they are over 65 years of age and are getting both a disability pension and old age security, they get the escalation on total income. But this special group of people in particular need, the burnt-out veterans, the veterans who cannot prove that they were actually hurt or disabled in a conflict but spent their time in overseas service, do not get the escalation on their full income because of the faulty way in which that order in council was drawn.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the member but his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Thomas Miller Bell: Carry on for another 10 minutes.
The Address-Mr. S. Knowles


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Does the House agree?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I shall only be a few minutes longer. Before you found it necessary to draw my attention to the passing of time I was pleading that this sort of shortchanging of people, retired persons in particular, is a crime in any area. But I think it is particularly pernicious when it happens to veterans, and especially when it happens to veterans who are in that group known as burnt-out veterans and are the recipients of war veterans allowances.
In a month or two there will be another increase in the old age security and guaranteed income supplement. It will not be very much this tme. That puzzles me. It seems to me that the cost of living is going up much faster than these increases are. But I suppose they will get that increase in their old age security and guaranteed income supplement and the Department of Veterans Affairs will say to us that the veterans got an increase, so what are we complaining about. What I am complaining about is the hypocrisy of the government boasting that they are indexing the incomes of those who are in need-pensioners, those on fixed incomes-not just by 2 per cent but by the full amount of the cost of living. The fact is that there is one particular group for whom this is not being done and it is this group of veterans who are in receipt of war veterans allowance and are over 65 years of age.
I dislike the fact-and I protested it with my colleagues in all parties when this proposal was brought in-that these persons were forced to go on the guaranteed income supplement, that they were not permitted to draw the full amount of their assistance from the funds of the War Veterans Allowance Board. At any rate, that was done and we are stuck with it, but I do plead that this be looked at again.
Perhaps my main reason for mentioning the fact that a change is coming in April is to recognize the fact that when that change comes another order in council will be necessary to permit these veterans to keep the increase that they will get in old age security and guaranteed income supplement. I call upon the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) to persuade his cabinet colleagues to correct this situation. I think that is where the trouble is. I do not think it lies with him. I think he has the interest of the veterans at heart, but he has colleagues who think of veterans as welfare recipients on whom they can cut down a bit and save money. I hope he will persuade his colleagues that when the order in council is written in April to take care of the next increase in old age security and guaranteed income supplement, it will be drawn in such a way that these veterans will be permitted to get the increase in the war veterans allowance that came into effect in January but which they did not get.
While the minister is dealing with his cabinet colleagues on the whole question of the war veterans allowance, I hope he will also impress upon them very strongly the request by veterans for the removal of the March 31 deadline on the Veterans Land Act. There are only 31 days

February 28, 1974
The Address-Mr. S. Knowles
to go. I remind the minister and the government that this House of Commons on November 9, 1973, passed unanimously a motion of mine made under Standing Order 43 calling upon the government to give consideration to continuing the Veterans Land Act beyond March 31 and making it possible for veterans to get holdings even if the only reason they want those holdings is to establish homes. Surely those who fought for this land are entitled to a piece of it. It should not be cut off because of the deadline that is in the legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister thus far has simply said that he is still considering it. I give him credit for the the fact that at no time has he by word of mouth or in a letter said that the answer is final. But neither has he given any great hope that that deadline can be lifted.
Appeals are coming in from veterans all over the country with regard to this matter, and while perhaps this is slightly at variance with the theme of my remarks tonight, which has focussed on pensions throughout, I submit this is part of the standard of living of retired veterans. If the government is not prepared to do as much for them as we want done in terms of pensions and allowances, surely the government can keep alive the Veterans Land Act. I would not just postpone that March 31 deadline; I would remove it altogether. Surely as long as any veteran who has served this country wants assistance to get a piece of this land on which to live, this parliament would want to support the veteran in that claim.
I ask the Minister of Veterans Affairs to read carefully the letters that he is getting from some of the veterans organizations on this issue. I say again: I know where his heart is. I think it is with the veterans, and I am aware of the problem he has with some of his colleagues, notably the ones who sit between him and the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The extremes are not bad, it is what is in the middle. Oh, there is the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen), who has just come in. He is not between them because he is in the front row. He has great influence and I am glad he came here to hear this part of my speech. I hope he will use that influence in favour of the veterans with respect to this issue, just as I hope he will use his influence with respect to the other issues about which I have been speaking tonight, if I can prevail upon him to read the parts of my speech that were made while he was not here.
I thank hon. members of the House for their courtesy in giving me these extra few minutes. I am sure that some of my friends will say to me: "My, you made a speech on pensions, imagine that. That is something new". It was new when I first made speeches on pensions back in 1942 and 1943. But there have been many of them and we have come a long way since then in all these areas. Pensions in those days were $20 a month payable at age 70 with a means test. Widows were not covered under the War Veterans Allowance Act. There was no Canada Pension Plan. We have come that distance because some of us believed that the things we were fighting for were right and that if we stuck with them we would win.

I take the position tonight that we are right in asking for a substantial increase in old age security and the lowering of the pension age to 60; that we are right in asking for equal treatment for widows; that we are right in asking for immediate consideration of the problems of railway workers; and that we are right in asking for a fair deal for our veterans right down the line. I welcome the feeling of support that I sense in the House tonight for these remarks that I have made, and I call upon the government to come through.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Barnett J. Danson (York North):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure always to follow the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) particularly when he speaks about veterans pensions. I have a conflict of interest as a 30 per cent pensioner and I want to encourage him in his program as far as he wishes to go.
First, I should like to congratulate my colleagues, the mover and seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Stol-lery) and the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Pelletier), who acquitted themselves so ably yesterday. I also want to say how good it is to be back and to see your smiling countenance here in the House after the recess, Mr. Speaker. I think it is important that this recess took place. It was the best one I have had since I have been in the House of Commons. We had a long and grinding session and by the time we left we were a little worn out, I think. I think it is important that everybody is back refreshed. When I came back the other day I felt like a stranger in Ottawa. I think that is good because for a while we were beginning to think that this was our home, this was where the real world was. We went back to our homes and the real world and we are enriched once more.
I think the recess was particularly important because all of us accomplished a great deal of work. We now have our constituency offices. I urge those who have not opened them to do so as quickly as possible because it will give them a further contact with their constituents and a further opportunity to serve them. It is extremely important to have a fully staffed constituency office. It has put a heavier workload on us but it has also given us an opportunity to serve our constituents, one that we have not had before. When we are not here in session and are home in the recess we can continue our liaison with Ottawa easily and we are happy about that.
However, my comments will be on the throne speech. I should like to say frankly that I am particularly pleased with the throne speech of yesterday. Our newspapers kept on saying that we should not expect very much, and I did not.
However, I was pleasantly surprised because I thought it contained a great deal. It responded very much, and addressed itself to the issues of today to which we must respond. They are gut issues; they are bread and butter issues. I have not heard too much carping about "too little, too late." In sum it is the sort of thing where people address themselves to the issues as they are.
February 28, 1974

We are trying to deal with a fundamental difference in our approach to inflation, which is articulated in the throne speech, and which is certainly evident in the speeches made in relation to it. What is being attempted is to get to the root causes of inflation, some immediate term, some long-term, but no bandaid approach, to fight that which we can tackle domestically, and to come to grips with the greater portion of it, which we all admit is a world problem, in the best way that we know how.
We are to deal with the whole question of oil, oil imports and oil prices. We are to address ourselves, really in a quite innovative way, to the problems of providing food through our agricultural industry in this country; and I think it is a particular credit to our Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) that so much original thinking has gone into the Speech from the Throne in relation to farming.
We are to deal with housing, and we are to take a serious look at the unemployment insurance plan. We all recognize, at least I hope we do, that we have something great here, something that could be true social legislation. It is not without its problems, and some of them are major as we well know, but the fact is that we have to refine the processes and the program. There is a great danger, however, that those who unthinkingly criticize it are endangering one of the most valuable pieces of social legislation that we have now; so what we are going to attempt to do in this session is to improve it and make it even better.
We will address ourselves further to the problems of small business. I am impatient to see the transformed Industrial Development Bank come into operation, to provide one-stop banking services for small business.


An hon. Member:: It was promised last year.


Barnett Jerome Danson: Yes, and I am still impatient to see it.
We are to come to grips with welfare, and to fight in a meaningful way for strengthening the position of women in our society and economy. In that respect I was very impressed by the Law Reform Commission under Mr. Justice Patrick Hart, which recently addressed itself to the problems of the family courts.
There is just one thing I would like to suggest here to the Law Reform Commission and to legislators. This refers to the deserted partner in an estranged marriage, usually a woman, and often a mother. Under existing circumstances an award is made by the court, and all too frequently the other partner, usually the husband, does not meet his payments. Frequently when the wife tries to chase him he moves to another jurisdiction, sometimes to another province, sometimes to another country, and she is left in a particularly vulnerable position. She has to hire lawyers and search her husband out, and because she has not received her payments she may have to go to work. Thereafter she may have to leave that work to pursue the legal procedures in relation to her missing payments.
All this is terribly unfair and I would urge that we, together with the provinces, acting in concert right across Canada-so that we do not get into jurisdictional disputes, and so that the deserted wife or mother does not suffer from such jurisdictional disputes-stipulate that when a court award is made it is to be paid by an arm of the
The Address-Mr. Danson
Crown, so that payment is assured to the mother, the wife, or to the husband, as the case may be. Then it would be up to the Crown to make certain that the husband acts, that he pays his alimony, that he pays the award made into a Crown fund. If he is delinquent the authorities would go after him and, if they cannot find him, then the fund would pay.
If the report of the Law Reform Commission is correct, welfare payments in this one area alone amount to $1 million a day. Such a fund, if established, would reduce these welfare payments substantially. I do not say that a scheme like this would reduce them completely, because usually alimony payments are not enough and it is necessary for further assistance to be provided. But the soul destroying experience that these women have to go through in this process is one that should not apply in our society today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Barnett Jerome Danson: My wife told me to say that, Mr. Speaker. But it is something quite serious, and in a civilized and so-called advanced society we should not allow such a situation to exist when we can remedy it so easily. I urge this on the Law Reform Commission and on the ministers responsible for the legislation.
The Speech from the Throne goes on to mention improvements in the Canada Pension Plan in greater recognition of women's role in our society, and then goes into the whole question of science and technology. Mr. Speaker, all of these things may not appear to have very much to do with inflation itself, but they do help to make society more productive and thus, in my view, more competitive. As I see it, the only way we are really going to beat inflation is to produce, to be as productive as, or more productive than, our trading partners, to keep our productivity up and our costs down so that then we really will not have a problem with inflation.
The one matter that concerns most of us about the so-called oil crisis is the alternate uses of energy and the alternate sources of energy available to us. I am afraid that at least here in Canada we are becoming a little complacent about the oil shortage, because in effect we have got it made. This is one of our problems. We have got so much going for us, that all we need do is get used to living with the higher prices. Of course that is not nice, but we are able to adapt much more so than other countries.
We have other sources of energy that previously were not considered economic. The primary one in Canada is the Alberta tar sands. We knew these tar sands were there. We knew they were not economic to develop at existing world prices for oil, but regrettably they have now become economic for development.
While we have a short-term energy crisis we are aware, now more than ever before, that we have the ability to resolve it on a long-term basis and, I think, on a world scale. It requires only the will and the commitment of the resources to do so. The oil producing states have made us aware of the great opportunity Canada has to upgrade its economy with existing resources.

February 28, 1974
The Address-Mr. Danson
It is not generally realized that Canada possesses massive coal reserves, primarily in Alberta and British Columbia, which offer a further major energy source for us. The remoteness of these reserves from the major eastern industrial centres, the transportation costs, plus the access of western users to our oil and gas producing areas, have retarded the development of these coal reserves. The major exception is the coal being shipped in large volume to Japan. The coal which eastern Canadians do use is usually imported from the more accessible American coal fields in Pennsylvania and West Virginia. Certainly that applies in Ontario in respect to coal used by Ontario Hydro.
These coal reserves offer a major ace in the hole for Canada, and give western Canada still another resource on which it can build a significant industrial economy in the years to come. The coal, like western oil and gas, can be converted in the west, with its valuable by-products being shipped in a more sophisticated form to the rest of Canada and, when in long-term surplus, to the rest of the world, naturally at the higher prices that more refined processing brings with it.
This is one indication of how the current crisis has made us aware of the necessity to develop alternate energy sources. With coal, the supply and the technology are largely available to us. Other resources with equal or greater potential require new technology or further development of existing technology. Nuclear power is one of the most obvious, and even existing technology becomes more competitive with escalating oil prices. Canada has both the technology and the uranium reserves. I think we have been fortunate in "hanging tough" with the CANDU, which some people thought was a mistake. They thought we were on the wrong track with our heavy water process but it turns out that we seem to be right. Other countries are now looking at us with great respect and great interest.
There are other limitless renewable resources of energy. Solar energy potential is so great that the harnessing of only a miniscule amount dissipated daily can provide all the heat and power required for our needs. That is easy to say, but you have to harness it and store it.
The processing of human and animal waste is another source of an almost infinite nature. We thought this was sort of funny. As a matter of fact, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) has been saying it for some time. Pig farmers in England have been driving their cars on the methane gas produced from pig waste and from garbage. It is a serious source of energy. If any of you have heard of the explosion of buried garbage dumps, that is caused by the methane gas which is generated in the decaying process.


An hon. Member:: You sound like an expert in the field.


Barnett Jerome Danson: I am not an expert but I am interested and I would like to become expert. I think we should all address ourselves to these problems because they are rather important.
The capturing of tidal power and conventional hydro-electic power of a non-depleting nature has ecological

impact which makes it imperative that we approach it only with very special care and sensitivity. There are some great experts like the Rothchilds. I always say they have water on the brain because they always see things in terms of water resources and power. Also we see some bad ecological effects from rather good programs, such as the Aswan Dam. We should be able to avoid these in the future.
The options are many but the task itself is massive. No one can say which is the best, the most economical, and the most environmentally desirable. One type may be best for Canada but not for other nations, and the reverse is also true. The developing nations' needs and technology may require different responses than those of the industrial nations.
Today I was at lunch at the home of the Indian High Commissioner and was interested to meet a young commercial attache who told me that in India, where they have a very serious energy problem-not the result of luxury as only 8 per cent of their gas goes into cars and trucks, some going to make simple things like kerosene which the ordinary person in India uses for cooking, the remainder being used for industrial processes-the additional cost of energy for them is of great importance. But it is something which they must face and which I think we must face.
I also learned that they have massive coal reserves in India. That is something I never knew. I did not know I was going to be speaking tonight-although I knew I was going to speak in this debate-and I was going to get the figures. With a population of some 500 million in India, they have reserves which, this young attache says, could last them hundreds and hundreds of years. In any event, they appear to be massive. So you can use technology for gasification. Sometimes these embassy parties are not all bad. An attache from the South African embassy told me that a high percentage of their oil and gas is produced from coal. It is higher cost. They import some, but they still produce a major portion of their requirements from coal. So the technology is available around the world, if we could just harness and refine it.
The whole task must be approached with the same urgency and allocation of intellectual and material resources that produced the first atomic bomb and the space programs in the United States and the U.S.S.R. It is a major, massive commitment of resources on a greater scale than we have seen in the past. In this case, fortunately, it is for peaceful purposes and for all mankind. I think it offers a unique opportunity for international co-operation and sharing that has not heretofore been realistically existent. No time should be lost, I suggest, and I think Canada can play a significant role. Indeed, I think we can take the initiative, take the lead and act as the catalyst for this program in the world today. It does not matter who gets the credit, though we are in a good position as we are well respected in this field internationally. We have an energetic energy minister who can take the ball and run with it so I think we could really do a great service to mankind.
The project must include all interested nations, and particularly those with a resource potential or scientific capability. All technological input must be pooled and the
February 28, 1974

results acceptable to everyone. Needs, resources and potential techniques should be defined and the tasks allocated. It might be sub-divided with designated nations, or groupings of nations, forming the nucleus for the specialized research efforts and taking the lead. For instance, Canada might be the centre for all the nuclear development or perhaps the heavy water development, or we might take the lead in coal processing. The United States could take the lead in solar energy, as that is a massive one. The common market might join forces in the field of animal and human waste. Eastern European nations, the socialist states, if they come into it-and I think they should-could co-ordinate coal processing. The Scandinavian countries could take on hydro-electric development, the Soviet Union could perhaps take on natural gas, and Japan could take on oil technology. I think we could learn a great deal from them.
None of these nations would have a monopoly, nor would they necessarily provide the greatest input in the area of their responsibility. They would provide the administrative, co-ordinating and publishing functions of the efforts of scientists and engineers in all participating nations. Teams would be operating throughout the world and the scientific cross-pollination could result in major break-throughs and immense spin-offs in developments which are quite unpredictable at this time. For example, a great deal of our computer technology is a result of the requirements of the space program. There are sophisticated metallurgical processes as a result of this program. There is transistor technology too. Do hon. members remember about five years ago when we used to have tubes in our radios? We do not see those any more because we have transistors. This is part of the scientific, technological and industrial fallout from all of these programs. We can see it in our own country in programs like the CF-100 or the STOL aircraft. There is technological fallout and skills which come as a result of these programs, and people are using them on a much more refined basis than ever before.
It is even conceivable that the United Nations, through a new agency and a secretary general for energy, could be the catalyst for something like this. I think it deserves that sort of priority. The important thing is to have the will, to get the ball rolling on a scale and with a degree of urgency that has never before been conceived, with the participation and co-operation of all nations. It is rarely that a world crisis can benefit all people and all of the nations on this earth by the harnessing of the natural and human resources which are the heritage of everybody on earth. I would urge consideration of this suggestion by this government, by this country and by the entire world.
There are other things in the throne speech which give food for thought. One was the greater utilization and more refined use of manpower. I have been concerned that some 50 per cent of our work force is under the age of 25. This is the result of the baby boom. I do not know why we did not see them coming. I think they still took nine months in those years, but somehow we did not calculate their arrival. We saw them coming through our public schools and our high schools, through our universities and into our work force, but we were surprised every time. Members of parliament will be standing in this place in the year 2005 or 2015 saying "Who are all these people who are getting
The Address-Mr. Danson
their old age pensions?" They will be products of the baby boom that we started in our passion.


An hon. Member:: Speak for yourself!


Barnett Jerome Danson: Well, I have done pretty well and I have no complaints. This gives us the fastest growing labour force in the world, and this group will be with us, being absorbed into the work force, until 1980.
As a result of this there are many serious problems. Some of you may have read-certainly the people in the Toronto area will have,-about a 16 year old girl from Elliot Lake who hanged herself in a cell in Toronto's dirty old Don jail. Now you wonder what has happened to this girl (a) that she was put there, and (b) that she was so distraught that she hanged herself. You see the reaction of the judge, Judge Addison, a humane sort of person who is sick and sorry from what he sees has happened-not because of his fault-trying to allocate the blame, trying to be blamed. I could not help but wonder about her parents up in Elliot Lake. They had a little blond child-I do not know if she was blond-on their knees and I am sure there was a very proud father who wanted to see her through school and marriage and have grandchildren. Yet he probably saw her wracked with drugs through an over permissive society, and she just disappeared from the scene. She was a babysitter in Toronto and was accused of stealing Christmas gifts from the place where she was sitting. She had been in constant trouble. What sort of trauma affected this girl? What has happened to our society when we can let this sort of thing happen? I think this touched people in our area very deeply. On the surface, it appears that the girl stole some Christmas gifts. That was pretty mean. This was a 16 year old girl. What is happening in a society which can produce this sort of thing?
I suggest that we have not moved fast enough. I think we have done a great deal by introducing programs such as Opportunities for Youth, Local Initiatives, the Company of Young Canadians and other imaginative programs. We have let the kids do their own thing. Really, what they need desperately is some help in doing their own thing. I think some of the organized institutions in our society were pretty staid. They were not communicating with these kids. But they have learned and they have been shaken up. That is why certain agencies have become involved with our imaginative and bright youth in giving us great programs.
These kids grew up in a gentle and kind society which allowed them to do what they did. They had a secure base from which to work and they had time with which to work. I do not know if we are all the same, but when I was growing up you looked after yourself or you were not looked after. That was not so terrible. I was told that it was terrible. I heard the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) the other day talking, on a program, about the depression. Some people said the depression was terrible; others thought it was fun. I did not even know we were poor. I just thought that is how things were.
We have tried to channel the activities of these kids, but we have not done it quite correctly. I do not think we

February 28, 1974
The Address-Mr. Danson
should be ashamed, not at all. I think we have tried very hard. However, when we do these things I think we must use some sort of structure and guidance. Speaking as a father, of course, I have seen the necessity for this. Your little boys grow up and you think they are adults and know what they are doing, but there are times when you realize that they are not. Then you realize that all of us need both someone to talk to and guidance based on experience. That is why during the recess I talked about a national youth service, a voluntary service which might use, perhaps, the infrastructure of the armed services for organization, transportation and accommodation. I raised this matter because it has concerned me for some time. I am sure members have heard me speak about this before. The response to the idea was almost incredible.
People across the country heard me with interest. I have done surveys, both in my constituency and across the country, which show a very high rate of receptiveness to the idea. One survey I did involved the subject of compulsory service. I compiled some figures which I have before me tonight and to which I will refer in order to give some rough totals. Approximately 71 per cent of the people were in favour of a compulsory service. If you want to extrapolate and include those who had some reservations about a compulsory service, the figure for those in favour would be between 80 and 90 per cent of those surveyed. Of those in grades 1 to 8 who were surveyed, 76.9 per cent were in favour of a compulsory service. I am talking about a service you enter voluntarily. Of those who were in grades 9 to 13, 75.1 per cent were in favour. Of those who had technical college education, 78.4 were in favour. Of those with university education who were surveyed, 62.8 were in favour. If we look at the rest of the country we will find that the figures are amazingly consistent. The degree of receptiveness is a little higher in Quebec than the rest of the country. Generally, this idea was very well received.
Such a service would harness the energy of our youth, the enthusiasm of our youth and their desire to be of service to their country, and they would be doing something which would be extremely worth while. I like the voluntary aspect of the service, because I think it is very important for people to want to be in it. I would put a hooker in that relating to unemployment insurance, which I shall deal with if I have time. Fundamentally, the program should be voluntary. If you make the program totally compulsory you would need to bring to it all the apparatus of military discipline. I do not think that is so bad. I had five years of it and survived-some of it behind bars, true, but I survived. However, that sort of program is not really what we are looking for in this country today.
If the program is voluntary, if it is well accepted and well motivated, the greatest punishment would be if you were kicked out of the service. Because the service would be voluntary, people would want to perform well. The kids involved in the program could move to other parts of the country and mix with other socio-economic groups. There could be a great Anglophone and Francophone interchange. They could meet other elements in society which sometimes we do not meet.
Think of the jobs these kids could do. I have listed them. They could include the development and maintenance of national, provincial and municipal parks and recreation

areas; work with handicapped, aged and native peoples. On second thoughts I would not include the native peoples generally as I think native people should work for native peoples. They could work with peoples of other disadvantaged groups. They could be involved in environmental clean-ups, and food and erosion control. They could work on forest fire prevention and on cleaning up, and could build fire breaks and access roads. They could be involved in agriculture, particularly in harvesting. They could work in the development and staffing of youth hostels. I just do not see why these things cannot be done. One could go on and on with such a list.
The commitment should be a serious one, say for one year's service. If you do well, perhaps you could be allowed to stay another year. Maybe the service could develop an administration, infrastructure and leadership of its own. The armed forces could give assistance in transportation, accommodation, administration and that sort of thing. Then, if you are really good and you want to stick at it, you might be allowed to stay a third year and maybe serve overseas.
That is the sort of program which I think could give purpose to our youth and give guidance and some sort of structure to those who want it and need it. A program like this would make kids feel that they are paying their dues to the society which has reared and educated them. There could be educational benefits when they have finished. For instance, those benefits could involve an equivalent period, say, or even double that period, at some educational institution. The possibilities are limitless. The need is there. There is a gap in our society which we are just beginning to identify. We have been searching and trying to find solutions. I do not say there is an easy answer. I think if we are genuine, people will respond genuinely, as they have responded to the participatory programs we have had.
I admit that these programs did not all work out well. Some of them worked very well, some of them worked out badly and some were disastrous. The mistakes we made were not for lack of trying. I would rather see us making mistakes by trying to do something than not doing anything at all.
I suggest that this idea should be considered seriously. It requires a pilot program. It should not be a Mickey Mouse program. The concept should be on a scale sufficiently large to get the program going. Then it can grow and we can build on it. We should only build with people who want to be in the program. It will be slow going at first, and because of that more people will want to be in it. It will be something like the summer employment program which really involves cadet training for the Armed Forces.
I think the kids will want to take part in the program. I suggest we can do as much with the kids who would take part in this program as we have done with kids who have taken part in the cadet training program. The program or service would be useful for kids who have left high school and have not yet taken up their university or business life. They need a break, they need to become mature and to be exposed to other people in society. Perhaps they need to
February 28, 1974

The Address-Mr. Danson
get their hands dirty and to have their backs aching. They will not mind that. I am sure they will want the challenge. We have not been providing it for them. Mr. Speaker, I urge that my suggestions receive the most serious consideration by all members in the House. I see that it is ten o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It being ten o'clock, the House stands adjourned until eleven o'clock tomorrow morning.
At ten o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
63

Friday March 1, 1974