1974-03-11

Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege concerning certain comments of a discriminatory and defamatory nature made in this House Friday afternoon by the Postmaster General and repeated by him outside this House during the entire weekend. These comments appear on pages 332 and 333 of Hansard for March 8, 1974, in particular.
Because an hon. member on this side of the House dared to ask for explanations, for his own information, on certain dealings presumably to the advantage of the Quebec provincial Liberals, the minister took this to be an insult to French Canadians in Quebec.
Like has often been the case in the past, the minister did not hesitate, by referring to matters of racial prejudice, to generalize his statements in order to sully all the members of the official opposition, including the hon. members for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey), Joliette (Mr. La Salle), and Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner).
The minister conveniently forgot to mention the ardent campaign which the Liberal member for Matane fought in order to denigrate the Drapeau administration, to undermine the work of COJO authorities and to prevent the holding of the Olympic Games, and in the case of which no one, either on this side of the House or on the other side, had the slightest wish to pretend that the Liberals are against the French Canadians and always have the odd greenhorn to sully people, to parody the words used by the minister and reported on page 333 of Hansard.
Mr. Speaker, racism of whatever type has no place in this House or in this country and the comments of the Postmaster General are saturated with it.
In rising on a question of privilege as a member of the official opposition, I demand to the Postmaster General to have enough principles and courage to react as a gentleman and state that his comments were exaggerated. Otherwise, I will have no other choice than to believe, as millions of other Canadians, that elections will soon be called and that the narrow-mindedness so often shown by the minister will become for the Liberals a way to save their skin, as they think.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: As the House knows, when a member is involved in a question of privilege, he has the opportunity, if he wishes so, to answer briefly, to enable the Chair to determine whether there is a prima facie case of privilege.
I doubt whether the right to answer can be assumed by another member on behalf of the one now involved. Moreover, I think that the Postmaster General is in the House.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that my remarks may have caused a certain anxiety to the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner). If he has personal recriminations against Mr. Desrochers or if he has some evidence against that man to support the charges of the member for High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Jelinek) which I believe to be baseless, he should state them and they would be considered.
However, I think I know why he may have grievances against that man and I think that the hon. member's feelings ought not to prevail in a matter as important as the Olympic Games. I hope the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) will consider my recommendation and appoint someone to talk on behalf of his party concerning the Olympics, someone who has more common sense than-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

['This notice of motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the House, pursuant to Standing Order 21(2).\nMarch 11, 1974']
Mr. Speaker:: Presenting reports from standing and special committees. Motions. Introduction of bills.


Mr. Haliburton:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the Chair, but when you called motions you proceeded so rapidly that I missed the opportunity to propose a motion I had prepared. I would hope we might revert to motions so I could do so.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's motion is a little late. However, if hon. members agree, certainly there will be no difficulty about reverting to motions to allow the hon. member to put his motion. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Charles E. Haliburton: Mr. Speaker, I thank you and hon. members.

March 11, 1974
Customs Act



Charles E. Haliburton: Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a motion of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. It is one which is indeed of urgent and pressing necessity in my area of this country. It arises as a result of the ICNAF agreement which was reached in July 1973 and which was thought by Nova Scotia fishermen to protect a defined area known as Brown's Bank from fishing during a defined time of the year. In the last few weeks United States fishermen have been fishing in that area during the restricted period. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay):
That this House direct the Secretary of State for External Affairs to promptly intervene with the United States government in order to request the immediate withdrawal of United States nationals fishing in the area of Brown's Bank, a protected area under the ICNAF agreement and, further, that this House direct the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry to convene within 24 hours to investigate fully the circumstances which have led to a situation where Canadian fishermen are the only group legally prohibited from fishing in an area lying within 200 miles of our coastline.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT
Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-7, to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Bank Act and to repeal an Act to amend an Act to amend the Combines Investigation Act and Criminal Code.


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

Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-9 intituled "An Act to amend the Yukon Act, the Northwest Territories Act and the Canada Elections Act".


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest that the numerous Public Bills standing in the name of private members be allowed to stand at this sitting. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
[Stage Direction]
REFERENCE TO STANDING COMMITTEE On the order: Government notices of motions:
March 8-The President of the Privy Council-That the Public Accounts for the years ending March 31, 1972 and March 31, 1973 and the reports of the Auditor General thereon, together with the evidence adduced by the committee while considering the said matters in previous sessions of Parliament, be referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Section 2 of Standing Order 21 this government notice of motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the House.


REFERENCE OF SYSTEM OF READJUSTING REPRESENTATION TO COMMITTEE ON PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS  CUSTOMS ACT EXTENSION OF JURISDICTION TO OUTER LIMITS OF TERRITORIAL SEA
Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister of National Revenue) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-8, to amend the Customs Act.


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

On the order: Government notices of motion: March 8, 1974-The President of the Privy Council moved:
That the system of readjusting representation in the House of Commons, including the method of determining the number of Members for each province established by section 51 of the British North America Act, be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
Mr. Speaker:: This notice of motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the House, pursuant to Standing Order 21(2).
March 11, 1974



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Last Thursday the Minister of Transport told the House that Canada does not have a real transport policy for the future and at the same time indicated he will seek the authority of cabinet to elaborate a new policy. Can the Prime Minister now tell the House if the Minister of Transport has in fact made proposals to cabinet for a new transportation policy? If so, is the cabinet presently discussing this matter and what are their feelings in this regard?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are discussing elements of a new transport policy. The minister is in British Columbia today discussing with the four western transport ministers various elements of that policy.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I thank the right hon. gentleman for his answer. Having regard to the fact the Minister of Transport stated on the same day that the federal government will try to build more railway cars to carry lumber, coal and western wheat, and as it now appears that the CPR and the CNR have refused a request by the federal government to construct and renovate some 4,000 boxcars, will the Prime Minister consider changing the transport policy and ordering the railways to comply with the directive of the federal government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not know on what rumour the hon. gentleman is basing his question. The least I can say about it is that he is badly informed.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I am basing my question in part on a report in today's issue of Le Devoir. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he agrees with the statement made by the minister that Canada has everything to have fun with in rail transportation but has no policy in this regard? Does he agree with that statement?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think this is a proper description of the opposition's situation.


ACTION TO PROVIDE FREIGHT CARS IN LIGHT OF POSITION OF RAILWAYS
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: In view of the statement made by the Minister of Transport in the House last week that the railways do not want to buy cars to carry wheat and "even if they were paid I doubt that they would do it", can the Prime Minister indicate to the House what action, if any, the government proposes to take with a view to seeing that railway cars are provided?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Leader of the Opposition will have gathered from my earlier answer to his colleague that the rumour was untrue
Oral Questions
and therefore, if things are being done, they will be announced in the proper manner.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Is it the view of the Prime Minister that a statement made in this House is simply a rumour-a statement by the Minister of Transport?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I was not referring to the statement by the minister. I was referring to the incident of the boxcars to which the Leader of the Opposition is obviously referring.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: My question related to the supplying of cars and to the statement by the minister in the House that the railways would not provide them and would not do so even if they were paid. In view of that statement by his own minister, I ask the right hon. gentleman whether any action is being taken by the government and, if so, what?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there is action being taken by the government. In answering the first question I said that the nature of this action will be announced. Elements of it are being discussed today with the four western transport ministers. I think that if they were not being discussed the opposition would accuse us of proceeding by confrontation and not by way of discussion.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There appears to be great interest in this matter and a number of members are seeking supplementaries. Perhaps we might try to complete the first round of questioning, after which I will see the hon. members for Vegreville, Saskatoon-Biggar, Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe and others.


INCOME TAX
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance based on the very striking increases in profits of corporations in this country, including those in the manufacturing and processing industries. Is it his intention to continue the income tax cut in favour of manufacturing and processing industries and, further, does he intend to continue the rapid write-off provision which he gave them last year?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: I shall be submitting an interim report by March 31, as I undertook to do, upon the preliminary effects, as seen at this stage, of the manufacturing and processing corporate tax cuts but will leave it to parliament to evaluate them. But I restate my intention, that I interpret the corporate tax cuts in the manufacturing and processing fields as medium and longterm structural changes meant to encourage increased capacity, meant to encourage, by way of that increased industrial capacity, more jobs. I am glad to say to the House, as I said the other day, that last year there were 110,000 new jobs in manufacturing, 8,000 more than in the six previous years put together.
350

March 11, 1974
Oral Questions


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, we will look at the report which the minister says he will table before the end of the month, but may I ask the minister what evidence he is gathering other than the self-serving and biased questionnaire which he sent to the corporations? What other independent survey had he made of the situation resulting from his immense tax concessions?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, that survey was designed by Statistics Canada without any input from myself. When I table that report I will not have seen it previously, and I have made it a point not to see it previously. But I think the questions in that questionnaire will bear scrutiny on any statistical basis that the hon. member wants to attach to them. I just ask the hon. member, when the survey is submitted, to look at the questions as they read and to judge the responses as they are.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I do not quite know how the Minister of Finance expects a firm to tell him that they did not benefit from these goodies, but we will certainly look at the questions and answers. May I ask this question of the minister. In view of the fact that the largest part of the tax loss to the Canadian people was in the fast writeoffs, about twice as large as from the tax cut, is the minister intending to continue these fast write-offs for equipment, which cost the taxpayer over half a billion dollars, and will he be prepared to have them reconsidered by parliament at the same time as the tax cut can be considered under a provision of the law?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, in calculating whatever the cost was to the Canadian people the hon. gentleman ought not only to take the gross effect of the cuts but should net it out with additional activity which brings in more tax and additional jobs which also bring in more tax. I think the hon. gentleman ought to consider as factual evidence the increase in jobs last year in the manufacturing and processing sectors, continuing into this year. There has also been a tremendous increase, some 46 per cent, in capital expenditure intentions. That was the purpose of the tax cuts, and-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Napier Turner: -the purpose in being fulfilled.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Gilles Caouette (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister of Transport is absent, I wish to put my question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Last week, representatives of the machinists unions of Montreal met the Minister of Transport concerning maintenance of future Boeing 727 in Winnipeg. Can the Prime

Minister say whether discussions have in fact taken place in this regard and, if so, what will be the answer of the cabinet?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as I had the opportunity of indicating a moment ago, the Minister of Transport is in British Columbia at the present time, where he will meet the ministers of transport of the four western provinces. He did not report to me the meetings mentioned by the hon. member, but I shall bring the matter to the attention of the excellent parliamentary secretary to the minister. He will surely take action.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to that of the hon. member for Central Nova. In view of the fact the Minister of Transport has admitted that past national transportation policy is worthy of criticism, and in view of the fact one of the most critical areas has been removal of rail passenger service in Newfoundland, would the Prime Minister consider in cabinet reinstating this very important service to Newfoundland?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I take it this is a representation to the minister and I will convey it to him on the hon. member's behalf.


POSSIBILITY OF AMENDMENTS TO NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION ACT AFFECTING PRINCIPLE OF COMPETITION
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the right hon. Prime Minister. Having regard to the statement made in the House last week by the Minister of Transport to the effect that in his opinion the fundamental principle of competition in working out an over-all and comprehensive Canadian national transportation policy was wrong, is it the intention of the government to bring forth amendments to the National Transportation Act since competition is the basic principle upon which that act is founded?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat what I said in answer to the first question this morning, that the minister is bringing elements of a review of that act before the cabinet. It is certain that the over-all philosophy of the act which he was criticizing, the National Transportation Act of some years ago as adopted by this parliament, is something which is not only being reviewed but being questioned certainly by many of the premiers of the western provinces. It is in response to this that the minister made his speech and in response to this that he is reviewing that act.
March 11, 1974


EMERGENCY PROGRAM TO PROVIDE RAILWAY CARS TO MOVE GRAIN TO MEET EXPORT COMMITMENTS
Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. In view of statements by the Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Wheat Board that our export position is in danger and that we may not be considered reliable suppliers because of the transportation situation, can the Prime Minister tell the House whether the minister or the Department of Transport has in hand an emergency program to supply the necessary transportation to move our grain to export?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As I tried to indicate in my previous answers, Mr. Speaker, the minister is bringing forth to cabinet certain proposals relating to railway cars, and I indicated that this would be announced in the proper way.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: In view of the fact the statement by the Minister of Transport did not really deal comprehensively with this matter, may we have some assurance that the minister will at an early date make a statement on motions indicating how he or his department is going to deal with this emergency situation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the minister dealt at some length with this matter just a few days ago. If the hon. member wants him to deal with other aspects I am sure there will be many other occasions to do so-at the time of consideration of his estimates, on opposition days, or at the time of the minister's own action or announcements in the days and weeks to come.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for St. John's East for a last supplementary question on this subject in view of the fact that we are still on the first round of questions. Following that, the Chair will see the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys.


STUDY BY TRANSPORT COMMISSION OF GROUND TRANSPORTATION IN NEWFOUNDLAND
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion in his capacity as Acting Minister of Transport. Has the study undertaken by the Canadian Transport Commission into ground transportation in Newfoundland been completed and, if so, when will the results of that study be released?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that it has been completed, but I will be more than happy to make inquiries for the hon. member. As I recall, at the time it was indicated it would be released as soon as possible after completion. I will get that information and pass it on to him as quickly as possible.
Oral Questions


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister. In light of the ever-increasing cost of living, can he advise what progress is being made by the board of directors of Canadian National Railways in regard to a much needed escalation of the rates of pension of retired CNR employees?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Here again, Mr. Speaker, I will have to take note of the question on behalf of the minister.


Robert Muir: In view of the fact that the right hon. gentleman, the leaders of other parties in the House and many other members have received representations from the Retired Railwaymen's Association of the CNR, and in view of the fact this matter was not on the agenda of the January and February meetings of the CNR, will the Prime Minister take a personal interest in the matter and ascertain just how soon these much needed increases will be forthcoming?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will make sure that these representations are brought to the attention of the minister, Mr. Speaker.


TRANSPORT
Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that apple producers in British Columbia are having to divert good, fresh marketable apples to processors at less money because of the lack of rail cars to transport them to market, what does the government intend to do about this matter of vital concern to the B.C. economy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated a moment ago, the minister expects to make a statement fairly soon on the question of cars, boxcars.


George H. Whittaker: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Transport but as he is not here I shall direct it to the Prime Minister. Is the Minister of Transport, when he introduces his new transport policy to overcome his stated lack of a transport policy, going to request the railways to pay heed to the needs of the apple producers of British Columbia?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am sure these representations will be very much foremost in his mind.
352

March 11, 1974
Oral Questions


VARIATION IN GROSS TRUCK WEIGHT REGULATIONS IN WESTERN PROVINCES-ACTION TO ACHIEVE UNIFORMITY
Mr. Ed Nelson (Burnaby-Seymour):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport I should like to try the parliamentary secretary. In view of the inconvenience and cost imposed on trucking firms by variations in interprovincial gross vehicle weight regulations and in view of the concern of the four western provinces about this matter, what steps is the Minister of Transport taking to establish higher and more uniform gross vehicle weights across the prairie provinces?


Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: This is being looked into, Mr. Speaker. The minister also met with the trucking representatives and we also are waiting for a report from them at the present time.


Nels Edwin Nelson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether discussion of this matter is taking place with the provincial ministers of highways?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I cannot speak for the minister on that particular subject, Mr. Speaker, but I presume this will be one of the topics.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Noting that Domtar Limited of Montreal will increase its prices of lumber products by $30 to $35 effective April 1, has the minister conducted a study or monitored these price increases in lumber and related industries to ensure that these commodity increases are not disruptive in view of what was indicated in the throne speech and the Prime Minister's statement that action would be taken as in the case of oil.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I think this is a matter which would fall more particularly under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.


William Gordon Ritchie: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct the question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Has he carried out any study of increased prices in the lumber industry?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, we have been monitoring the situation very closely. From a high in April, I believe, of last year there has been a 30 per cent reduction as at the end of January. There has been a slight increase of as high as 15 per cent during the month of February, but my information is we can expect declining prices so far as lumber is concerned for the rest of the year.


INCREASE IN WHOLESALE PRICE INDEX-POSSIBILITY OF CONTROLS ON COMMODITY PRICES
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question originally was for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs but he has already indicated this type of question, which I had assumed would come under Consumer and Corporate Affairs, should go to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I therefore direct it to that minister. With the wholesale price index having increased by 3.4 per cent in January and by 27 per cent in the past year and with textile products, for example, up 5.5 per cent in one month and wood products up 3.2 per cent, is the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I assume the hon. member is now coming to his question.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Your assumption is correct, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister contemplating placing controls on any of these commodities or on any other commodities?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has referred to a number of products which are imported into the country and has referred specifically to textiles. Clearly a policy of import controls would not in any way assist the prices of those products as their price is affected by the world supply and demand situation. On the export side, we have looked at this very closely and in my view export controls would be counter-productive. They would have the effect of slowing down the kind of increases in supply we are anxious to see in order to bring about a better balance in supply and demand.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I wonder whether the minister could state simply whether he plans any controls over any commodity at the present time?


Alastair William Gillespie: No, Mr. Speaker.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will be recognized for a last supplementary and then I will see the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: My question is again directed to the same minister, Mr. Speaker. With the purchasing power of the average worker having fallen by $5 a week and real wages having gone down by 2 per cent during the year, while corporate profits after taxes on a real basis went up 35 per cent, can the minister explain to the House who he feels had a very good year in 1973?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.
March 11, 1974


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. In light of the fact that 75 per cent of all family maintenance orders made by Canadian family courts against deserting husbands are defaulted, and in light of the fact these defaults cost Canadian taxpayers $365 million annually, does the minister intend to adopt through legislation the recommendation of the Law Reform Commission which would give family courts an investigative and enforcement apparatus to track down elusive fathers, thereby assuring compliance with any maintenance order issued?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a recommendation from the report of the Law Reform Commission, but as stated in the report, however, it is a matter of mostly provincial jurisdiction which will surely be discussed with the provinces when we will have the opportunity to meet on this question.


MANPOWER
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact northern Ontario has had the highest summer unemployment rate in Ontario for the past four years, and in view of the fact the 1973 manpower job market report for northern Ontario predicts high unemployment for young people this summer, can the minister explain why the budget for the Opportunities for Youth program for the Sudbury manpower area has been cut by 33 per cent whereas the allocation for the rest of Ontario has been reduced by only 14 per cent?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would hope we would not become involved from day to day during the question period with the budgets or details of every constituency in relation to the Opportunities for Youth Program. This might involve us in complications and difficulties. The minister might be allowed to reply briefly to the hon. member's question, after which we will go to the next question.


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I repeat my answer that the final sub-provincial allocations have not yet been struck.
Oral Questions ENERGY


POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHMENT OF OIL MARKETING AGENCY AS WELL AS NATIONAL PETROLEUM COMPANY
Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In light of last week's meeting between the Prime Minister and the premiers of Alberta and Saskatchewan, in addition to the establishment of a national petroleum company is the government also considering the establishment of an oil marketing or petroleum marketing agency?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, a national oil and gas marketing board is one of the mechanisms by which national prices for these two commodities could be established in Canada. This is very much under discussion at the moment.


FISHERIES
Charles E. Haliburton: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Because of the agreement reached at the ICNAF conference last July it was understood that there was international agreement to protect haddock, our most valuable groundfish species, during the spawning season, and since contrary to that agreement hundreds of thousands of pounds it is reported, have been taken in the past two weeks by American fishermen from the restricted area, undoubtedly setting back the rebuilding of stocks and conservation for years, what action has the minister taken or what action will he take in order to see that American fishermen are restricted and pulled out of that area?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: It will be our purpose to see that all these international agreements are observed, Mr. Speaker.


OBSERVANCE BY OTHER NATIONS OF ICNAF AGREEMENT CURTAILING FISHING OPERATIONS ON GEORGES AND BROWN'S BANKS
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the closed seasons listed on page 4 of the government's order in council of January 15, 1974, would the minister inform the House if ships of all nations are abiding by the ICNAF regulation by curtailing fishing operations on Georges and Brown's Banks, or does the prohibition of fishing operations only apply to Canadian fishermen?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, the information I have is that all nations other than the United States are adhering very closely to the regulations.

March 11, 1974
Oral Questions


Charles E. Haliburton: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister of Fisheries or the Secretary of State for External Affairs be kind enough to tell us whether in fact there is in existence at the moment an international agreement with regard to the haddock fishery?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, there is the undertaking which was entered into at the last ICNAF conference involving all 16 nations that fish in the North Atlantic.


PENSIONS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the minister's commitment made in the House last August and confirmed last month in Edmonton that he would appoint a commissioner to go into all aspects of railway pensions, including the position of those already retired from all railway lines in Canada, can he say when that commissioner will be appointed?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I do not recall my precise wording. I do recall having stated to the parties themselves that we had under serious consideration the appointment of a commissioner if this type of arrangement could not be arrived at satisfactorily by the parties themselves. I would advise the hon. member, who I know has a great interest in the matter, that we would be prepared to give serious consideration to such action but we are canvassing the matter with the parties to see whether this could not be accomplished in this way.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the minister endeavour to bring this matter to a conclusion and make a statement to the House on it within a few days?


John Carr Munro: I have some information that I am checking now. I do not want to deal with the matter in the House at this time because I am not that sure of the accuracy of the information, but I think there may be significant moves afoot right now in this direction. I should like to check it out and I will advise the hon. member.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
In view of the bloody incident which took place this weekend at the Saholniki Park Arena in Moscow, when 14 and 15 year-old hockey players from Verdun, in the prov-

ince of Quebec, were brutally assaulted and seriously wounded by some Soviet "Midgets" during a fight without equal in the history of hockey, does the minister intend to send a protest to the embassy of the U.S.S.R. and demand compensation for these acts of barbarism?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I would hesitate to give that undertaking, but I will certainly look into the circumstances. I am sure the Soviet government itself had hoped that these games would promote international good will.


Claude Wagner: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it the intention of the minister to request a complete report on this incident from the Canadian embassy in Moscow, and would he assure the House that it will be made public as soon as it is received?


Mitchell William Sharp: Certainly there will be inquiries. I could not undertake to make the report public, but I hope I will be able to give an explanation if one is provided to me.



FINANCE


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the minister's frequent statements regarding the close inter-relationship between interest rates in Canada and those in the United States, has he been in touch with the Canadian chartered banks recently to suggest to them strongly that they follow the example of American chartered banks, which have made several reductions in their prime rates in the past few weeks, as a means of lowering the cost of borrowing to Canadians and helping to bring the Canadian dollar back to par with the U.S. dollar?


Hon.   John. N. Turner@Minister of Finance: Mr. Speaker, one of the main factors in the differential between short term rates in the United States and Canada at the moment is the difference between the economic cycles in the United States and Canada. We are in a stronger cycle than is the United States. I am watching the movement of interest rates, as is the governor of the Bank of Canada, with a view to the movement of the exchange rate on the one hand and the increasing money supply on the other.


George Harris Hees: Would the minister and his colleagues please get on their bicycles and pedal a hell of a lot faster than they have been doing recently?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is a representation.
March 11, 1974



SOCIAL SECURITY


Gilles Caouette: I would like to put a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
A recent press release reported an increase in old age pensions. This time has the minister taken any steps to see that total benefit be paid directly to old people so as to avoid any possibility of provincial governments, Quebec especially, stealing the increase by reducing social welfare or still by raising rent in homes?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, recently I had the opportunity of raising that issue with my colleagues, my Quebec counterpart especially, and I hope that all interested parties will find the situation satisfactory in April.
Oral Questions HEALTH



ACHIEVEMENT OF PATIENT-DOCTOR RATIO OF SIX HUNDRED TO ONE-ADMISSION OF FOREIGN DOCTORS TO CANADA

Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact he has expressed the view that the ratio of patients to doctors should be 600 to one, and in view of the fact the throne speech contained no reference on that score, does he intend to move by legislative action or by regulation in order to achieve this desire of his, which I hope will not be achieved because I believe the ratio is a bit high?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I did not express the hope that the ratio be one to 600. I merely reported that among experts in the matter, in various countries, the ratio of one to 600 is considered reasonable.


Gilles Caouette: I should like to put a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
As this is another "as of April" provision, does the minister plan to adopt a formula guaranteeing the elderly an increase without having to spend time fighting about it with the provinces?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, it is not a question of "fighting" with the provinces. They manage housing for the elderly and are responsible for setting the rent. Representations must be made directly to the provinces, and pressures exerted upon them; I cannot dictate to them.



FINANCE


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact the minister failed in his speech the other day to go into the question of international monetary relations, the value of gold, the reform of the international monetary system and, may I say, the change of policy with regard to the value of the Canadian dollar, would the minister now consider making a statement in the House and so bringing the House into his confidence on what is happening with the Canadian dollar, thus avoiding some of the questions that have been put this morning?
Canada's objective has not been set definitely. The matter will be discussed with the provinces since they are the ones that will have final say in the matter when deciding on the number of doctors each province wants under its jurisdiction in relation to its population.


Stanley James Korchinski: In view of the fact medical care insurance is available to all Canadians, is he considering consulting the Minister of Manpower and Immigration regarding the withholding of applications to come to Canada that have been made by foreign doctors in order that the ratio that he himself has established may be maintained?


Marc Lalonde: I am afraid the hon. member did not understand my first answer. This ratio is not one that I established personally or that is established for Canada, it is merely a ratio generally recognized.
As for consultation with my colleague, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, I say once again that it is quite clear that no legislation can be introduced in this respect unless the provinces take a decision in the allocation of a certain number of doctors under their jurisdiction.



NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD

John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the hon. member. I found that in the 30 minutes I wanted to do justice to a few of the domestic issues.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: A few political ones.


John Napier Turner: Perhaps on another occasion we could have a discussion about the international situation, something I have been thinking about.



INQUIRY AS TO APPOINTMENT OF AD HOC MEMBERS- INCLUSION OF INDIANS

Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Solicitor General. Inasmuch as the National Parole Board has now been revitalized and increased in stature, can the minister tell the House when he will be able to make the announcement about the appointment of the ten ad hoc members which was authorized by parliament at the last session, and will there be

March 11, 1974
Oral Questions
included in that ad hoc membership a couple of people of native Indian origin?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I have been interviewing potential candidates for the last few weeks and I hope to make the appointments shortly. Among those I am interviewing are several native people.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I have a short supplementary. Would the minister like to take the same enlightened approach he took in regard to the Chairman of the National Parole Board and apply it to the Commissioner of Penitentiaries?



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the minister's announcement at the Western Economic Opportunities Conference that decentralization of his department would be accomplished by switching the ratio of 70 per cent in Ottawa and 30 per cent in the field to the exact reverse, why is this program behind schedule and what is the minister doing about the hemorrhage of senior staff to other departments?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I could answer that question fully within the time constraint you obviously would impose. I can say that decentralization is moving ahead. Quite a few people are in the field and most of the senior positions have been filled. I will be very glad subsequently to answer any other question the hon. member may have, perhaps in committee or elsewhere.


Douglas Roche: How does the minister propose to have effective decentralization of the decision-making process without dislocating the lives of many career civil servants who live in Ottawa and without at the same time duplicating and adding staff in the field?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That appears to be argument. Perhaps the minister and the hon. member might get together and continue the debate some other time, possibly after the question period.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I should like to know whether the minister is prepared to say if a second investigation is going on in his department or CIDA into unauthorized disclosure of classified information?


Mitchell William Sharp: Only in the most general way, Mr. Speaker. There is no specific suspect in mind.


Donald W. Munro: Will the minister then say that he is satisfied that the resignation recently accepted puts an end to unauthorized disclosures which eventually turn up in the House?


Mitchell William Sharp: 

AGRICULTURE


Mr. Jack Cullen (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, may I compliment you on giving priority to backbenchers today. The calibre of questions is definitely on the rise.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: It was until now.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: My question is for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the serious difficulties being faced by Canadian cattlemen, costing them thousands of dollars on a daily basis, is the minister or the Minister of Finance prepared to make some announcement within the next few days on what is going to be done in the short term and long term to cope with this problem?


An hon. Member:: A good question.


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, as I said last Friday, I believe, several suggestions are being put forward and we are considering those. What solutions we will come up with to aid these people in the plight in which they find themselves at this time I am not prepared to say at the moment because we are still considering them.



REQUEST FOR MORE FUNDS FOR MEDICAL RESEARCH

Mr. Trevor Morgan (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the deficiency in funds provided by the government for medical research in Canada, which will result in the stopping of many necessary research projects and stop very intelligent young doctors going into the research field, is there any hope at all that the minister will reconsider his position and grant more money for this necessary medical research?

March 11, 1974


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, first of all the Medical Research Council has been awarded much more money than last year. But then, funds allotted to medical research will always be inadequate. Third, I do not agree with the hon. member that many research projects will be stopped. This is not the information I have on that matter.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Agriculture is perhaps in a similar vein to the one put by the hon. member for Sarnia-Lamb-ton. In view of the fact that 90 per cent of the increase of $1.4 billion in farm income from 1972 to 1973 was received by the wheat and grain producers of Canada and approximately only 7 per cent was received by the beef, hog and milk producers, what immediate, concrete proposals and incentives does the government intend to undertake to ensure that these producers remain in these types of farming and do not take off, if the minister will pardon a pun, for greener fields?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we outlined some of the proposals in the throne speech and we hope to be initiating some of them with the farmers and my provincial counterparts as soon as we can. How soon that will be I am not prepared to say at this time. I realize, as does the hon. member, it is most important that some incentive and guarantee be provided to keep these people in production. I am not 100 per cent sure of his figures but I do know these people must have a decent return or they are not going to stay in business.



REQUEST FOR DEFICIENCY PAYMENT FOR BEEF PRODUCERS RATHER THAN HIGH TARIFFS

Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture follows the same vein. In view of the fact the western cattle industry would be in a very detrimental position if the government introduced a program of high tariffs related to the movement of beef into the American market or vice versa, can the minister assure the House that in trying to resolve this question the government will stand by the principle of free trade and in fact bring in some program of temporary deficiency payments?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member's colleague asked the same question last week. I said we were considering many different proposals and that is one we are considering. I am also prepared to visit my counterpart in the United States and discuss the quota problem, the tariff position and also the DES problem.
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster and then call orders of the day.



HARBOURS


Mr. Tom Bell (Saint John-Lancaster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Minister of Transport. In view of the disastrous $3 million fire on the wharves at the port of Saint John over the weekend, would the acting minister give an assurance that there will be a full survey of the losses and as soon as possible a statement of the government's intentions to replace the losses?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I think the answer would be yes to both questions. Obviously all of us regret the fire. I was advised this morning that the survey to which the hon. member referred has begun. As soon as there is anything to report both as to the problem and the interim solution, I will be glad to pass it on, or the Minister of Transport will.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for the Yukon rises on a point of order.


Mr. Nielsen:: Mr. Speaker, since the President of the Privy Council has resisted the blandishment of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development with respect to the introduction of the bill to amend the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1965, standing in his name on today's order paper, I wonder if he would consider by unanimous consent reverting to the introduction of bills for the purpose of introducing the bill standing in my name on page 10 of the order paper which deals with the same subject matter and probably in precisely the same terms.


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, I will be giving first reading to the bill that was stood today very shortly, so that my hon. friends will have a chance to support it.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council rises on a point of order.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, this is the last day of the throne speech debate and there are a large number of members who want to contribute to the debate. There have been discussions among the parties and perhaps it might be agreed that we limit the first speech by the representative of each party to 20 minutes and all the rest of the speeches to be made
358

March 11, 1974
The Address-Mr. Gillespie
today to 15 minutes. If that is agreeable, perhaps we could make that an order of the House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we agree to this. I think it was also part of the understanding that overtime would be taboo.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed, including the taboo?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, March 8, 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.
Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I join with other members in welcoming the Governor General and his lady to Rideau Hall. I also congratulate the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Stollery) and the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Pelletier) for so eloquently moving and seconding the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. By so doing they demonstrated the good fortune of their own constituents and of the Liberal Party.
In the time allotted to me I shall talk about some initiatives taken or soon to be taken by the government to further assist Canada's industrial development.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, a great deal has happened since we met to debate the last Speech from the Throne. Canada has joined 101 other trading nations through the Tokyo round of multilateral trade negotiations in seeking to further liberalize world trade.
You will recall the industrial development policy framework that I have spoken about on numerous occasions. It involves objectives, a coherent set of industrial policies, and particularly strategies for particular industries. I think that during the course of this past year we have made substantial progress in the development of a coherent set of industrial policies and in formulating particular industrial strategies for particular industrial sectors. I think that as a result we have helped to build a stronger industrial base, and a stronger industrial base for Canada in the years ahead.
The House has also passed the Foreign Investment Review Act which, after its impending proclamation-I emphasize that proclamation is impending-will ensure by law that future foreign investment is to Canada's significant benefit. It will give to Canadians greater control over their own economic future.
Hon. members are aware of the important role that the Export Development Corporation has played and will play in providing competitive financing to enable the export of

Canadian capital goods and related services to take place. They should also be aware of the direct benefits this brings to Canadians through the development of technology and the direct or indirect assistance to hundreds, indeed thousands, of Canadian small businesses. Hon. members will recall that last April the House passed an interim bill raising the lending ceiling for long-term financing by the Export Development Corporation to $1.5 billion. At that time I referred to the preparation of a more comprehensive bill. The forthcoming bill should provide ceilings sufficient for the corporation to operate for a number of years into the future. I look forward to speaking on and elaborating this topic during the second reading debate.
Small business is vital to our future industrial development and economic prosperity. It, too, will be greatly assisted by the establishment of the independent Crown corporation to be called the Federal Business Development Bank, as outlined in the proposals I made to the House last July. By building on the strengths of the old Industrial Development Bank and our highly successful counselling assistance to small enterprises program, the FBDB will be designed to meet the three greatest needs of small business, namely, access to expanded and more flexible financing, management counselling and training, and information on how to take advantage of other programs and services. The enabling legislation will be introduced this session.
As a result of initiatives taken by the federal government and the Western Economic Opportunities Conference, we are working in close co-operation with the provincial governments involved to make possible the greater industrialization of western Canada by taking greater advantage of its tremendous wealth of natural resources.
We have made progress in other areas. For instance, my department has decentralized and strengthened its regional offices in order to bring our services closer to businessmen. We are moving as well into the future through the introduction of the metric system. I shall be introducing a joint resolution in both Houses of Parliament during the preserit session to seek approval of a time table for Canada's conversion to the metric system.
Today, Mr. Speaker, I should like to concentrate my remarks on the further upgrading of Canada's resources in Canada prior to export. Since confederation, Canadian governments have wrestled with the problem of how to maxirnize Canada's benefits from our abundance of natural resources. It has always been generally agreed that our economic returns would be higher if we processed more of our resources here at home. There has been agreement, Mr. Speaker, but not a lot of action.
Since confederation, Canada, essentially, has followed some form of John A. Macdonald's old national policy. It was, essentially, a high tariff policy, building a wall behind which Canada's infant manufacturing industries could be protected from the competition of their southern competitors.
The old national policy worked reasonably well for the first 50 years. Increasingly, however, if we look back over the past 50 years it will be seen that Liberals were becoming apprehensive about the effects of protective tariffs on the efficiency and entrepreneurship of Canada's manufac-
March 11, 1974

turing industry. Obviously, a national policy based on a highly protected Canadian market would not, by itself, bring about any significant change in the degree of processing of our own national resources. Our market was too small then; it is still too small today. Canada, as you know, is a major industrial country, but we have the smallest market of any industrialized nation.
The other side of the coin is that the other major industrial nations-Japan, the European nations particularly, and to an increasing degree, the United States-have depended to an ever greater extent on increasing quantities of raw materials which they have had to import to fuel their industries. They provide access to supplies of raw materials like Canada's at zero or near zero tariff levels. But they, too, have maintained a protective tariff system on their manufactured products, products that mean jobs and need skills. In fact, the greater the degree of processing, the higher is the domestic tariff on imported products. That is the situation we face now as a competing, industrialized nation.
Of course, another thing happened in the past 50 years which did not help to stimulate the upgrading of Canadian resources in Canada. I refer to the near tidal wave, not of foreign investment per se as foreign investment, but of foreign investment which brought about foreign ownership and foreign control. The enormous increase in foreign control of our manufacturing industries and the even greater increase of foreign content with regard to some of our more important natural resource industries have had a serious effect.
One of the great ironies of Canadian history is that those policies which relied so heavily on tariffs to protect Canadian manufacturers against foreign competition failed utterly to protect Canada's manufacturing and secondary processing industries from foreign control. Indeed, those same policies encouraged the creation of branch plants and the takeover of existing Canadian enterprises. Yes, the almost complete laissez-faire approach to foreign investment effectively worked against upgrading of Canadian resources in Canada. Those who were exporting unprocessed raw materials to their affiliated companies and customers had a stake in maintaining the status quo.
As I have already said, Mr. Speaker, there is general agreement among Canadians that we should process more of our raw materials prior to export. However, there has not been a great deal more than that until quite recently. In the sense of policy initiatives and new measures to bring about the upgrading of Canadian resources, more has been done in this past year than in any year in the history of Canada. There was probably more done in the past year than in the last 50 put together.
Let me illustrate what I mean. I want to deal specifically with six major areas bearing upon this particular point. First, we introduced the corporate tax rate reductions for manufacturing and secondary processing to put Canadian industry on a fully competitive basis with the tax systems of competing countries and to provide an incentive to further processing in Canada. That was done about a year ago.
The Address-Mr. Gillespie
Second, we have taken the initiative in the current GATT negotiations to bring about common or zero tariffs in selected sectors. As I have often said in public forums, Canada will be seeking to eliminate, or at least significantly reduce, the bias which has promoted trade in raw materials and prevented the installation of world-scale, internationally competitive processing facilities in Canada. We have been encouraged by the fact that for the first time the sector approach will be included as a negotiating technique in the forthcoming negotiations. This will involve the negotiation of free or freer trade from the raw materials through to end products in industrial sectors consisting of closely related groups of products. For example, the zinc sector could be defined to include zinc ores and concentrates, zinc metal, alloys of zinc and zinc die castings. The pulp and paper sector could include wood pulp, newsprint, the bulk packaging papers and boards, fine papers and even printed matter in certain manufactures of paper. The successful use of the sector approach in these GATT negotiations would present many new opportunities to Canada.
Third, we have adopted an energy policy aimed at selfsufficiency for Canadians at prices below world prices. The question might be asked, why is this important to upgrading? I think there are two basic reasons why it is important.
First, upgrading is energy intensive. It is probably the most energy intensive of all our industries and the availability of relatively low cost energy will be enormously important in improving the comparative advantage of Canadian processing facilities and offsetting some of the comparative disadvantages that Canadian industries have to contend with today. I do not have to emphasize the harsh winters, long distances and high unit transportation costs.
The second reason why it is important is that oil and natural gas are feedstocks for the potentially very large industries of Canada. I am, of course, referring to the petrochemical industry, an industry which has been held back because historically feedstock costs to Canadian processors have been higher than feedstock costs which their competitors in the United States could obtain.
Hon. members are well aware that energy costs are moving upward much more dramatically in other industrialized countries. Canada has the opportunity to develop an energy policy which will support upgrading and which will not be neutralized by higher costs. Think about this for a moment. If Canadian industry, particularly the secondary processing industry, had to pay international prices, what would be the economic incentive to do the processing of, for example, Canadian ores in Canada rather than in Japan?
The fourth initiative I want to refer to is the Foreign Investment Review Act under which proposals for further processing our natural resources prior to export will be an important fact in assessing the whole question of significant benefit to Canada. It will be an important measure, an important lever in bringing about the further processing of our natural resources in Canada.
Fifth, we are actively supporting further processing through encouragement of research and development under our various support programs. They are consider-
27398-24J

March 11, 1974
The Address-Mr. Gillespie
able. Let me just run through them quickly. Under the PAIT program, we have been supporting the development of refining processes such as continuous copper smelting. We have been working with the province of Alberta and the private sector on new uses for sulphur through the Sulphur Utilization Development Institute. We have been working and supporting the wood products industry in a number of different ways. I will touch on only a few. For example, we have been participating in the development of new uses for poplar, a wood species which is at present under-utilized. We are also working with the Hardwood Plywood Association to develop thin veneer plywood for export.
We are participating with the government of British Columbia and the Council of Forest Industries in an overseas market development program which is in part aimed at promoting the upgrading of our lumber exports through the sale of housing components, particularly to the Japanese market. We are assisting in a number of projects aimed at encouraging further processing of grains and oilseeds and helping to finance a pilot project in Saskatchewan to develop the technology to produce protein, starch and oils from grains and oilseeds.
Sixth, we introduced amendments to the Export and Import Permits Act last week which can be used to bring about greater resource upgrading. However, I wish to emphasize that the policy of upgrading will be applied flexibly and selectively. Different commodities face different circumstances. There will be cases when it will still be sound economic sense to export some resources in a relatively unprocessed form, but where the upgrading of Canadian resources prior to export is or can be a sound and viable economic proposition, and we think there will be many cases, we will expect Canadian industry to seize the opportunities at its own initiative. It should not be necessary to resort to forceful or restrictive measures. There are, however, means at the disposal of the government to bring about the desired results in those cases where industry does not respond to the opportunities in the way we think it should. One such means, and I would like to strongly emphasize that this would be a measure of last resort, would be the imposition of export controls.
Hon. members are aware that the government intends to seek their approval of legislation to enable the government to introduce controls selectively on unprocessed Canadian resources. I refer, of course, to Bill C-4 which has been tabled for first reading.
I do not have the time to deal with what I consider to be some of the major opportunities in the petrochemical industry, opportunities which over the next few years, certainly by the end of this decade, should involve the investment of more than $1 billion. Here, the multiplier in terms of value added is very substantial. I hope to discuss these prospects with the government of Alberta later this week.
I have looked at the clock, Mr. Speaker, and I see that my time has just about expired. I thank the House for the opportunity which has been accorded me.


Mr. Frank Hamilton (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, first I should like to join with my colleagues in congratulating the new holder of the office of Governor General and his lady and bring them greetings from the citizens of Swift Current-Maple Creek. I also wish to pay my respects to the mover (Mr. Stollery) and seconder (Mr. Pelletier) of the address. They were paid a very great honour by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).
The Speech from the Throne is in very general terms and it indicates to me that the problems of western Canada still await a solution, that we are still awaiting some action. This is the second Speech from the Throne to which I have listened. Once again, the government is asking the people of this country to restrain their expenditure but at the same time we find that the government, in a year when inflation is running at some 10 per cent, is increasing its own expenditures by 20 per cent. So it seems the government does not really want to do anything about inflation. To increase expenditures by that dimension in an inflationary period makes no sense at all to me, and despite all the talk about inflation being a psychological problem I suspect it is more of a political one. All across the country we see a frightening picture of the declining value of money. Yet the federal budget this year contains provision for spending $1,000 for every man, woman and child in Canada.
Last year and again this year we have witnessed a horrible world scramble for food in which the rich eat and the poor go hungry. The wealth and industry of some countries will permit them to secure food. Possession of resources by many individuals will allow them economic advantages not possessed by most of their countrymen.
One of the worst features about inflation is that it diverts investment from production to speculation, particularly in commodities. This is natural, I suppose, since it reflects an attempt to neutralize the depreciation of the value of money. Already the traders of rich countries are contracting ahead for supplies and securing production franchises for the future. This is a whole new ball game for Canada. In the rich United States we see the sold-out sign on national stocks and reserves. This is angering the consumer sector which considers it has first call on these supplies. We may now face the truth. "Have" countries are to be blackmailed into reducing their standard of living to avoid violent retaliation from their trading partners. Events in the oil world clearly indicate what is possible from possessors of scarce resources, even those with wheat and rice producing lands.
It is obvious to most people that economic geography has been immeasurably more bountiful to Canada than to many other parts of the world. We occupy a commanding position in the world's agricultural arena, and our wallop as an agri-power surely offers us a golden opportunity to play a more decisive international role for peace and prosperity. The world protein revolution depends greatly on our production of foods and feeds. It is too far advanced to be stopped, but its acceleration has been supported by the bargain basis upon which our food products, particularly our grain, have been available, and I would guess that the revaluation of world oil prices is inviting a counter-revaluation of farm prices. This will not slow down the world protein revolution but it should bring an overdue
March 11, 1974

correction in terms of trade with all our customers. It should, also, reassert our economic bargaining power and remind the world how powerful a political weapon food can be.
The same ferment as is racking the Arab world is also increasing demand in the world's meat markets at a hectic pace, but here, as is not the case with oil, the shortage is real and we in Canada should be one of the suppliers of last resort.
Food prices are poised on the verge of another take-off. For example, the Italians, although drained of dollars by oil outrage, nevertheless bid the latest California tuna auction up by 25 per cent. China has been showing herself to be a most resolute and realistic customer for the proprietary products we have, asking no political favours and counting herself lucky to pay her money. The rest of the communist world, the Arab world and Japan have no choice but to follow, Japan particularly now that the threat of polluted waters is endangering her historic fish diet.
It seems to me that the Speech from the Throne was very specific about measures that will hurt us in western Canada but very general about the things that would help us. In Saskatchewan, for example, with no international airport and no harbour works, we often wonder what we do get from the Department of Transport. For years we have been asking for some assistance to be given to the port of Churchill, the only port in the prairie provinces. I should like to quote from a report indicating the savings that use of the port of Churchill brings to producers of grain in western Canada. Here is a table issued by the grain Commission for 1972-73 showing the average cost of moving a bushel of grain from a mid-prairie point, in this case, Scott, Saskatchewan, to Japan and Europe. The figures are as follows:
Via Pacific coast ports	53.4
Via St. Lawrence ports	56.9
Via Maritimes ports	70.1
Via Thunder Bay direct	49.1
Via Churchill	38.8
This represents a saving of more than 30 cents a bushel compared with the present cost of moving grain through Maritimes ports.
The history of federal government assistance to agriculture in western Canada is that it has tended to drive people from the land and to discourage new and young farmers from getting into the business of food production. As an example, the government's feed grain policy has resulted in more U.S. grain being imported, more U.S. cattle being imported, and empty feed lots in western Canada.
Our excessive inflation is the most worrisome aspect of the economy. It takes the ambition and starch out of everyone, and it is just fruitless for any businessman to really try.
One of the most important lessons to be learned from the history of agriculture is that no precise forecasts can be made, because the mood of mother nature is not constant. Thus, in any legislation which is proposed we should allow plenty of margin for error.
The Address-Mr. Frank Hamilton
The minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board has criticized some of my colleagues for attacking his LIFT program while at the same time taking part in it. The LIFT program was production control with a vengeance, Mr. Speaker. In order to get a quota to deliver wheat we were forced to join the LIFT program and leave our land idle.
One of the main reasons for lagging exports is that at the present time we have no ability in Canada to stockpile grain. All other bulk commodities can be stockpiled by the railways, such as coal, potash, ore, sulphur and so on. Blaming the farmers for not hauling grain to the country elevators is a real red herring.
I can quote the latest grain statistics showing that at the end of February our wheat supplies in commercial positions were 189.6 million bushels, while our overseas clearances of wheat up to the same time this year were only 184.5 million bushels. In other words, we have more supplies in commercial position right now than we exported in the first seven months of the crop year. Our grain industry is plagued with problems, many of them unsolved because of bad advice from experts who have never had to meet a payroll and have never missed a pay cheque.
I should like to mention some of the people at the other end of the spectrum, people who are practical and hard working and who can leave no room for error. I refer to the country grain buyers of western Canada. These people act as manager, secretary, janitor, bookkeeper, receptionist, adviser, weighmaster and inspector. These are the people who are really the key men in our great grain industry, an industry which this year will be bringing billions of dollars to the prairies.
The keystone of the country elevator operation is the mutual confidence that must exist in light of the reciprocity of interest between the producer and the elevator operator. In most businesses two signatures are required on a cheque to commit a company to pay money. Yet there are many country elevator operators who buy close to a million bushels of grain a year and write the cash tickets. I know of no other business where one signature commits a company to amounts such as this.
Country elevators have been declared by parliament to be works for the general advantage of Canada. Parliament has set out hours of work; they must be open at all reasonable hours. Yet grain buyers are still exempt from the hours of work limitations under the Canada Labour Code, and they work in dusty conditions that are often medically unacceptable. Right now we have only two companies whose country operations are affiliated to unions; the remaining six are not.
Grain buyers are required to work weekends, if necessary, for which they receive $5 for each boxcar loaded. They have to be able to identify the grain as there are many unlicensed varieties grown in western Canada. They must establish the grade, dockage and the weight. They must store the grain properly, cooper the grain car, load the car and do moisture tests. Yet we find that over 99 per cent of all the grain that is bought and graded by agreement is to the satisfaction of the company and the producer.

March 11, 1974
The Address-Mr. Frank Hamilton
Let me refer to the latest report of the Canadian Grain Commission. Under the heading "Producers' Complaints" the report states:
During 1971, the commission and the assistant commissioners investigated nine written complaints about producer transactions with operators of licensed primary elevators. In most cases, it was possible to arrange satisfactory settlements between the parties concerned.
Their workload is continually increasing and the requirement for protein tests at country elevators is only a short way down the road. Farm service supply needs are now a major item of paperwork. There has been a tremendous build up in the number of forms and paperwork to the point that, where the grain buyer used to be able to work seven hours and tidy up his paperwork in one hour, it now takes him at least four hours a day just to straighten out the forms and paperwork. These people certainly deserve our thanks.
We now have an economy operating on inflationary expectations, and I see nothing in the throne speech to break this situation. Government spending in Canada is approaching 40 per cent of our gross national product. In 1952 the figure was 21 per cent; in 1962 it was 31 per cent. Compared to other countries, government spending in 1972 in the United States was 32 per cent of the gross national product, in Britain 36 per cent, in France 37 per cent, in Germany 37 per cent and in Japan 17 per cent. I question whether we should by trying to lead the world in this kind of competition. In short, Canada has one of the most expensive and expansive bureaucracies in the world.
There has been a lot of mention made of ships' captains and seagulls in this debate. This government reminds me of a little group in a lifeboat who have lost control.
This is what a lot of my constituents see, Mr. Speaker. They see transportation needs increasing while the government watches our railroads decline. I could quote the latest Statistics Canada figures on railway carloadings, which indicate that the volume of freight loaded during the month of January, 1974, decreased by 2.7 per cent from the 1973 period. Similar decreases are occurring in the movement of coal, wheat, lumber and pulpwood, though there has been a great increase in the movement of potash. This would seem to give the lie to the story that because of bad snow conditions in western Canada the railways cannot move grain; all of our potash comes from western Canada.
My people see demand for dairy products increasing but the number of dairymen declining. Milk and butter production are going down. They see the need for red meat produced by farmers increasing. They see our feedlots empty, our livestock feeders going broke. The government is asking for more agricultural products; they will not get more by bidding less. I could go on and on. However, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) would say: "This is the Liberal way".
The election in Britain should serve to remind us that not so long ago the Canadian people told us that they wanted constructive action and not too many more words. They wanted the ship of state back on an even keel. This throne speech lacks what we all crave-a sense of unity and purpose.


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to join those who spoke before me in this debate in offering my respectful compliments to their Excellencies the Governor General and Mrs. Leger. I should also like to take this occasion to point out the excellent speeches made by the mover and the seconder of the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Stollery) and the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Pelletier). To both I wish great success and a bright parliamentary future.
Mr. Speaker, the building of the new Mirabel International Airport in Montreal and particularly the expropriation it required have given rise for some time to criticisms in certain quarters and I should like to take advantage of this debate to answer some of the questions raised regarding that expropriation, and explain the solutions this settlement has brought forward to deal with those different problems.
One should remember that Montreal is a turntable in the field of transportation not only in North America but all across the world. The ever increasing importance of air transport in the world has made it an absolute must for Montreal to have airport facilities allowing it to take up the challenge. The government of Canada, Mr. Speaker, also had to make sure that the new airport would not be stifled after a few years of operation by restrictions similar to those now experienced at Dorval and several airports in the world. And the only way to do this was to control future developments in the noise areas. So it was imperative to foresee those developments inconsistent with the operation of the airport, particularly housing.
After consultation with the provincial government at that time it was thus decided to expropriate 93,450 acres of a vast rural territory, 17,000 of which for the so-called operational area, and 76,450 in the peripheral area.
It should be immediately pointed out, Mr. Speaker, that only the residents of the operational area will end up moving, that is 157 now and no more than 40 others in 1988. So 197 moving out is not exactly the great disturbance of 1755 whatever some local agitators might say about it.
Moreover, and this is for the guidance of hon. members, in the other great airport we are going to build, that of Pickering, only people from the operational area were expropriated, a 19,000 acre area. In Pickering almost all the expropriated people will have to move. Other owners in the outlying area will not have to move since the province of Ontario agreed to legislate so as to control the present development rights on lots extending over an 80,000 acre area. On the other hand, as far as the Mirabel airport is concerned, the Quebec government of that time refused to co-operate along these lines.
According to a totally unfounded assertion that was deliberately spread in some circles, the Sainte-Scholas-tique citizens were unfairly compensated as compared with the Pickering citizens. I wish to say today that such an assertion is untrue and entirely without foundation. It is true that expropriation for the Mirabel airport took place in 1969, therefore under the previous legislation,
March 11, 1974

while that in Pickering took place in 1973 under the new legislation. Nevertheless, in both laws, the new one as well as the previous one, the sale value of expropriated property is used as the main compensation base and that takes into account the special value as well as the harm resulting from expropriations in the case of the owners. Both laws are based on the same principle of equity and justice, whether the expropriated people are from Pickering or from Mirabel.
The difference between the new 1973 legislation and the previous one, which goes a long way back, is in that the new law provides for a more flexible advisory mechanism, a more complicated and longer process as to the stages of the expropriations as a whole.
Now, even without any legal obligations, since expropriation in Mirabel have taken place under the former legislation, this government wanted to take present requirements into account. We decided that all Mirabel residents should benefit on a retroactive basis under the new legislation provisions like those who are expropriated from Pickering.
With this in mind, Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) and myself went to Mirabel and announced that an additional compensation of about $16 million would be paid to those who had been paid as well as to people who had not been paid yet. Here are these five benefits: first of all, $3,000 to be paid to every homeowner-resident on the date of expropriation, second, every homeowner will get a 5 per cent interest with arrears to July 1, 1969, and 6 per cent from that date up to 1970. In addition, expropriated people in both Mirabel and Pickering will be exempt from paying rent during a period of 23 months. As well, every homeowner-occupant in Mirabel on the date of expropriation will get a reimbursement allowance for the usual notarial fees that he had incurred for the purchase of a new house to replace the house that was expropriated. Fourth, in Mirabel, every homeowner who would have lost the advantage of a preferential interest rate will receive an equal compensation, provided his claim is justified. Fifth, every homeowner in Mirabel who had to leave within fewer than 90 days' notice will receive an additional compensation of 10 per cent.
Mr. Speaker, even after the government has announced all these advantages, which I believe are very generous and offered under no obligation, another unjustified charge was made that the government had not followed any criterion to proceed with the basis assessment of homeowners in Mirabel.
On the contrary, as soon as the expropriation process began, the government had called upon three of the largest assessment firms of the province of Quebec, that are both independent and specialized in this area, thus providing two major guarantees of competence and equity, both for the expropriated people and for the government.
I can assure the House that the work of these assessors was certainly not easy, especially since it involved a rural area where the real estate market was not very active.
Under these circumstances, the assessors, after a detailed study, decided that the most adequate and equitable assessment method would be that based on the physi-
The Address-Mr. Dube
cal value, which reflects the real value and involves the following calculations: (1) the value of the piece of land itself, established after consultation with agronomists with good knowledge of the area; (2) the depreciated replacement cost of the buildings; (3) as concerns the improvements made to the properties, they were all included and assessed on the basis of current prices; and (4) the compensation for damages included the removal expenses, the loss on machinery and stock, the costs incurred for conditioning specialized cultures, notarial fees, etc.
It is not a secret that in cases of expropriation, compensations are somewhat more generous than required in order to reduce the risk of injustices and errors, which are always possible in evaluations and other operations involving the human factor. We thought it better to err by giving too much rather than the opposite.
Mr. Speaker, we are very pleased by the fact that 89 per cent of the Mirabel claims have already been settled. Of a grand total of 3,126 cases, only 349 remain to be settled. To hasten the settling of the 349 remaining cases, we have accepted the request made by the three members of this area, the members for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes (Mr. Fox), Labelle (Mr. Dupras) and Terrebonne (Mr. Com-tois), and by the CIAC committee, a local committee, to establish a conciliation board formed of three men highly esteemed and very qualified residents of the area, Messrs. Lacharite, Faguy and Noel, all readily acceptable by the expropriated people and the government.
The first case analyzed by this board was settled in a few hours. With the express request of the CIAC, the board has begun the examination of a second case which took a long time, because the parties, especially the members of the CIAC, wanted to turn it into a typical case or, I should rather say a famous cause.
I must admit the three members of the conciliation board have displayed outstanding patience, hearing a great many witnesses, reports, experts and neighbours. Day after day, the CIAC members practically lived in the hearings room and analysed the matter from all angles and then some.
It is therefore at least surprising that in mid-February the CIAC members decided to deliver an ultimatum thus trying to get the conciliation board to publish a report immediately. Those same people who had brought forward so much evidence are now ordering the immediate release of a report.
As for ourselves, we are serenely awaiting the board's report. It will be our duty to correct any injustice to which it will give rise.
On the other hand, if the CIAC members keep on obstructing and prolonging the hearing of each case, we shall have to remind the expropriated that other avenues are open to them and could lead to solutions.
In other words, if the CIAC members delay the hearings unnecessarily, by producing numerous witnesses or through other even less democratic methods of obstruction we shall then advise the well-disposed expropriated either to negotiate directly with us or to bring their case to court, as they have the right to do.

March 11, 1974
The Address-Mr. Blackburn
Should the courts grant them more generous amounts than ours, we shall be pleased to pay them. Moreover, we shall pay their court and counsel fees.
Another exaggeration has been spread around by the CIAC and a few small politicians badly in need of desperate causes, namely that the government has played Santa Claus for people expropriated from Pickering but has been a miser for Mirabel residents.
These again are falsehoods which do not reflect great credit on the so-called statesmen who, at their best and in front of other people, claim to avow national unity.
Let us consider the facts: first of all, the total cost of the Pickering expropriation amounts to about $90 million, whereas the Mirabel expropriation is in the neighbourhood of $148 million.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry I have to interrupt the minister but his time under the rules has expired.


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of pleasure that I enter the throne speech debate. I should like to begin by extending my sincerest congratulations to both the mover (Mr. Stollery) and the seconder ((Mr. Pelletier) (Sherbrooke)) to the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. I should also like to extend my very best wishes to the new Governor General and Mrs. Leger.
As we know, the throne speech itself is not that important. What is important is the legislation that will flow from it. If this parliament is to survive its second session, that legislation must be in the best interests of the majority of Canadians. Though we are all vitally concerned about the energy crisis, the soaring cost of living, exorbitant residential mortgage rates and the tremendous cost of building lots across the country, my primary concerns in this address are manpower strategies and unemployment insurance. The Speech from the Throne stated:
Other measures will be taken to increase production and employment through providing workers with improved access to available jobs, and employers with improved access to Canada's manpower.
I am glad that the Department of Manpower and Immigration has finally decided to become an efficient manpower mechanism. It has taken nearly eight years and approximately $2.5 billion of the taxpayers' money even to reach inefficient levels of operation. Dr. W. T. Dymond, a former assistant deputy minister who helped set up the manpower department, stated in a paper dated December 28, 1972:
Although CMCs were contacted by 76 per cent of all job searchers, they only had an 11 per cent success ratio in finding jobs as compared to much higher ratios up to 27 per cent scored by such methods as checking with employers and friends and relatives.
If these statistics are accurate, and I assume they are considering their source, then Manpower has been in a deplorable mess over the last seven years. To reinforce my argument still further, I quote from another source which is just as reliable. In an article entitled "A Critical Look at Present and Future Social Security in Canada", printed in the Social Worker, Volume 41, No. 4, winter of 1973, Professor David P. Ross had this to say:
[Mr. Dubi.j
Manpower and employment services must be judged a failure when considered from the standpoint of the needs of those with low incomes.
I should emphasize here that Manpower's greatest caseload comes from low income job searchers. Canada Manpower Centres just cannot seem to attract skilled and semi-professional job searchers for some unaccountable reason. Professor Ross continued:
Job placement suffers from the fact that Manpower Centres are almost exclusively employer and demand oriented, and as such they have tended to be little more than job bulletin boards. The needs of the unemployed have been paid scant attention to, and the special employment needs of long-term social assistance recipients have been all but ignored.
These are the people who need assistance in re-entering the work force the very most, and yet that $2.5 billion has been wasted. In fact, with respect to retraining Professor Ross had this to say in the same article:
The federal adult retraining program has also had little success. The Economic Council of Canada concluded in a recent study that the average post-training income in earnings was in the vicinity of 5 per cent; this means that an individual with pre-training earnings of $2,000 per year could expect post-training earnings of $2,100. Not exactly a big push in the struggle to escape poverty. Moreover, the council conluded that the employability of the trainee was not noticeably enhanced: if you tended to be frequently unemployed before training, then you tended to be frequently unemployed after training.
Perhaps it is time to take a hard critical look at the entire Manpower retraining program, particularly in view of the fact that in my opinion it is far too classroom oriented. I would like to quote briefly from the eighth annual review of the Economic Council of Canada at page 104. It states:
There are, in fact, a number of advantages to training in industry relative to institutional training, of which a few will be described here. First, it seems clear that some degree of experience with the work environment is essential for almost all jobs; familiarity with the physical plant, materials, co-operating personnel, the institutional rules of the work place, and the discipline and regimen of the job is required for satisfactory performance. This can rarely be simulated adequately away from the work place. In the latter environment, moreover, the relevance of the instruction to the job is much more readily apparent, and this tends to make the trainee a more attentive student.
One can argue that Canada Manpower does in fact have on the job training, but I would like to point out that this program is both too small and not sufficiently structured and administered. 1 have become quite suspicious of some employers who may fire or lay off steady workers in order to hire manpower trainees, three-quarters of whose wages are paid for by the Canadian taxpayer. I am also convinced that this kind of training is only a temporary or make-work nature in order primarily to hold down the unemployment figures to lessen the embarrassment of the government.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure whether it is the wish of the House that we allow the hon. member to continue for a few minutes. If not, we will call it one o'clock. I believe the hon. member has gone about one minute after one o'clock which would leave him something like 14 minutes following resumption at two o'clock.
At one o'clock the House took recess.
March 11, 1974



COMMONS DEBATES AFTER RECESS

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 2 p.m.
['Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the House leaders will be meeting again on Wednesday.\nAt 9.46 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.', 'Tuesday, March 12, 1974']
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, before we recessed for lunch I was referring to Canada Manpower centres and I was levelling something of a barrage against the inefficiency of their operations across this country. I will continue now with my address.
Another negative aspect about the manpower centres' poor performance over the years is that it has been bad for morale among CMC employees who often feel a sense of helplessness and frustration. Indeed, as a result of a recent questionnaire sent out to manpower employees, it was found that a substantial percentage felt that, despite changes and so-called reforms within manpower operations, their work had not improved, nor had their services improved. Hardly a day goes by that I do not get a letter or telephone call from an unemployed constituent complaining that manpower "is doing nothing for me". This may be due to ignorance on the part of some job seekers or it may be an exaggeration, but the important thing is that the impression is left that manpower is somehow failing them. This feeling did not occur overnight; it has built up over the years. So, obviously, there is some truth to the allegation.
I also receive criticism from some employers who are hard pressed for employees, although some of these complaints come from employers who cannot or will not pay more than minimum wages. I will have something more to say on this point later, when I will make a positive suggestion for a solution to this one aspect of manpower's many problems.
One of the most demoralizing situations within many Canada Manpower centres is the heavy workload that counsellors must endure, particularly in the large metropolitan centres. As late as 1973, I am told on good authority, some counsellors were responsible for as many as 400 or 500 cases at a time. No wonder that in 1972 CMC placed only 11 per cent of those who sought employment. It is my understanding that this problem is being resolved, but many CMC personnel must still waste valuable time cutting their way through endless red tape instead of being able to devote more time to a person to person counselling relationship with employees and employers.
The constituency I have the honour to represent contains many tobacco and vegetable farmers. In recent years these rural employers have been finding it increasingly difficult to obtain sufficient numbers of workers and each spring I am deluged with complaints alleging inefficiency and indifference on the past of Canada Manpower centres. I know that it is difficult these days to attract people, particularly young people, to work on farms. Many farmers cannot compete with urban industries with respect to wages; working conditions on some farms leave much to be desired; and many young people just do not want to slug it out in the fields.
I am not, therefore, entirely blaming Canada Manpower centres for this shortage of labour, but farmers, who have enough worries to begin with, must be assured, before planting and harvesting, that they will have sufficient help. This means that if unemployment is down to about 3.5 per cent in southwestern Ontario, as it has been in
The Address-Mr. Blackburn
recent months, leaving mainly older people and those with very poor work records searching for work, there must be greater mobility during crisis periods, not just of bodies but of reliable help. If we must import farm workers, we must increase the quotas and at the same time ensure that these imported workers are not exploited by a few unscrupulous farmers who give all farmers a bad name.
I should like now to return to the whole question of institutional versus on-the-job training to which I alluded earlier when I argued against present methods and strategies. It is my opinion that there must be greater co-operation between industry and business on the one hand, and our school systems on the other. Industry must take a more responsible role in the training of its employees and schools must give up some of their control over the education of those students who are in the industrial and business streams in the various school systems. I see a very real need for establishing a new apprenticeship system involving the federal government through manpower and the provincial governments and local school boards. Admittedly, there is a constitutional problem here, but I am sure legal and jurisdictional obstacles could be overcome.
My argument is based on the premise that more students at the secondary school level should be screened into industrial, business and other vocational programs and fewer into the purely academic. I should state at this point that while some parents might object to this early streaming, I think in the long run our young people would be much happier, the cost of educating a large proportion of our young would be considerably less, and our students would be much better prepared to enter the work force. I should also emphasize at this point that I am not suggesting that such an apprenticeship program be a mechanism to reduce employment, as were the LIP and OFY Programs. It should not be a "make work" program. Quite the contrary, it should be a well structured and positive program to challenge our young people to learn important skills and trades for a labour market that needs them. Mechanics, machinists, tool and dye makers, various kinds of office skills, and commercial and business positions are in great demand.
What I propose is that after the age of about 15, those best suited for industrial work or secretarial and business occupations, spend half the school day or half the school week in a work-training situation, learning skills that are directly related to changing conditions in industry and business, not to jobs that may be obsolete or redundant in ten years' time. The trainees, of course, would not be thrown to the mercy of a tough boss whose only aim was to get as much sweat out of them at the lowest possible subsidized wages. Rather, all trainees would be under the umbrella of local boards of education and local manpower centres. Supervisors from both the local CMC and board of education would oversee the program. Employers would be subsidized to some extent but the emphasis would be placed on wages for services performed while the student was learning a skill. Apart from learning a useful skill or trade and earning an income at the same time he is attending school, the student would gain a greater sense of responsibility and achievement.

March 11, 1974
The Address-Mr. Blackburn
It is indeed, Mr. Speaker, a sad commentary on modern educational techniques in Canada today that so many of our young people have become so disillusioned, not only about work, but about life in general. I do not blame the schools alone, but certainly they must share in the blame. Far too many of our young people approach life with indifference and apathy, wandering in a society that on the one hand damns them for being cynical and lazy, but on the other, gives them so little incentive to be productive citizens. This holds true, of course, for older people in the work force, who have become the victims of job obsolescence without any meaningful alternatives except, to a considerable degree, equally obsolescent manpower retraining schemes, or even worse, a life ahead of jumping from one job to another and living on social assistance between jobs.
Another area where Canada Manpower could improve its operations is in the north. It is painfully obvious that there is a lack of firm policy with respect to settling the north as well as developing it with well-trained personnel who will remain in the more remote areas of Canada as well adjusted people.
There are horrendous implications as both highly skilled professionals as well as tradesmen and labourers prefer the amenities and advantages of working and living in southern cities because of their relative comfort and social and cultural diversities. Obviously, the native peoples of the north should be given preference for jobs if they want to accept the white man's socio-economic work ethic. But greater encouragement should also be given to people from southern communities as well. If Siberia can be developed, then Canada's north can be, too. I am not here referring to slave labour camps, either.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that in order to encourage Canadians to move north, provided there is suitable employment-and here we should be very careful to see there is guaranteed employment-certain steps should be taken. Not only should salaries and wages be higher, but these added benefits should not be wiped out by higher living costs so that in reality the northern worker is no better off materially than he would be if he remained in southern Canada. This, of course, is the major problem today. People move north because they are attracted by higher wage offers, and when they get there they find out that a loaf of bread or a quart of milk is five cents, ten cents or twelve cents higher than it is at home. Moreover, cheaper housing should be made available. No longer should there be paid holidays spaced throughout the year, including travelling expenses to southern Canada. I would also suggest higher income tax exemptions for those working in the remote areas of northern Canada.
I now come to one aspect relating to Canada Manpower that I find serious and unacceptable, in fact it is an insult to Canada Manpower itself. I am referring to the practice of government departments hiring what is termed "casuals" through private placement agencies, not through their own hiring agency, Canada Manpower. On any given day it is estimated there are 1,500 persons working as casuals in various government offices. The private placement agencies charge anything from 33'A per cent to 50 per cent, based either on the first day's salary or on a continuing basis, as long as the casual job exists. Mr. Speaker, some of 
these so-called casuals work for months. It is reported that one actually worked for two years and was still classified as casual. The average duration of the job is about two weeks. It is estimated that the total bill the government pays to these private placement agencies is about $8 million to $9 million a year, of which approximately $3 million goes in fees to the private agencies.
I have nothing against private placement agencies, Mr. Speaker, but why should the government not use its own Manpower facilities? And this could be done. I am not in the habit of praising the Ontario government because I do not often find anything to praise, but I would like to make the point that it has set up its own bureau or pool for casuals and charges the Ontario treasury only 5 per cent, not 33'A per cent or 50 per cent as the federal government is paying for casual workers. I suggest this kind of setup also has UIC implications as well. It encourages casuals to work only one day a week, say for $25 and still collect unemployment insurance, though I am told that the placement agencies try to prevent this.
Mr. Speaker, I was going to continue by discussing unemployment insurance in more detail but I realize that my time is running short so I shall not present that section of my speech.


Mr. Charles-Eugene Dionne (Kamouraska):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to join those who have participated in this debate in congratulating His Excellency the Governor General and his wife on their appointment. The qualities they bring are the guarantee that they will perform their duties with dignity. I also join my colleagues in congratulating the movers of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Stollery) and the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Pelletier): they had a rather difficult task and they performed it well.
During this debate, I had the opportunity of hearing several of the speeches made by hon. members of the government and of the opposition, party leaders, ministers and ministerial hopefuls. However, I noticed that few solutions had been found to at least a reasonable percentage of the many problems now confronting the Canadian people.
I noted carefully the contents of the Speech from the Throne at the opening of this session and noticed that while it summarized good intentions, it gave few specifics on the means the government intends to use to improve the situation.
Our administrators are suffering from the inflationary fever they helped give rise to and maintain without trying to improve the situation. Our financial system is sick; it has grown into a cancer that feeds ceaselessly on the economic blood of the nation.
Our specialists, or those who think they are, try to give us the impression that they hope to find cures to the ills of society.
Evidence is such that they cannot deny the existence of economic unease. Still, the results of their research prove that there are too many doctors attending the patient.

Many of them have already admitted their inability to find solutions; they would have the people believe that the illness is international. That is easy to say, but by no means a solution.
Others, who aspire to the leadership of this country, advocate a price freeze, without foreseeing what would happen when the thaw comes. They should at least define their intentions.
I shall attempt to outline some aspects of the present economic situation which further complicate life for Canadians and whose ill effects, that are often demoralizing, could be alleviated through a better balanced distribution system.
Politicians are unable, it seems, to explain the fact that there are poor people who live miserably in a rich country. We see that the previous generation did not waste its time and that today's asserts itself through its knowledge in various fields.
There is however a fly in the ointment. Having reached peaks in the area of production and communication, we are unable to set up exchange methods for available goods.
Instead of basing our economic system on logic, according to a natural order, we remain stuck with a system of scarcity of means to distribute the existing wealth, with the result that thousands of Canadians live in slums even though we have enough materials available to build decent housing.
Many Canadians must depend on welfare not to starve in a country that can advertise through every possible means a whole variety of products.
I do not think it is necessary to have attended university to admit that man has been created with needs to be filled; the need to eat, to dress, to have a home, to love, to help each other and to unite. These needs were not instilled into man by politicians or financiers. All proceeded from creation. The natural right to live existed well before the formation of political parties or unions. We also admit that the Creator in His wisdom has provided for all our needs and we are fortunate in Canada to have abundant resources. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) travels in various countries to offer our excess production.
Our problems are not due to our inability to produce or build, but rather to our ability to pay. We have the physical capacity, but we do not have the financial means. Our production system is satisfactory, but our financial system is inadequate. This question is always with us and should be looked into more fully than it has been up to now in order to develop a mechanism which would make financially possible what is morally good and physically possible. If we really want to build a better future than today we will have to further our investigations in that respect.
This government has submitted a list of various bills it intends to introduce in this House in the second session of this 29th Parliament. I hope those bills will be drafted in a comprehensible style, thus avoiding the many difficulties that generally flow from bills that are too complicated which inevitably result in problems of comprehension and interpretation that often require for those who would want to take advantage of them the services of legal
The Address-Mr. Dionne
advisers to define what are the rights and privileges of each and everyone.
The 1971 Unemployment Insurance Act will undoubtedly have to be amended. I read recently in Da Presse an article where the chairman of that group was reported as having put the UIC back on the track. One can only infer that it had been off the track for a while. The whole thing was operating strangely. I would hope that the methods of application and the amendments brought in will not be too complicated by technocrats who never experienced the difficulties faced by the unemployed. A situation of confusion was created with the results we know-months of backlog in the payment of benefits, overpayments, double payments, or no payment at all, for all sorts of reasons one as trivial as the other. Eligibility was compromised because of supplement periods, reference periods, extension periods, severance periods, holiday credits considered as gains. To complete the picture payments were centralized through a team of push-button civil servants who were fed often distorted statistics and who tried to control more or less-often less than more-by operating computers overloaded with income tax calculations which resulted in increasing errors and hardships for the unemployed.
I also noted at items 14 and 15 of the list of legislative measures two bills dealing with banks-one to amend the Bank Act and the other to set up a Federal Business Development Bank.
My colleague, the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Tetrault), explained in the House on March 7 the role of the present banking system with figures supporting his thesis. Let us hope that legislators will take into account the fact that man was created before money, that the latter is only an instrument of exchange and its role is to serve and not to enslave. We must establish a real mechanism for the distribution of wealth.
In the Speech from the Throne, there is also a measure concerning the status of women. Let us hope that we will recognize the necessity of establishing a satisfactory balance as regards women's rights so that they can benefit from the advantages they deserve.
There is also a measure creating a federal commission on human rights. I would like to note that there is already a Canadian Bill of Rights. However, the right to economic advantages are not mentioned in this bill. Freedom in its various forms is discussed, but political rights are involved and we know that the latter are often used to the detriment of others' right. There seems to be a tendency to claim rights while ignoring important duties. I regret to note this serious gap in previous bills of human rights. They don't deal with the economic rights of the individual. It is nevertheless logical to conclude that, if any individual has a right to live, he must have therefore a right to the goods which are necessary to life.
We are favoured with a wealth of all kinds of goods but apparently we are not clever enough to find a way of distributing the goods which are available to us and which could be multiplied by modern means of production which improve continuously.

March 11, 1974
The Address-Mr. Dionne
The Speech from the Throne also deals with amendments to be brought to the Canada Pension Plan. I read from the speech and I quote:
The federal and provincial governments have agreed that the Canada and Quebec Pension Plans should be further amended to provide for increases, beyond 1975, in the levels of income upon which contributions may be made, and in the pensions which will be paid. Legislation will be introduced to remove the earnings test now required for people aged 65 to 69 from the Canada Pension Plan. Finally, federal and provincial ministers have agreed that the provisions which now accord differential treatment to men and women under the Canada and Quebec Pension Plans should be removed.
Several improvements will have to be brought. When revising the pension plan, it would be quite normal to try to examine the possibilities, and I know there are some, of establishing the retirement age at 60.
Several countries have already brought down the retirement age to 60: Denmark, New Zealand, Australia. And so it is in other countries too. Very often we follow the example of various countries. Let us follow it for good things, and not only for bad things.
Young people who don't work now and get discouraged would find, thanks to vacant positions, the work that would help them spend their energies, use up their time and give them hope to settle down and raise a family. Finally, the young people would find their ideals instead of losing them, as it happens at present.
Is it not a shame, in a nation like ours, that a family head of 60 years be compelled to provide a living to unemployed of 20 or 25 years. The contrary would be more in keeping with standards. In a country as rich and as prosperous as ours, it is normal that people retire at 55 or 60, but to find idle men aged 20, 25, or 30 is abominable and discreditable.
I would not conclude my remarks without saying a word about energy which has been talked about so much. I know there is a lot more to say on this matter. I had the opportunity of reading an editorial in Meunier quebecois, which sums up the situation quite well, and I should like to onclude by quoting this article which, to my mind, reflects the opinion of the majority of Canadians.
The opinion expressed in the December 1973 issues of he Meunier quebecois concerning the chaotic situation resulting from the energy crisis is so pertinent that I shall quote a number of excerpts from it. Of course, I am still talking about Mr. Blanchard's article:
The great advantage of the present crisis is to make us realize how true federalism could function if it were really allowed to funtion fully and unreservedly to the benefit of all Canadians.
Oil and grains are both national products.
-for he was dealing both with agriculture and oil energy-
They are both treated with solicitude by the federal government which, with taxpayers' money, creates either a national oil corporation by investing $40 million as is presently the case, or a wheat board, as was the case in the past, again with money coming from all Canadians, and favoured by all federal services.
In all logic and fairness, these goods should be available to all Canadians at the same price, and mechanisms for equitable distribution should be provided through legislation. Otherwise how will it ever be possible, for instance, to reimburse eastern Canada for paying for western development and to compensate the Atlantic provinces for the artificial draining of industrial development willingly created by Ottawa policies?

The energy crisis will perhaps result in forcing central and western Canadians to think of all Canadians, to reconsider their economic philosophy, not in terms of a selfish and provincial development, but in terms of a planned and continental development.
A way was opened during the critical review of our grain policy which, while keeping eastern Canada as hostage, was annihilating eastern agriculture to the detriment of collective interests, especially consumers' interests.
Another avenue has just opened tearing away the Borden line that was devised to further benefit regional interests against the principles and practice of free trade between the provinces that are favourable to the development of a sound federalism. Through tearing into pieces a Canadian constitution that is soiled and torn by so many blows that reasons of state seem to justify, such as those that were struck according to Caesar's technique, will crises finally launch the country beyond its domestic disputes towards new horizons?
This is undoubtedly the dream of both smaller and greater Canadian citizens.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, the new time limits unfortunately make it difficult to observe the courtesies that are normally extended during this debate.

Nevertheless, I wish to pay tribute to the dignified representatives of the Queen, His Excellency the Governor General and his charming wife, and to offer them the best wishes of my constituents for a quiet and flourishing future in their new duties, as well as to wish them a pleasant journey in the riding of Esquimalt-Saanich where they are expected in early April.

Without further ado, Mr. Speaker, I will turn to the substance of my contribution to this debate. My concern today is with that class of persons virtually overlooked in the Speech from the Throne, the elderly, those living on fixed limited incomes. However, I do not intend to get into any auction to outbid other members or other parties by suggesting increased pension levels. Rather, my plan is to explore the few ideas the intent of which would be to contribute to the alleviation of their present worries, that is shortage of real income to bear the brunt of inflation and taxation.
I ask myself why, in their advanced years, they should have the problems of inflation and heavy taxation to deal with in addition to all their other problems such as, sickness possibly, oft times loneliness and frequently frustration at not being able to do as quickly the things they once did with such ease. We cannot disregard this part of our community. We are what we are because of the sacrifices they made for us. They do not expect sacrifices from us for them, but I say, why should we not do something for them even if it costs a sacrifice or two? We are an extremely fortunate generation, thanks in large part to their efforts. Let us not forget that.
If this land is strong, Mr. Speaker, the credit goes entirely to those from whom we inherited this land and our institutions. It is arrogance supreme to suggest otherwise.
I am hoping that out of the various proposals that I shall be making, one or two, individually or in combination, will prove acceptable to this government or its replacement after the next election, hopefully a Conservative government.
March 11, 1974

To set the scene in realism, I wish to read part of a letter that reached me only last week as I was preparing my remarks for this debate. It is a direct reflection on our performance as parliamentarians and, unfortunately, a well merited one. It confirms my decision that the line of my thinking is one I ought to take in this debate. The correspondence reads in part:
Those of us who began to buy our pensions fifty or sixty years ago, and who have been forced into retirement for the past fifteen or twenty years, find that our pensions plus the Old Age Security amount to little more than the Old Age Security plus the Supplement. We struggled to save money and we struggled to pay our taxes and are now no better off than those who saved nothing and, in many cases, paid no taxes either.
Now we still have to struggle to pay our little $300 or $400 income taxes...
I'm sure that you ... realize... the difficulties of those who find themselves on fixed incomes and pensions tied to pre-inflation levels.... I can only hope that my plea ... will cause you to raise your voice even louder than before.
This, Mr. Speaker, is a cri de coeur. There is something drastically wrong when citizens with the foresight to make provision for their declining years feel compelled to let out a cry like that. Having saved in their younger days, they do not begrudge the man who tries to save today. What they deplore is that they should have to go on paying in order to support those who are unwilling to save, or who are deriving benefits from social services which are available now but which were not available in their day. A balance must somehow be restored. The middle income group, about which I am speaking, is the source of much of the government's income tax revenue. These people are the backbone of our society, not only in numbers but in attitude. Let us not forget this. Those who can continue to find employment and who can secure adjustments in their wages may be able to shoulder the burden of rising costs and heavier taxation. Those who have retired and who are living on fixed incomes cannot. They must be relieved of at least part of the burden under which they labour.
This brings me to the proposal I wish to put forward. Thinking through these ideas I found it necessary to develop a dual concept involving an existence income level and a comfort income level-those terms could be defined without too much trouble; their names convey what is meant clearly enough. My purpose in introducing these notions is to suggest that those on pensions should be permitted a deduction level much higher than the present level of deductions for income tax purposes in order to achieve the comfort income level. I am referring to those on fixed incomes aged 65 or more.
The existence level is introduced for the same class of person. It is much lower than the comfort level, as its name implies, and is intended to be the deduction level for income tax purposes applicable to persons who are fortunate enough to enjoy incomes in excess of the comfort level. What I am endeavouring to do is to discriminate in favour of the provident. I have no built in objection to making discriminatory judgments; I am sure we all make judgments of this kind day after day. Indeed, I see every reason for making discriminatory judgments in this case. Certainly, there is no reason for penalizing anybody once
The Address-Mr. D. W. Munro the age of retirement has been reached, and preventing him from taking advantage of his providence. Further, in these improvident days there is something to be said in favour of encouraging providence. The notion that one needs to provide for one's own future is being discarded as outmoded. But it is not. It is one we should strive to maintain, and for this reason I suggest a revised income tax scale applicable to the elderly.
Next, I think of the widow or widower who suddenly finds that the family income has been halved through the death of a partner. Unfortunately, it is not only those who draw OAS benefits who find themselves in this plight. It occurs equally to those receiving superannuation benefits, not to mention those in receipt of disability pensions. Why should this be? What puzzles me is the way in which those who devise these schemes ignore the fact that a number of expenses continue unaffected-telephone bills, mortgage payments, light and heat, household repairs, and so on. In the case of contributive schemes why, I feel obliged to ask, should income be halved when the nominal contributor dies but remain untouched when the other spouse dies, the so-called non-contributor. There is real discrimination here. By my reckoning, the partners in any marr:age are contributors on an equal footing to any superannuation scheme they may have chosen.
As far as I am concerned, deductions from the pay cheque are deductions from the family income-the disposable family income is reduced by that amount. Why, then, should the wife, say, be deprived of half the pension just because the husband dies whereas, should the wife die, the husband's income continues unabated. This is discrimination on the basis of sex, if you like. I see that, according to the newspapers this morning, Ontario is thinking along these lines. High time we all did-but don't put me down as a women's liber for having said so. I am not. While we are on the subject of discrimination I might point out that the whole area of the pension rights of the housewife whether contributing or not, will have to be sorted out.
But let me get back to my main theme. I was asking how it came about that those who devised these various schemes failed to take into account continuing unaffected expenses. I had in mind the odd jobs around the house, like fixing a leaky tap or repairing an electrical connection or cutting a lawn. Such tasks now have to be paid for by a person living on half the pension which was formerly available. The method used in the treatment of widows and widowers also adversely affects persons receiving disability pensions. A friend of mine who was blinded during the war was awarded a disability pension on that account and received, as well, special pension assistance because his wife was an essential help to him. He lost that special pension assistance when his wife died. He even lost the monetary ability to hire daily help. And he was a blind man, at that. Who drew up these regulations which result in such hardship on occasion? Why do we not change them? So, I speak up for a more realistic and humanistic approach to the monetary consequences which flow from bereavement such as those consequences affecting income derived from annuities and pensions.
I also have in mind those whose income falls between my existence level and my comfort level and who are age

March 11, 1974
The Address-Mr. J. R. Gauthier
65 or over. I suggest they might be exempted from liability to pay municipal taxes on property. This may appear to be an invasion of the provincial revenue field, but my proposal goes further to suggest that any revenue which the municipalities might lose in consequence of such a remission would be made up by the federal authority, on application. This, again, is obviously a discriminatory benefit. Therefore, I would extend this tax advantage to those elderly people who are living in rented accommodation so that they would be exempted from the municipal tax portion of their rent.
I speak next of those who, in their earlier days, laid aside funds, as in our youth we were all taught to do, those who saved, and who now find that those savings are subject to a capital gains tax. They find that the time has come to use those savings either to meet a need, possibly because of high medical expenditures, or simply to enjoy a trip around the world. When they come to count their money they realize that part of it is subject to tax. Why should they now be denied, the full benefit of having put away a few thousand dollars? Do not trot out the argument about cheating succession duties. First of all, I am not talking so much about those who leave estates of a value which would attract succession duties. I am talking about those who have tucked $3,000 or $4,000 away for a second honeymoon splurge. I have in mind those below the comfort level. I insist that it should not be beyond the ingenuity of our tax collectors, if they are properly instructed and inspired, to set levels above which these advantages might not apply and below which they should.
Finally, I should like to elaborate briefly on a further benefit which, in my view, ought to be available to those of our elderly who, for one reason or another, choose not to take advantage of such pension schemes as old age security. Why should these people not be permitted, if they do not need these funds now, to arrange their deferment so they can be used later when they are in need or in want or, failing that, can be included in their estate when they die?
I have other notions, Mr. Speaker, but I see my time has elapsed.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to begin this new session by taking part in this debate. Let me, Mr. Speaker, reiterate my deep gratitude for the enormous work that this venerable House, under your presidency, has managed to accomplish during the first session. It is a considerable and positive achievement, considering the magnitude of the task that awaited us barely a year ago. That is something to be very proud of.
I join the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Stollery) and the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Pelletier) in paying my tributes to His Excellency the Governor General and to Madame Leger. I represent, Mr. Speaker, the riding of Ottawa-Vanier where the vice-regal couple resides.
Needless to say, Mr. Speaker, how much I enjoyed my first year as a member. In the House of Commons, as elsewhere, it is very pleasant. I have met men and women with different cultural and professional backgrounds, but
(Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich).]
united by the same desire for objectivity, working and living an exceptional experience for the development of the Canadian society and the well-being of our people.
Therefore, I am immensely pleased with the tremendous work accomplished by the right hon. Prime Minister Trudeau's government.
Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would like to point out some of my pet projects which I intend to submit to the House this year.
One of them will be related to the creation of a school of higher studies in public administration. The objective is to guarantee the presence in the public service of people whose experience, competence and ability will designate as capable of fulfilling administrative duties, through democratic recruiting and a happy combination of knowledge and experience. A school of public administration would enable public servants to get further training, to specialize in the execution of their own duties, that is those of senior administrators.
The courses would also be offered to university graduates who want to pursue a career in the public service.
Today, training and development programs for federal public servants are partly within the jurisdiction of the Treasury Board and the Public Service Commission. We do of course send public servants to highly specialized institutions to complete their education. We are now sending some of them in Great Britain and France.
We also have agreements with Carleton and Ottawa universities for courses in public administration and management sciences. In addition we have the CAP program, which is the Career Assignment Program.
This study and training program, followed by on-the-job training periods, makes it possible for promising intermediate managers to develop their skills more rapidly and to accede later to senior managerial positions.
But this program is open to fewer than one hundred persons every year. Of course, many public servants will never have the opportunity to follow such accelerated courses, even if they have the required capabilities to apply for intermediate or senior managerial positions.
It is therefore important to consider seriously the creation of a bilingual school of higher studies in public administration.
If the government were interested in such a project, we could find here in Ottawa appropriate quarters where students could be given their theoretical and practical training, in the very heart of government activities. [English]
Since the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) has once again demonstrated, as usual, his lack of knowledge concerning bilingualism, I should like now to address myself to this most important question of bilingualism.
I, too, have the honour of representing in the House many citizens employed as public servants, by crown corporations and agencies. Members of the armed forces of Canada as well as their families who reside in my riding. The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton has implied that civil servants in his riding are critical of and impatient with the process of identification and designation of posi-
March 11, 1974

tions for the purpose of implementing the bilingualism policy of this parliament.
In essence, in his speech on March 8, 1974, the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton said that he has received more mail and more telephone calls on this question than on any other subject. As reported at page 342 of Hansard. for March 8 the hon. member said:
From the tone of these letters and telephone calls it is alarmingly evident that the difficulty of implementation of a policy of unilingual-ism in the public service that was to be overcome by the guidelines approved by parliament has in fact become more intense and as a result I believe the morale of the public service is being seriously undermined. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the service is being damaged as a result.
By virtue of this statement the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton is again demonstrating his lack of understanding of the fundamentals of bilingualism. As the Ottawa Journal stated in their lead editorial of February 20, 1974:
Neither Grenville-Carleton MP Walter Baker nor anyone else is able at this time to say whether 50,000 bilingual positions out of some 260,000 positions in the public service are too many or too few. It is unfortunate that Mr. Baker rushed in so quickly with his intemperate criticism. His impetuosity and his apparent failure to recognize all the reasons for bilingualism call into question once more his commitment to the Official Languages Act beyond lip-service and mere tokenism.
Such an attitude may be understandable, even excusable in MPs from out of the way places; it is not to be condoned in any MP - from any part - representing a constituency in the National Capital region. Mr. Baker has yet to achieve the breadth of vision on this subject of his leader, Robert Stanfield.
I agree with the Ottawa Journal that the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton is only paying lip-service and giving mere tokenism to bilingualism, and by so doing he is rendering a disservice to Canada and Canadians.
To further demonstrate his lack of understanding, he stated, as reported on page 342 of Hansard:
The 1976 deadline was established for an estimate of 25,000 bilingual positions.
It has been stated time and time again by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) that the target date aimed at is 1978, not 1976. This is evidence again of his lack of understanding of bilingualism and, more importantly, its implementation as it affects the public service.
In the interest of truth and accuracy, I want to make it clear that the target date for designation of bilingual positions within the public service is 1978 and that it never was 1976. The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton also stated on the CTV network on Saturday last that the target date was 1976, and this, as I have stated, is not true. It is now very apparent that the hon. member for Gren-ville-Carleton's avowed policy of unilingualism in the civil service and, in the words of the Ottawa Journal, "his apparent failure to recognize all the reasons for bilingualism" call into question once more his commitment to the Official Languages Act beyond lipservice and mere tokenism. That, coupled with his inexcusable ignorance of the target date with respect to implementation and designation, indicates quite clearly that this House and the general public have been misled, not through dishonesty but through his ignorance of the facts.
This attitude does not surprise me. It is witness to his real intention and possible thoughts on this whole ques-
The Address-Mr. J. R. Gauthier tion, and it supports the position some of his colleagues in this House have expressed frequently. These ardent supporters of the status quo have been crying and moaning about things bilingual for the last six years. It is always, in their view, being implemented too fast, too much, too costly. The only avowed policy some Conservative members seem to extol regarding bilingualism is to give lip support to the principle, but by all means slow down and stop the implementation of this important and vital national policy.


Mr. Paproski:: That is not true.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That is what you say. Rather than help in the difficult task of achieving the effective implementation of institutional bilingualism, some members of the Official Opposition cultivate the fear psychosis, and suggest that whatever is done is always too fast, too costly and too much. As a matter of fact, some members in the opposition have become the moral guarantors for every bigot across this country who quotes them and uses them to destroy rather than to build this Canada of ours. At this time no one would deny that the working language in inter-departmental exchanges is English. I do not dispute this fact. No one can read anything into the present law in respect of such exchanges. Neither this parliament, the staff associations nor public servants are advocating a policy of unilingualism, and I suggest that the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton is retrograde in this approach.
Many bilingual Francophones have come to work and have had to work in the English language, not because of preference but because of necessity. In a document filed by the Public Service Commission it is stated that in 1971, for example, of the 88,484 public service appointments in that year 21.4 per cent claimed French as their working language, yet only 11 per cent were appointed to positions requiring this language. In subsequent years, 1972 and 1973, the same report stated that an increased percentage of Canadians working in the Public Service are able to work, if they so desire and are needed, in the official language of their choice. It is only fair to say that if anybody should be pressuring and showing their impatience it is the thousands of bilingual civil servants who have been working in their second language, or the unilingual French, for that matter, who have had little chance of making a career in the public service.
The resolution adopted by parliament last year is not a threat to job security or promotion; it is a reasonable plan for equilibrium and equality. Nobody is born bilingual; he or she must be trained. This government is making a determined and commendable effort to promote institutional and individual bilingualism through training and understanding. The Official Languages Act and the program of bilingualism in the federal public service simply recognizes the realities of Canada as it is today.
The real solution lies in our educational system. This government has, for this obvious reason and also because of the previous unproductive system of teaching a second language in our schools, encouraged language training, and has dispensed in the last five years $300 million to our provinces. These special educational grants were for the

March 11, 1974
The Address-Mr. J. R. Gauthier purpose of improving and extending second-language training. Was this too much, too fast and too costly? I suggest that only the results will tell us that. In the Ottawa metropolitan area alone the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) in 1973 added another $2 million a year for two years to finance an experimental program of new methods of teaching French to our English-speaking students. Provincial authorities should take up this program, particularly because of its importance in the Ottawa capital. Has this been too much, too fast and too costly? I suggest it has been quite the contrary.
Attitudes on bilingualism are changing and have changed. Bilingualism never meant, be it institutional or individual, that all Canadians should become bilingual. The capital of this country should rightly reflect the Canadian reality and, to the credit of the Ottawa and Carleton school boards, they are offering better courses in second-language training through government assistance to provincial education programs. I hope and pray that with understanding and love this issue of bilingualism will be better understood. Progress is apparent, and this is for the betterment and the unification of our country.

As a tangible example of understanding as to real bilingualism, I should like to deal now with my constituency and especially the city of Vanier.
Bill C-232 changed the name of my constituency of Ottawa East to that of Ottawa-Vanier. The purpose of such a change was certainly to promote further the bilingual identity of my constituency and more expecially to identify the city of Vanier as an integral part of our beautiful national capital. Under the able leadership of a far-sighted municipal government, the city of Vanier now has a master development plan. The recent decision to build the Vanier thoroughfare as a driveway rather than as a speedway, will contribute to the achievement of a road network through an economic commercial center, that will take into account the aesthetic aspect as well as the quality of life that citizens of that municipality wish to preserve. On account of its geographical situation, east of Ottawa's development centres, Vanier could not benefit from a swift and striking commercial expansion as some other sectors of our national capital.
Often forgotten as regards federal building projects, Vanier with its 23,000 citizens should hold the attention of federal planners when it comes to finding sites for public buildings. The National Capital Commission was created to draft plans for the development and improvement of the national capital area and should help Vanier so that the nature and character of the Canadian government centre may be in accordance with its national importance.
At the dawn of its new development, the city of Vanier should get from government agencies, such as the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the National Capital Commission and the Department of Public Works, assistance for preserving, restoring and improving that fair municipality.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I regret to have to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired.


Mr. Baker:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Had I been here this morning I would have risen on motions, but unavoidably I could not be here at eleven o'clock. There is a misprint in Hansard, the record of this House, which I can either correct now with the consent of my colleagues in the House or wait until tomorrow which would be the first opportunity in the normal course. I refer to page 342 in the second last paragraph where the word "unilingualism" appears. That should have been, and in fact the text that went to Hansard read in this way, "bilingualism". This may have caused some misunderstanding, and with the consent of the House I would ask that the word "unilingualism" as it appears in the second last paragraph of the first column of page 342 be changed to read "bilingualism" in order that the sentence would read-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The hon. member knows that there is a procedure by which one can make a correction. I understand the importance of the point he wants to bring to the attention of the House. I think he has made his point. All hon. members, I am sure, are aware of the importance of the matter to the hon. member, but I think he should follow the normal procedure tomorrow.


Walter David Baker: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I am quite prepared to abide by that ruling, but of course this makes a considerable difference to the whole import of the last contribution to the debate.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Especially when you have other speakers like Gauthier.


Mr. Duncan M. Beattie (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, before getting into my remarks on the Speech from the Throne I should like to congratulate the hon. members for Spadina (Mr. Stollery) and Sherbrooke (Mr. Pelletier) for their excellent presentations. Those two gentlemen talked in glowing terms about some country where all of the manifest problems of poverty, regional disparity, unemployment and all the other human problems had been solved by some supergovernment. I am afraid I did not catch the name of the country they were describing, but I assume it must have been Utopia, or perhaps Shangri La. They certainly could not have been talking about Canada, as anyone who can see, read and hear knows that those problems exist in Canada in abundance. In fact, they happen to be the most abundant commodities we have.
At page 12 of Hansard for February 27, the hon. member for Sherbrooke is reported as stating:
-the wealthiest country in the world, spending huge amounts, did not succeed in eliminating poverty.
I thought the hon. member was talking about this country and this government, but it turned out that he was speaking of the United States.
I do not know of a country in the world that has more resources, more unused manpower, more potential or more ingenuity when compared to our population than does our own country of Canada. Why then do we have so many people living in our bountiful society at or below the poverty line? Why do we have so many unemployed? Why
March 11, 1974

do we allow inflation to run unchecked, eroding the buying power of millions of families that have to provide shelter, food and clothing for themselves and their children?
I was intrigued by the statement of the hon. member for Sherbrooke that the United States had spent huge sums of money, but had failed to eliminate poverty from that country. I wonder what the hon. member thinks his colleagues on that side of the House have been doing for the past six years. We all know they have been spending money as if it were going out of style. And I will tell the hon. members across the floor that they have failed, utterly and completely, to eliminate poverty from this country. They have failed to eliminate regional disparities, and they have failed to provide jobs for the people in our country who want to work. What they have succeeded in doing has been to destroy the work ethic, divide our country into regional blocs, and to destroy the efficiency of the public service.
I suggest to members across the floor that they might as well not close and lock the door to the public treasury. The cupboard must be pretty bare by now. Right now the government is spending money that we do not have, and that leads me to believe that there is not any more left in the treasury. Last year, for instance, the gross public debt was $51.8 billion and the net national debt represented about $1,000 for every man, woman and child in Canada. I do not know yet what it is for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1974, but it must be in the area of $55 billion. We do know from the estimates, though, that it will cost $2.9 billions this year just to service the national debt. That is money we cannot spend on services or benefits because, in effect, it has already been spent. This is money down the drain. That takes care of Shangri La and Utopia, Mr. Speaker. It is a very sad awakening, but it is reality, and I say to the government members, and especially to the cabinet members who are squandering our money, stop building castles in the sky; stop living in a dream world and come down here and face reality.
The problems we had when the present government took over are still with us. In fact, they are even worse now, and there are some new ones. There are new problems that have resulted from over-spending, inefficiency and just plain bungling. Those problems will not just disappear. They must be dealt with. But first, Mr. Speaker, the government will have to face up squarely to those problems, instead of trying to smother them with borrowed money.
I see that, according to the estimates, the government intends to create a few more agencies and corporations, possibly even some departments. This is scandalous, Mr. Speaker, but I have to admit that it is typical of the way the present government operates. If a department or agency is not able to cope with a given situation, create a new agency alongside the old, and transfer the responsibilities to the new one. Then you have two or three agencies fumbling with the same problems. We have more agencies and departments in our government than any other country in the western world and more cabinet ministers. We have more ministers in our federal cabinet than either the United States or Great Britain, and yet we
The Address-Mr. D. M. Beattie do not seem to be able to get a clear answer from the cabinet on even the most simple and clear-cut issues.
There are 47 members of the government caucus who are either ministers or parliamentary secretaries, almost 50 per cent of the entire caucus. I can't help thinking there must be an awful lot of jockeying over there for positions of power, and the authority to spend those billions of dollars in the estimates. It is easy to understand why they seem to have so much trouble making decisions on even the most vital issues facing the country. It is abundantly clear by now that whatever it is they are doing, they are doing very much for the Canadian people. It is time they started looking after the business of running the country. The present government has more than doubled the national budget in only six years, and I do not think it is too much to expect the government to start showing some results for all that money.
The Unemployment Insurance Commission is in a scandalous mess and, in fact, the whole system of social services in Canada today is in a mess. Who would have imagined just six years ago that the cost of the UIC would rise to more than $2 billion by the year 1973? And that seems to be only the beginning. UIC is already showing signs of surpassing that figure in the coming year, and still the government refuses to undertake a full inquiry of the program, and of the department that is administering the program. This is a very vital program, Mr. Speaker. It was designed to provide assistance to people in the work force who, for a variety of reasons, might find themselves unemployed. Every member of this House accepts the UIC, and the concept behind it, as a responsibility of the government. It is not the UIC to which we in the official opposition are objecting. It is the administration that we quarrel with, and for very good reasons.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) has called for an inquiry into the operation of the UIC, stating that the agency has been operating under a cloud of suspicion for a very long time, and that it is time to clear the air. I agree with that wholeheartedly, and I would add that if we undertake an investigation into the administration of UIC, a lot of heads will roll. It should be obvious to anyone that a large percentage of the two billion dollars spent last year on UIC went to sources other than the legitimate claimants who had paid premiums into the program. An overhaul of UIC would give us an opportunity to do something else very important. It would allow us to restructure the whole manpower-UIC set-up. We would be able to develop programs whereby people could be trained for the jobs that exist, jobs that cannot presently be filled from the labour pool. Advances in technology have passed tens of thousands of people by, leaving them in a situation where they would like to work but cannot qualify for the jobs that are offered them.
I get letters from leaders in industry pointing out difficulties faced by employers in filling job vacancies. Many industries just cannot afford to train prospective employees. In many other cases people are trained for jobs and, after they have worked for the minimum period required to qualify for UIC benefits, they contrive to get themselves fired or just quit, forcing the employer to go through the training process all over again. Other employers have told me that people who are receiving unemploy-

March 11, 1974
The Address-Mr. D. M. Beattie
ment benefits will conduct themselves in job interviews in such a way as to discourage employers from hiring them. In spite of the fact that the present government appears to be bent on destroying the traditional Canadian work ethic, I am convinced that the vast majority of Canadians want to work. They want to work at jobs that pay a living wage, jobs that have some promise of advancement and jobs that are not deadends in themselves. The provision of such jobs is not an impossible task for government. We have the human and natural resources; we have the ingenuity and, most of all, we have the responsibility to provide incentives and opportunities.
I should mention here that every time the government gets caught in an obvious blunder or boondoggle, which happens with tiresome regularity, the minister involved in the blunder tries to place the blame at the feet of the official opposition. Each time they try to do so, it is so obvious that it is often amusing. For instance, in the case of Bill C-125, the minister responsible for the UIC has been saying lately that it was the official opposition that prevented it from being tabled for debate in the House. Bill C-125 would have brought about some needed changes in the administration of UIC, something we in the official opposition have been urging the government to do for the past two or three years. The minister neglected to note that Bill C-125 was a government bill, and that after it had passed first reading it was put on the shelf. The government did not have to worry about the NDP on Bill C-125. The NDP will go along with anything. The government did not have to worry about the Conservative opposition. We were the ones who asked for the bill. No, Mr. Speaker, the minister was worried about his own causus. It was the Libera, caucus that was divided on C-125, and it would have proven embarrassing to the government to have its own members oppose efforts to clean up the mess in the UIC. I predict this failure will come back to haunt them some day soon.
Mr. Speaker, there is another example of bungling that deserves some mention, and that is the matter of the CRTC advertising in newspapers around the country. I have noticed that the CRTC places ads in French in English-language newspapers and in English in French-language newspapers. I ask my colleagues to think about this, Mr. Speaker. A person who does not speak French is asked to read and comprehend an advertisement in the French language. And, in Quebec, a person who does not understand English is asked by CRTC to read and comprehend an advertisement in the English language. This, in my opinion, is a useless waste of the taxpayers money. Unfortunately, that is not an isolated incident. There are indications that in some departments that sort of thing is the norm, and I doubt that the people responsible are aware of just how ludicrous it is. It certainly could not be in the interest of national unity. This sort of thing has the opposite effect. It tends to agitate and alienate people, and too much of that is being done already as witnessed by the remarks of the previous speaker.
I have been speaking out publicly for some time about the way our immigration laws are being administered, and in particular I have been drawing attention to the way foreign students are allowed to enter our country without

proper screening and without follow up supervision. People who would not otherwise qualify for landed immigrants status are flooding into the country under cover of our lax foreign student programs, and some of these people are being aided and abetted by corrupt immigration officials. Some of these officials have already been uncovered, but it is highly unlikely that they will all be found out unless a full inquiry is undertaken.
Equally important is the matter of how many so-called students are living underground throughout the country with false documents or without documents of any kind. Those who have papers can get by for an indefinite time unless they are sought out and deported. Those who do not have documentation are at the mercy of unscrupulous employers and underworld figures. A few months ago we had a period of amnesty during which people living here illegally could come forward without fear of prosecution. This was considered to be cheaper than searching them out, and naturally it would have to be considered more humane. What this has done in fact has been to make us out to be a bunch of patsies as far as our immigration laws are concerned. We are the world's greatest pushovers for people who cannot qualify to enter and become citizens of countries with realistic immigration laws. The amnesty period last year was not exactly a success as far as bringing illegal residents out of hiding is concerned. The minister in charge of immigration admitted that only a small percentage of suspected illegal entrants actually came forward and that there are probably many thousands of them still living here underground. Since that time people have been pouring into the country, taking advantage of loopholes in the laws.
The question I ask now is not whether there will be another amnesty, but when. This raises another question, and that is just who is a refugee so far as our immigration laws are concerned. We have established what the government calls "an immigration presence" in Chile to handle applications from Chilean refugees, and the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) said that these immigration officers will remain in Chile until at least the end of this year to handle an ongoing refugee program. Is there some magic formula for deciding who is a bona fide refugee, or is it only necessary for a person to sidle up to a Canadian immigration officer and say: "I am a Marxist terrorist and the present government in Chile won't let me engage in subversive activities"? I suggest that is something like the situation because if these people are in so little danger that they can wait for months or a year to be granted paid passage to Canada, then there is something fishy about this whole question of giving refugee status. According to figures released by the immigration department, only a small percentage of ordinary immigration applicants are approved in Chile at present while a very large percentage of refugee applicants are approved.
Our immigration laws are designed to give protection to those people who have a legal right to live in our country, and they are designed to protect our system from those who would come here and plot to tear down everything that we have worked so hard to build. At present these laws do not protect us. They protect the very people whom we should be turning away at our borders. If our immigration laws are too lax, then let us tighten them up. If our laws are adequate and the fault lies with the administra-

tion of the law, then let us root out those who are delinquent. I suggest that there is ample reason to undertake an inquiry into the whole immigration machinery and find out where the fault lies.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I regret the interruption, but it is difficult for me to allow the hon. member to go beyond his time. He has already gone beyond it by a few seconds. According to the order accepted by the House earlier, there is no extension of time allowed.


Duncan M. Beattie: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was just about to conclude. I believe you are counting the time that the hon. member used in his question of privilege.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: No, I am not. I understand the desire of the hon. member to conclude his speech, but I cannot forget the order that has been accepted earlier. So, I will call upon the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, exactly 14 months ago, I gave my first speech in the House during the debate on last year's Speech from the Throne. At that time I outlined the five guidelines established by the government as a basis for a comprehensive review of the Canadian social security system, and I indicated the formulas that we had considered for implementing these policy statements.
From the start, we recognized that if such a re-organization of all the social policies of Canada were to become reality and meet its anticipated objectives, we had to obtain the commitment and active participation of all the provinces. Indeed, this is why the working paper on social security in Canada was tabled in the House of Commons in April 1973. In a way, this was the contribution of the federal government to the initial steps of the reform.
The working paper outlined five strategic schemes which appeared appropriate for us to follow with a view to achieving a model of social system. They were supported by 14 proposals which seemed likely to facilitate the implementation of those schemes.
In April 1973, the first of a series of meetings which were to follow brought the welfare ministers together in Ottawa. Moreover, it was with that federal-provincial conference that was officially launched the joint federal-provincial review of the social security system in Canada. Indeed, after having looked into the working paper, the provinces recognized by common agreement that the schemes and the proposals as outlined in the working paper could certainly serve as the starting point and as terms of reference all along the review work.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to report that as a result of the leadership of this Liberal government and the hard work of both federal and provincial governments, the joint federal-provincial review group has made excellent progress over the past year. Significant improvements have
The Address-Mr. Lalonde
already been made in a number of federal and provincial social security programs.
First, in July we introduced a new Family Allowances Act which tripled the average allowances for children starting in January of this year. We provided that these benefits would be automatically escalated each year in line with increases in the cost of living to enable Canada's low and middle income families better to meet the increased costs of raising children. Moreover, in order to protect the purchasing power of Canadian families in the face of a rapid worldwide inflation, the government acted swiftly in September to increase family allowance benefits as an interim measure until the proposed increases were effected in January.
The ability of the provinces to adjust family allowance payments to meet the particular needs of their people reflects a new approach to the integration of the social security system in each province under which there is greater provincial flexibility and, at the same time, better co-ordination of federal and provincial elements of the social security system. I suggest that this is a significant step in resolving the deep federal-provincial differences which had developed over how responsibility for social security measures should be divided between the federal government and the provinces, and I suggest again that this is truly a remarkable achievement for federalism.
Second, in April, 1973, old age security pensions were substantially increased. Also, in October we shifted from an annual to a quarterly basis for escalation of both old age security pensions and the guaranteed income supplement to ensure that these benefits keep pace with increases in the cost of living. We have raised the combined pension and supplement from $150 per month in March, 1973 to $187 per month in April, 1974.
Third, in October we introduced changes in the Canada Pension Plan to increase the earnings ceiling for the years 1974 and 1975 and to remove the 2 per cent ceiling on the annual escalation of pension benefits, so that in future benefits would rise in line with the full increase in the cost of living. In addition, the full purchasing power of benefits already in pay on December 31, 1973, was restored.
With these changes, the federal government and the provinces have, in a matter of months, taken together a major step toward harmonizing the Canada and Quebec pension plans. It is a tribute to federal-provincial co-operation as it can be practised, and represents the way this government approaches federal-provincial relations. Furthermore, the government has provided for the automatic escalation of virtually all federal programs, in accordance with increases in the cost of living. I am thinking here particularly of benefits to veterans and the superannuation pensions of federal public servants.
Mr. Speaker, the recent Speech from the Throne has already indicated a number of areas in which we hope to take action this year in order to further improve our social security system. In the very near future I plan to introduce further amendments to the Canada Pension Plan that have been worked out in conjunction with the provincial governments. These amendments will provide for a new formula that will tie the earnings ceiling on

March 11, 1974
The Address-Mr. Lalonde
which pension benefits are based each year to an earnings index, the average level of wages and salaries for the year. They will provide for the elimination of the earnings test now in effect for people aged 65 to 69. Such people will then be able to apply for and receive their full Canada Pension Plan retirement benefit without having it reduced to take account of earnings from employment. It is estimated that approximately 35,000 persons, who are at present receiving no pension or only a partial one, will directly benefit from this measure. This removes a discriminatory feature against those persons who work to supplement their pensions because the earnings test only applies to earnings from employment and not from other sources, such as investment.
There will also be an amendment that will ensure equality of treatment for male and female contributors to the Canada Pension Plan. As the government indicated in the Speech from the Throne, this latter change is but one of several measures this government plans to take to improve the status of women in Canada.

As to the review of the social security system, the ministers concentrate all their efforts on two specific objectives: first, we must formulate a satisfying concept for an income supplement plan and, second, prepare an efficient collective employment policy.
In view of the enormous and complex task we are undertaking, my provincial counterparts and I do not expect to be able to be through discussing these questions before the end of 1974 or the beginning of 1975.
But there is a statement I wish to make today on a specific question, a specific service, that is daycare services.

The government has placed a high priority on daycare services where there is a social need for such services. This is in keeping with the government's objective of removing barriers to entry to the regular labour market. There is a definite trend whereby married women are entering and re-entering the labour market at all levels. In 1962, there were 870,000 married women in the labour force with a participation rate of 21.6 per cent; in 1970, there were 1.7 million married women in the labour force with a participation rate of nearly 34 per cent. In 1972, the participation rate of women aged 25 to 64 was 40 per cent but the participation rate of young married women aged 20 to 24 was even higher, at 47.4 per cent.
The need for day care services has also been amply demonstrated by the number of LIP projects in this respect. The government recognizes that this need is a continuous one and will make special efforts on a continuing basis to aid those mothers with young children in their care who seek employment but who also want to ensure that their children are properly supervised.
I would remind the House what this government is already doing in this area. As a result of amendments to the Canada Assistance Plan Regulations in 1972, shareable costs for day care services are the full operating costs, including costs of equipment and supplies and rent or depreciation on capital. For all other welfare services, shareable costs are restricted to salaries and related staff

costs. The increased cost sharing has given considerable impetus to the development of day care services.
The Canadian Council on Social Development has been given a grant to develop national norms for the development of day care services for children, in collaboration with officials of my department. In addition, consultative services are provided by my department to provinces, municipalities, voluntary agencies and community groups. Hon. members will also recall that the government established in 1972 an information centre on day care. This information centre has proven very efficient and very useful all across the land.
If day care centres are seen by a community as essential facilities to enable mothers with small children to become self-supporting, then we believe we should help to provide such services. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to announce today our new position on cost-sharing with the provinces of day care services for low and below average income families. The government has approved new policy guidelines for day care services shareable under the Canada Assistance Plan. These guidelines are designed to ensure that federal sharing is available to low and below average income families who need day care services. Priority is given to single parent families, families with health and social problems, working mothers and handicapped children. The guidelines provide for income tested programs in line with the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women. Several provinces have already initiated steps in this direction, and several other provinces have given evidence of being interested in the development of similar programs.
In summary, Mr. Speaker, since the social security review was launched we have increased family allowances substantially, provided for greater flexibility in meeting provincial social priorities through variations in family allowances, revised the Canada Pension Plan to bring the ceiling on pensionable earnings closer in line with average wages, provided for the automatic escalation of all federal pensions and allowances on an annual or in some cases a quarterly basis and have taken steps to improve the arrangements under the Canada Assistance Plan for sharing in the costs of day care services provided by the provinces to low and below average income families, and especially to heads of single parent families. All these major steps we have taken during the ten short months that the review has been under way.
Because of the spirit of co-operation evidenced in the federal-provincial conferences and because of the support, encouragement and suggestions received from scores of voluntary organizations, labour unions, trade associations and religious groups, the government is confident that the social security review can be completed by the target date of April, 1975, and that the agreed upon changes can be implemented over the three to five year period which began in April, 1973.
I would like to conclude these remarks, Mr. Speaker, by setting the record straight concerning my department's share of the increase in the budget for next year. There have been several articles recently on this matter and I must admit that I am never surprised, although I am sometimes dismayed with press headlines and editorials, admittedly in the minority, which on the one hand call for
March 11, 1974

concrete steps by governments to solve various social problems and then complain when solutions result in increased government spending. They make me think of the double talk that we hear from the official opposition in this respect.
The proposed increase of $2.4 billion in the budget for next year over this year's forecast includes approximately $1.2 billion for the Department of National Health and Welfare. The real winners of this increase are the low and middle income Canadians and their families who have seen family allowances tripled, retired Canadians who have had their old age pensions benefits increased by over 32 per cent in one year and the provincial social assistance recipients, since federal spending in this area will increase by some $79 million, an increase of some 14 per cent in a single year.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear!


Steve Eugene Paproski: There goes a seagull!


Marc Lalonde: I believe, Mr. Speaker, that these measures accurately reflect the high priority which the government of Canada accorded to social policy in the previous Speech from the Throne and will continue to recognize.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What about pensions at 60?


William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, I rise to place on the record my comments on the throne speech. It is clear that at this time we are facing more uncertainty in the world than we have ever experienced since the end of the war. We see that the unprecedented rise in prosperity and affluence of the western world since the end of the war has been brought to a jarring halt. For many countries, this year will be a year of zero growth, or even of reduced growth. The United States is now in its second quarter of zero growth. Britain, it is forecast, will experience negative growth and Japanese growth is forecast at the low level of only 3 per cent.
For underdeveloped countries the situation is even worse. With regard to those countries, the increased cost of oil will make their economies much less productive and will prevent the modest increase that would have kept pace with the expansions of their populations. All this points to the fact that much of our affluence and production in society has been the result of the very low prices of energy, in the form of oil and gas. All the price increases of oil and gas really reflect the upward trend of basic commodity prices, which have not materially changed in 25 years. The price of wheat at $2 per bushel was reaching such a low level that production was being discouraged. This was the case with wool and other basic commodities. Yet, the price of manufactured goods and wages in general had risen markedly over the years. As this problem relating to the pricing of oil and gas is going to be very much to the fore in this parliament, we should realize that it is only part of the much larger problem of world supply of oil and gas.
It seems doubtful, Mr. Speaker, if the course being followed by the government in dealing with the producing
The Address-Mr. Ritchie
provinces, Alberta and Saskatchewan, is the best way to deal with the question of oil and gas. The government's approach will certainly leave scars on Canadian confederation long after the problem itself has been forgotten. Eventually, it will probably mean the drift of western Canada into an extremely independent position. Demand for energy is increasing all over the world. As the supply is decreasing, the price will go up regardless of what we, as politicians, say. In the handling of this problem it is important that we do not jeopardize supply for the future and bring about future shortages in our attempts to bring about short-term solutions.
Indeed, we are following, in many ways, the very course which the United States followed 20 years ago when it took a number of negative steps which, as a consequence, created its energy shortages of the present time. In the United States, price restraints were placed on producers, under the guise of providing assistance to consumers. It is painfully evident that, in the end, this was a great disservice to the consumer. The incentive for producers to explore was taken away; the finding rate fell drastically and reserve additions did not keep pace with consumption. The United States has now taken off price restraints and is allowing the competitive market system to set prices with regard to new supplies. In the final analysis, this will assist the consumer, as there is not much point in cheap oil if there is no oil to be had at any price.
In the United States, record expansion dollars are flowing back to help find much needed energy. We, in Canada, however, are largely following the pattern of the American administration of 20 years ago. We are more interested in the price of oil being low than in assuring the supply of oil and gas in future. It would appear, from many sources, it is generally believed that in western Canada there is an unlimited amount of oil to be scooped up for the taking. Such, however, does not seem to be the case. We are presently, and have been for some years, taking out of the ground half a billion barrels of oil more per year than are being found. Frontier oil may be very attractive in principle, but it is going to be terribly expensive by the time it reaches our consuming public.
It has always been assumed that the Alberta tar sands would be a source of cheap oil. It now seems abundantly clear that oil from the Alberta tar sands will be very expensive, but it will be useful in acting as a ceiling on what the Arab nations might demand for their oil. A comparison of relative costs of drilling and procuring oil from the tar sands indicates that recovery costs from conventional oil wells, in particular from ones as good as the Arab states now have, will be a governing factor in world oil prices for the balance of this decade or even this century.
An examination of statistics relating to relative costs of oil from the two sources is interesting. It has been estimated that it takes $10,000 of capital investment to extract one barrel of oil per day from the Alberta tar sands. Conversely, it takes $2,000 of investment in conventional oil wells in continental North America, including Alberta, to produce one barrel per day. But, for the Arab states, it takes an investment of only a few hundred dollars for a well that will produce one barrel per day. A good well in North America is rated at 50 barrels per day, whereas in the Arab

March 11, 1974
The Address-Mr. Ritchie
countries a production rate of 5,000 barrels per day is quite average.
Then, again, the Alberta tar sands product involves a mining operation rather than drilling for a conventional oil well. The exploitation of the tar sands will require a lot of manpower, which will be highly unionized. Workers will demand high and steadily increasing wages as their rightful due. In the case of oil wells, on the other hand, once they are brought into production, the labour content is not high. So, it is not difficult to see how the Arab nations will control price in future. We must also bear in mind, however, that the price of oil on the markets of the world seems to be declining. It is now forecast that about $8 per barrel will be the new price.
The United States President has told his nation of the measures to be taken to handle the serious American oil shortage which has been caused by the Arab denial of petroleum, and of other measures which will be necessary if the Arab squeeze continues. He has stated that by the end of this decade his country will have developed the potential to meet its energy needs without dependence on any foreign nation. The President did not make any reference to any nation as being an exception. The Americans have talked about the continental concept under which Canada and the United States would work together. It now seems likely that the United States has reversed its attitude with regard to Canada.
As late as in 1969, the United States Cabinet report on energy futures recommended close relations with Canada on energy, but suggested that Canada could only be counted on as a secure source of oil and gas if Canada took steps to reduce the dependence of Quebec and the Maritimes on overseas imports. Ottawa rejected this plan. Later on, with regard to the possibility of Prudoe Bay oil being brought by the Mackenzie Valley pipeline, Ottawa declined to put the matter on the agenda for intercabinet discussion, on the grounds that Ottawa had not set up its own policy and, of course, the United States plumped for the TransAlaska oil pipeline. At the present time it also seems likely that the Prudhoe Bay Gas will also go by Alaska, as the Americans have indicated they are in favour of an Alaskan pipeline.
One cannot blame the Americans for their sharp change in official and public attitudes when, without consultation, Ottawa slapped on the export tax in September. The situation was made even worse when the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) stated that he would cut petroleum exports to the United States if the Arabs demanded it.
These were Ottawa's actions against the United States, whose oil saved Canada from the long energy crisis in World War II and whose oil fields sustained Canadian growth, including that of western Canada, up to the midfifties. The United States has provided three quarters of the oil market growth for western Canadian oil for the past decade and thus made possible the productive capacity of the Alberta oil fields today. In view of the present huge trade between the two countries being balanced heavily in Canada's favour it is quite possible and likely that retaliation on the part of the United States will occur.
The federal-provincial energy conference is over. It adjourned with Canada being still no closer to a national

energy policy, although all the provinces had shown their positions before the conference. Ottawa had remained quiet. In view of the proposal that the price of crude oil be raised to $6 per barrel, that $1 per barrel go to the eastern consumer, 56 cents to the oil producing provinces, 33 cents to industry and 13 cents to the federal government, it was obvious that there was not enough money to satisfy all. In the long term, after the restraint period, there was to be an agreed increase in price. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) suggested that, somehow, we could insulate ourselves from the world. There was to be one price across the country.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said the other day that he was not interested in confiscating any province's resources. Nevertheless, the oil export tax cannot be construed as anything but the confiscation of a province's resources, in its present form. The charge made that the export tax was necessary to prevent so-called windfall profits, is not exactly true. Most of the extra money would still have found its way to the federal or provincial treasuries. But, if there are to be windfall profits, one sees the importance of having in place an excess profits tax which should be applied in all circumstances, and not just to the oil industry. It should apply to all industries which show a very high profit ratio.
The recent move by President Nixon with regard to the 22 per cent depletion allowance-that allowance, now granted to U.S. companies in foreign countries, would be eliminated-means that Canada would lose a certain amount of money that would have come from U.S. investment in Canada. That means that Canadian institutions and individual Canadians will need to make up this loss out of their savings.
The social security program in place in Canada, as announced and elaborated on by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) makes savings by ordinary, individual Canadians almost superfluous. As the rapid rise in inflation largely eats up these savings, one wonders for how long Canadians will be foolish enough to invest. Western Canada was founded by many races, but had in common the symbolism of the British connection. However, the British connection is diminishing in its force, prodded and abetted by Ottawa, and the new symbols of central Canada found little acceptance in the western mind. The maple leaf is an example because many western Canadians have never seen an actual maple leaf.
A legal and constitutional battle, by which this federal government intends to lay the provinces low, is intended, in view of the apparent packing of the supreme court by the appointment of certain justices recently. Chief Justice Laskin is noted as being left of centre and a strong federalist. Then there was the appointment of Jean Baetz, the former constitutional adviser to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). At the opening of the University of Saskatchewan law school in 1965, the Chief Justice made the statement, and I quote:
Power contracts by a failure to use it.
March 11, 1974

He later said:
I borrow a phrase from my friend, Professor Frank Scott. Provincial autonomy means national inactivity, and I would add that the more we have of the one, the more we have of the other...
I find it difficult to believe that our federal system can endure unless Ottawa is accepted as a source of national power and authority exercisable in respect of and for all citizens of Canada.
In view of that statement, it is not to be wondered that the president of the Law Society of Alberta called the appointment of Laskin as Chief Justice an overt political act. Has the Prime Minister decided to pack the court? By so doing, does he hope the federal government will usurp the power of the provinces? Can provincial jurisdictions expect to have a reasonable hearing in a packed supreme court? Western Canada has come of age in its political thinking. Its resources and its people give it new impetus and a new direction. It is more confident that it is equal to the rest of the Canadian confederation. It is confident that it can stand on its own if it needs to do so. It does not wish to be a hewer of wood and a drawer of water for central Canada. It doubts that the excessive reliance on prohibiting the export of resources and products, except in the processed form, will be enough to sustain the Canadian economy at the level that it wishes. The manufacturing industry is hard put in Canada to maintain its job numbers and its only major market, the United States, will find it increasingly difficult to absorb its high price products.
Mr. Speaker, it is very fashionable to blame oil companies and other large companies for rip-offs and so on which the leader of the NDP seems to favour as his attack on the bad guys. In deference to him, no doubt, the Prime Minister suggested that his government would also be after the bad guys, the oil companies, if they charged too much. However, Mr. Speaker, it should be realized that a corporation is not a person in itself. The implication of these attacks is that profits benefit some person or persons in the corporation, but a corporation is made up of shareholders, management and the working force.
If a company makes profits, someone must benefit. If the workers receive more income, they pay more income tax. If management receives more, they also must pay further income tax so that the federal and provincial treasuries benefit. Before dividends are paid, a corporation tax of 40 to 50 per cent must also be paid and if citizens receive dividends, they in turn must pay income tax. The corporations cannot have depreciation allowances that are not also available to unincorporated individuals in business or to the great cooperatives which pay no corporation tax and are able to pass along dividends to their shareholders or patrons without a corporation tax.
Those who feel that corporations and other firms of private enterprise are bad for the country must agree that things should be better because over 50 per cent of our GNP is now being spent by the three levels of government. There are vast areas of the so-called private sector filled with Crown corporations such as CNR, Air Canada and public utilities such as the provincially owned telephone systems. Those utilities which are privately owned have rigid rate structures set by the governments concerned. Even the agriculture industry, with many individual farmers, has a myriad of boards, mostly government, con-
The Address-Mr. Cullen
trolling the sale of their products and setting the price the producer wiil receive.
All investment counsellors will tell you that the largest single factor in the investment market is the employees' pension funds, mutual funds and insurance funds, all designed to gather in the savings of the small person and to have them invested in the market by managements. When we talk about corporate rip-offs and excessive corporate profits, we are also talking about the earning in these employees' pension funds, mutual funds and insurance funds and saying they are too high. In the few minutes that were available to me, I hurriedly put forward a few ideas on what I feel is the role of a member in this speech from the throne debate and the important part of that speech which is being discussed today.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have the opportunity to participate in the throne speech debate. My first words must be words of congratulation to the mover and the seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. Several years ago I had that distinction myself. At that time the Right Hon. Rolland Michener was Governor General of this country. I commented at that time on what a distinguished career he had and what a force he had been in that particular role. I, along with all of my colleagues, am satisfied that the right choice has been made for his successor. I look forward to the role that the new Governor General will play in that particular office. As one who had some dealing with him when he was with the office of the Secretary of State, I remember being very impressed with the careful manner with which he dealt with each problem brought before him, and the courtesy he extended to people who were dealing with him. I am sure he will bring that kind of dedication and courtesy to his office.
The Speech from the Throne makes reference to the petrochemical industry. As one who represents an area which has sometimes been called the chemical valley of Canada, it was heartening indeed to see that specific reference in the throne speech. Shortly after 1968, when I became a member of parliament, I made it my business to meet with officials who, in some circles, have become known as bad people, multinational corporation executives and members of boards of directors, to find out about the petrochemical industry, what problems it was facing and what was being done to help it because when the petrochemical industry in Canada is strong, there are a lot of people who have reason to be thankful, not only the shareholders and management, but the people who work for the corporations.
We had a sad experience in Sarnia. It was necessary to lay off something like 100 employees of Polymer, now Polysar, people who felt they were in a secure position. They were not worried about being laid off, but they soon learned the effects of being laid off. Some people had 18 to 20 years experience with that particular corporation. If anything highlighted the problems being faced by the petrochemical industry, that certainly was the spotlight that pointed me to the target area about which we should be doing something.
At that time it was very heartening to know that the Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin was Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. After speaking to him, I found that the compa-

March 11, 1974
The Address-Mr. Cullen
nies and the government had decided to stop warring with one another and do what could be done to help the petrochemical industry. A joint government-chemical industry committee was established, not to deal with recriminations but to determine the problems being faced by the petrochemical industry and what it was within the power of the Canadian governments to do about it.
At that time there was some concern that it was the size of the market that was having a disastrous effect on the size of the industry. It was not possible to build one world-scale plant, yet you might have several companies which felt that in order to get feed stock prices down to a particular level it was necessary to build plants on a world-scale level. Therefore, they looked at this.
Arising out of the report handed down by the joint government-chemical industry committee came the opportunity for not one, but two world-scale plants. These will have the beneficial effect of giving to the petrochemical industry feed stocks at competitive prices. That is all the petrochemical industry was asking. They wanted an opportunity to compete on an equal base or slightly less advantageous than the Americans. They said they could do it because they had the men, women, machinery, technology and skills. All they needed was world-scale plant. Of course, if it was possible to secure a larger market, that was to be not only the responsibility of the companies but of the Canadian government.
The beauty of the petrochemical industry is that, despite what has been said and reported for some years, the petrochemical industry is developing, and not only in the Sarnia-Lambton area. I suggest with respect, hoping not to be too parochial, that the Sarnia petrochemical complex constitutes the real heartbeat of the industry and that when this particular section is strong the whole petrochemical industry is strong. I was heartened to note the Dow-Dome people had made an application to the National Energy Board and this will lead, if the application is allowed, to the construction of a world-scale plant in Alberta producing feedstock in the order of one billion pounds per annum. This is the kind of operation that is very helpful to Alberta. It will not only have a world-scale sized plant but, as a result of that one plant being there, derivative plants are likely to be constructed. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, if the operation is strong in Alberta it will work to the benefit of the petrochemical industry in Ontario and in Quebec.
It may not be the national dream of a national railway but I would suggest, with respect, that a strong petrochemical industry is good for all of Canada. Four companies are now, I believe, about to embark on an application for the construction of a world-scale plant called the SOAP plant for purposes of brevity. The SOAP plant at the present time I assume, is making an application to the National Energy Board. This will have the effect of building or creating a world-scale plant for the production of ethylene. I am somewhat concerned about what impact it might have on Esso chemical who are at the present time meeting, as far as they are able, the needs of the petrochemical industry. But it seems to me, given todays booming economy, that this will not work to the detriment of Esso chemical but that Esso will, in fact, be

able to pick up at a considerable amount of market, since most, if not all, of the products to be available from the SOAP operation, will not meet the market at the time that plant comes into production.
I have to comment at this point about the 40 per cent tax rate, the reduction which was given to the manufacturing association. This was an area that caused some concern to me, because a promise was made by the government in May, 1972. and after the results of the election in October, 1972 were known the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) could I think quite justifiably have said "No, we can't go ahead with this; the people have indicated that they do not support it". But this Liberal government had made a commitment to business, and I was very proud of the fact that the Minister of Finance saw fit to honour that obligation; he did not wait for several months of discussion, but indicated almost immediately thereafter that this particular tax rate would become law. I do not know what the end result will be; we shall have to wait until the end of March. But it seems to me from anything that I have been able to read in the business sections of various newspapers, and in trade journals, and from what I heard the minister himself say earlier today, that 110,000 more jobs have been created in this particular industry, which seems to speak for itself as to the correctness of the action taken by this government.
I suspect, if I may look into the future, the report will indicate that there has in fact been a large capital expenditure by the manufacturing industry as a direct result of this 40 per cent figure. I am pleased to see the Minister of Finance had the guts, the good sense and the honesty, to go ahead with this particular commitment made prior to the October election. I do not often agree with the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie), but I have to agree with him that there seems to be a ham-handed effort in progress on the part of the New Democratic Party to give Canadian business a black eye. This is of some concern to me, Mr. Speaker, because, as the hon. member for Dauphin has said, when you give corporations which are creating jobs a black eye, you are giving it also to the people who invest in that company; you are making them uneasy, suggesting to them that perhaps they are investing their money in the wrong direction.
They are looking for a fair return on their investments. They are not looking for excessive profits. Selective use of statistics bothers me because it only leads to part of the truth being told. The figures are probably correct but I have learned to look with some suspicion on statistics ever since they were described to me as being like a bikini bathing suit-what they reveal is interesting but what they conceal is vital. I think we owe it to Canadians to see to it that multinational corporations do not become too strong. I think we are under an obligation to impose controls where controls are necessary, using the fiscal and monetary weapons at our disposal, to see to it that they act as good Canadian corporate citizens. I believe this is our responsibility because they are so strong. But by the same token I think there is a glorious opportunity to take advantage of the presence of these multinational corporations, bearing in mind that they do many splendid things for this country.
March 11, 1974

Unhappily, the right wingers in this House have been content to say very little on the subject. I think of myself as a left wing Liberal, certainly left of centre, and 1 am surprised that hon. members who hold themselves out to be Conservatives and right wing in their views have not yet seen fit to refute some of the statements made by the New Democrats. It is time we devoted a day to a good debate on this subject in order to hear not only their viewpoint but other points of view. Let us get out all the statistics and find out what really is happening. If there are abuses, they can be controlled. But to suggest the picture is all black is, surely, going too far. The NDP remind me of certain people who profess to be experts without any practical experience. None of them, to my knowledge, have ever run a business. They remind me of child psychologists who have never had children of their own but who can tell us how children should be raised.
Although I represent primarily an urban constituency I wish to speak for a few moments about the situation in which Canadian cattlemen find themselves at the present time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Have you ever raised any cattle?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: The hon. member asks me whether I have raised any cattle. I want to say that I have spread a little bull in my time.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to serve as chairman on the committee on food prices, so it may seem ironic I should be suggesting the imposition of some form of control over cattle imports. If low prices give rise to a situation in which a large proportion of Canadian cattle production is destroyed, the consumer is bound to suffer in the long run. We are obliged to make sure that this does not happen. Even if we pay a little more by way of higher prices it will be money well spent, and will ultimately reflect to the benefit of consumers.
The Speech from the Throne tells us that supplies must be increased. Undoubtedly this is the way to cope with rising prices. We all saw the disastrous effect of imposing controls at a time when supplies were short-they act in the long run to the detriment of the consumer. I disagree with the position taken by NDP speakers that the Food Prices Review Board should be given the authority to roll back prices. Any action in that regard should be taken by the government itself, and the government should be directly responsible in the House. In my view it would be wrong for a government to shelter behind the Food Prices Review Board. Any obligation to roll back prices rests with the government not with an appointed tribunal. I do not see the Food Prices Review Board in such a role.
While I am on this subject, I should like to commend the Food Prices Review Board. Many who are critical of this board never bother to read its reports. 1 refer particularly to a recent report on the effect of controls in Britain and the United States. I have the opinion that the board is served by an excellent research staff. Critics of the board
The Address-Mr. Carter
should at least take time to read its reports before they sound off.
In the field of veterans' affairs, I am concerned about three issues. The first is, whether or not the date for the receipt of applications under certain veterans' legislation ought to be extended. I hope this will be very carefully studied. Second, I think the transfer of hospitals is a good idea and I support it. However, I am apprehensive that eventually our veterans will reach the age where young doctors will not be entering veterans hospitals but will be dealing with senior citizens, therefore the veterans will not be getting the specialized treatment that they should have. By the same token, I am concerned that we should not forget that they are veterans hospitals.
I recommend to the minister that serious consideration be given to appointing an ombudsman to supervise all hospitals, or that each hospital have an ombudsman. I can say from my own experience with veterans that some of the veterans now being treated in veterans hospitals are afraid to raise a ruckus because they feel they might be sent home early or that they would only cause trouble for themselves. I do not think this sort of situation should be allowed to exist, and this is why I suggest an ombudsman.
The last matter I want to raise 1 have raised over and over again. Statistics on the backlog of pension cases being cleaned up are impressive, but I think that even more haste is required in this area.
I should like to go on, Mr. Speaker, but I see my time is up.


Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset, may I welcome to the gallery this afternoon a group of young Newfoundland students under the Reverend Brother Brennan who are visiting their capital from Corner Brook and several other communities around that area.
In rising to take part in this debate I should like, first of all, to associate myself with the other members of the House who have paid tribute to the new Governor General and Mrs. Leger. On behalf of my constituents and my province I wish them good health, success and happiness during their term of office. I am sure I am expressing the feelings of my constituents and my province when I say how much we look forward to a visit by His Excellency and Mrs. Leger in what we hope will be the not too distant future. I join with my colleagues in extending my sincere congratulations to the mover and seconder of the address in reply. Considering how little these two hon. members had to work with, I think they did a very good job and excelled themselves in their speeches.
I should also like to congratulate my leader, the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), on the brilliant speech he made during this debate. I am sure that he was echoing the feelings and beliefs of the vast majority of Canadians who have been confronted with, and will continue to be confronted with, unemployment, high living costs and inflation generally.
The Speech from the Throne, not unlike the one delivered last year, held no real surprises. There is nothing in the speech to instil any real confidence in our people.
382

March 11, 1974
The Address-Mr. Carter
Noticeably absent from the speech is any meaningful indication of resource policy, trade and income policy, monetary policy and, what is more important, any policy of worth to fight inflation. We must recognize the fact that unless the problems of inflation are eliminated no other domestic problems in this country will be solved. Therefore, it stands to reason that it should be the first priority of this government to tackle inflation.
What do we have before us, Mr. Speaker? We have a speech that indicates quite clearly that this government are content to go their merry way in the belief that we are merely the victims of world wide inflation. They are content to bury their heads in the sand and let things ride on the basis that all of our problems are the direct result of inflationary pressures from outside this country, that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), this government, and indeed the people of Canada, are innocent bystanders. The people of Canada, particularly those in the middle and low income brackets, are not buying any longer the excuses and indifference of this government. If the Prime Minister and his colleagues have been listening to responses from the people of Canada, it will become abundantly clear to them that it is time they got down from their academic ivory towers and started to mix with the bare facts of reality.
The first thing that this government must do is to be honest with itself and with the people and recognize the fact that inflation in Canada is not the total responsibility of outside forces, but that there exist in this country problems that are adding to inflation. This government must change its defeatist attitude; there is no use trying to change this situation when the people responsible are not convinced themselves that change can come about. The government must be willing to admit to themselves, and to the people, that their handling of the situation has been wrong. It is no tragedy to admit failure. To err is human. But to continue in the full knowledge that you are wrong, and without regard for the future welfare of millions of our people, is a tragedy and is inhuman.
It will be essential for this government and for the people of this country to work together in order to get out of the mess in which we now find ourselves. A short-term freeze on certain elements of the Canadian economy is essential if we are serious about fighting inflation. This must be followed by an economic, income and monetary policy. One without the other will not work, but together they will work. If this government is serious about the future welfare of Canadians, then it is time it swallowed its pride and listened to the people. It is time it implemented the policy for fighting inflation put forth by the leader of our party.
I listened with a great deal of interest for some mention in the throne speech of the government's objectives in regard to the development of the food producing segments of our economy. Being a Newfoundlander I was, of course, particularly interested in the government's objectives as they relate to the fisheries. May I quote this extract from the Speech from the Throne:
The government's objectives will guide a re-assessment of existing programs in the areas of agriculture and fisheries.
This, sir, is the first mention of fisheries in the speech. Other references to fisheries relate to the government's

intention to improve harbour facilities for fishing fleets and the promise of guaranteed loans and other forms of assistance to both farmers and fishermen to assist them in purchasing or modernizing their equipment. The throne speech also promised incentives to increase Canada's catch of unexploited stocks of fish. I hope that the government's reassessment of the agriculture industry has been more productive and meaningful than their reassessment of the fishing industry. Otherwise, I am afraid we will have more than empty stockings next Christmas; we will have empty bread baskets and probably empty stomachs as well.
What I am about to say now I have said before, because last year the same situation prevailed. I refer to the government's expenditures on badly needed small craft harbour facilities in the Atlantic area. Let us for a moment translate into actual fact the government's promise to improve harbour facilities for our fishing fleets. For the benefit of hon. members who are not familiar with the problem, I should point out that harbour and wharf facilities are to our fishermen what grain elevators, storage facilities and boxcars are to our western farmers. Without these facilities our wheat farmers cannot produce and successfully market their crops. By the same token, without adequate harbour and fish landing facilities our fishermen cannot produce or attain their full potential in the fishing industry.
The entire federal budget this year for the provision and improvement of small craft harbour facilities is less than that being spent by the government in the city of Ottawa on the acquisition of properties on Sparks Street. Indeed, in Newfoundland, where there is such a desperate need for these facilities, the federal government proposes to spend approximately $4.2 million during the coming fiscal year. That is approximately the same amount being spent by this government on the provision of an underground parking facility in the city of Hull.
On March 6 last, I received a letter from the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. Davis) to which he attached a list of the works to be undertaken by his department during the 1974-75 fiscal year, together with a list of other projects that have been considered essential but, according to him, will of necessity be deferred due to budget constraints. The cost of the projects selected for the 1974-75 program for my constituency amount to $445,000. The cost of the projects that have been deferred, notwithstanding their urgency, amounts to $1.5 million. How naive does the Minister of Fisheries think we are? Is it any wonder that our people have lost faith in this government and are fed up to the teeth with what is taking place in this country today? Is it any wonder that there is a growing resentment among a large segment of our people in respect of the present government and its attitude toward the have-not regions of this country?
Fishing facilities are vitally important to Newfoundland and, indeed, to other fishing areas in this country. Without them fishermen are unable to fish productively and make a living for themselves from this industry. Does the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) expect us to accept, without question, the extravagant spending on the part of his government in certain areas when primary producers including fishermen are told to eat cake? Does he expect us to accept

without a murmur the huge amounts of money provided for in this year's estimates for the acquisition of properties in and around the capital for the provision of bigger and better public buildings, and for bilingualism which this year is costing the Canadian taxpayer in excess of $200 million while the real problems of this country are being swept under the carpet?


An hon. Member:: Oh, come on.


Walter C. Carter: The fishermen of my constituency are being denied their fundamental right of being able to earn a living from the fisheries, while at the same time we see in the estimates typical examples of this government's misguided sense of priorities. It is no wonder that a lot of Canadians are getting fed up with this government's preoccupation with matters that are receiving priority such as those I have mentioned. As I have said, this year alone we will spend in excess of $200 million on bilingualism in Canada. This represents about 9 per cent of the government's budget. I am not suggesting for a moment that there is no need for a policy on bilingualism in Canada. I think we all recognize that need and members of this party have gone along with the proposition, but I do believe there are times when other things should take priority, and this also applies to certain areas of the province of Quebec. Certainly, in the Atlantic area there are problems which should not be deferred in favour of other programs the government has seen fit to initiate and finance.


An hon. Member:: Speak for yourself.


Walter C. Carter: It must be obvious to the Prime Minister and to his government that not enough attention is being paid to the needs, wishes and desires of the people, and I include the fishermen of eastern Canada who are in many cases being denied their basic rights as citizens of this country.
Our concern in eastern Canada, certainly in my province, is not in respect of cultural sovereignty. That is something we probably will start worrying about in 50 years' time. We are concerned about the right to be treated equally as Canadians, and the right to earn a decent living. I am sure that statement will shatter the delicate ears of some of my colleagues opposite but, be that as it may, I can assure you I am not alone in that view.


An hon. Member:: That's a lot of bull and you know it.


Walter David Baker: You wouldn't know a bull from a flounder.


Walter C. Carter: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member must be quite familiar with bull, so I will not deny him his right to say that.


An hon. Member:: Don't pretend to be the only one speaking for Atlantic Canada.


Walter C. Carter: You will have your chance, and then perhaps you will stand up and be heard. These people have had enough of this government's costly policies. Of course, we know what is happening. The Prime Minister is not fooling us. We know it is the philosophy of the Prime Minister and the Liberal party to divide and conquer, to
The Address-Mr. Nelson
keep political power at any price, and that is what they are setting out to do. They are pitting one segment of our society against another. The Prime Minister is not content with that, he is now working on a program to pit the east against the west and region against region.


An hon. Member:: And fishermen against farmers.


Walter C. Carter: Yes, and fishermen against farmers as my hon. colleague suggests. The Prime Minister is doing all this under the name and guise of national unity. Of course, his real reason is to retain the political power he has, and he is not too concerned about what the outcome will be so far as this country is concerned.
Let me tell the Prime Minister through you, Mr. Speaker, that he is playing a dangerous game. He is playing with fire. The majority of Canadians can see through this sinister plot and are not having any part of it. Indeed, the obvious philosophy that has been adopted by the Prime Minister and the Liberal government will have the opposite effect in this country in that it will be responsible for creating prejudices and bigotry. There is a lot of rumbling in this country and particularly in my province, as a result of this government's obvious intention and determination to reduce certain areas, including certain parts of the Atlantic region, to that of colonial status.
It is really paradoxical when one realizes that the government is spending hundreds of millions of dollars, allegedly to bring the people of Canada together, when on the other hand it is doing its best to alienate the people of other provinces, including Newfoundland, making them feel a non-part of the federal system. I refer, of course, to the policy of this government to reduce its presence in Newfoundland to that of a branch office with headquarters in one or other of the Atlantic provinces.


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


Nels Edwin Nelson: Mr. Speaker, if I begin my brief remarks with comments on the speeches of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), I do so in the spirit of reflecting on their party policies and not on them as individuals.
I was not disappointed with the speech of the Leader of the Opposition because, as the saying goes, blessed is he who expects nothing for he shall not be disappointed. Perhaps the best part of his speech was the metaphor he used in describing members in the government benches as an orchestra, with various ministers playing designated instruments albeit discordantly, while he himself, like little Johnnie one note, sang the monotonous and discredited theme of the Tory party, wage and price controls. This term has been variously disguised as a prices and incomes policy, a freeze followed by unstated measures, or a freeze followed by specific measures which are never specific. Whatever term one falls for, this still means locking in the inequities that already exist and, as for the measures that follow the freeze, it is unlikely that the leopard will change his spots.
27398-25*

March 11, 1974
The Address-Mr. Nelson
There was a lot of meat in the speech of the Prime Minister who said:
Our problem is the equitable distribution of our most abundant wealth.
That is a beautiful statement. He went on to state:
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 a wonderful statement. Then, he fired his big gun and said:
We will not hesitate to go after the so-called big guys if action is necessary to protect the Canadian consumer.
These statements may come back to haunt the government in the months or weeks or days to come. Well, Mr. Speaker, let me emphasize now, as our leader already has and our members have over the months and during this debate, that action is necessary to protect the Canadian consumer. In 1973, as we all know, the consumer price index went up by 9.1 per cent, hitting the average family in the two most vital spots, food and housing, which together account for 56 per cent of average family income. The government admits that labour is not to blame, and statistics show that wage and salary increases in the last half of 1973 actually decreased by nearly one per cent while corporation profits, on the other hand, in 1973 were over-all 40 to 50 per cent higher than in 1972, which was a good year too.
I will not list the profit figures of the huge corporations because they are already a matter of public record. Despite the comments of the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen), we are not anti-business; we are anti-business abuse. Most multi-nationals could be included in that category. I remember our leader, during a speech in this House, complimenting a large Canadian corporation for its corporate business practice. The government said it would not hesitate to take action. In 1963, the three largest sugar importers were convicted of price fixing. Now, they are at it once more and are being prosecuted again. But in the intervening time, between 1963 and today, it is estimated that the price fixing activities of these three firms have cost the Canadian consumer $125 million. Now, there is hesitation for you-eight years of it. Now, the steel companies and the cement companies are under suspicion. Is it any wonder that we look askance at statements that promise action when necessary?
The public is beginning to catch on, but they know now what to expect of the oil companies. A recent Gallup poll conducted by the Canadian Institute of Public Opinion shows that over half of the Canadian public has lost confidence that the multinational oil companies will act in the interests of Canada. Anyone who has visited the United States lately will hear the same distrust widely expressed. Even there, the public is calling for investigations and for public control. Now, the wolves are starting to gather around the Athabasca tar sands. What will the government do to protect the interests of Canadians? Will they use the proposed national petroleum company to serve the interests of Canadians or will this be another sell-out of our national resources?
As the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) has pointed out, unless this government

gets into the oil business in co-operation with the provincial governments to place this huge resource under public control, the confidence that the oil companies have lost will extend to the government, as it probably has already. In light of the fantastic profits quoted by so many members on this side of the House, excluding the Tories who have their sights trained on smaller game, how can the government in the name of all that is reasonable deny the need for greater controls over the activities and profits of the large corporations.
The Tories complain about the high cost of welfare programs and of UIC, but do you ever hear them quote the $4.7 billion in deferred taxes to large corporations? They speak with feeling about the need for housing and of the plight of those who do not have decent shelter, but they seldom make specific mention of the 516 per cent increase in profits in 1973 of one of our largest real estate and development institutions and others like it. Yes, the Tories have their sights trained on smaller game. That champion of the working man, the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) zeroed in only last Thursday on the extent to which people are 'cheating' or 'ripping-off' the Unemployment Insurance Commission. No one would condone cheating on UIC or any other program, but according to my information, in 1972 only 908 persons were prosecuted by UIC for having cheated on their claims. That is .05 per cent of all claims. As for the rip-off, I was interested to hear from no less an authority than the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey), whose humanitarian approach to the workers seems incongruous in the context of the present minister's attitude that:
The people who went on unemployment insurance in 1972 with eight weeks work represented 2.5 per cent of all claims in Canada. That is what all the excitement is about-2.5 per cent, 11 weeks or less, 35,000 people.
Let the Tories fire their salvos, not at the working people but at the real rip-off artist whose embarrassingly high profits are published every day-the multinational corporations who manipulate the pricing and distribution of goods to their own advantage and the wealthy people in this country who, according to the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, under-report their investment income by as much as 50 per cent.
I want to mention pensions only briefly because the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has already spoken and when he speaks he leaves nothing left for the rest of the seagulls. Since his speech, however, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) has made it clear that the government does not intend to lower the pensionable age. This news will come as a great shock and disappointment to thousands of weary Canadians who have worked hard all their lives and who desperately want to lay down their tools before age 65. The Canadian people want adequate pensions at age 60, and until a step is made in this direction, the remarks that the minister made this afternoon will have a hollow ring.
I have in the past 14 months worked closely with the claims officer in my own branch of the Canadian Legion. I have always found the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) to be co-operative and I believe he is doing his best. I note that the processing of claims has been speeded up and the backlog reduced last year from 9,000 to 7,300. From the minister's point of view, and taking into
March 11, 1974

consideration the difficulties of processing which he evidently faces, this is no doubt a significant achievement. From the point of view of the needy applicant who is far down the list, however, settlement seems remote and time short. I thank the minister for past courtesies and urge him to bend even greater effort toward speeding up the processing of these claims.
One of the greatest achievements of past Liberal governments was the administration of the veteran's education rehabilitation program which concluded in the mid-fifties. I know this from personal experience. It would now be a most appropriate gesture on this 25th biennial convention year of the Royal Canadian Legion to extend the deadline for the Veterans Land Act, and I would hope that the government will consider doing so.
Now, Mr. Speaker, time is streaking by and because of the agreement to limit speeches at this stage I will make only brief reference to the problems of urban development in the lower mainland region of British Columbia. The Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) has spoken of specific projects related to port development, and I am aware of the developments taking place to improve port facilities. I want to mention, however, a matter of particular concern to me and to many community groups in my riding, namely the future development of the Burrard Inlet east of the Second Narrows bridge. On both sides of the inlet there is an ever present danger that too much industrial and commercial development will result in congestion and environmental damage. I believe the communities involved should have greater representation on the local National Harbours Commission.
For my part, as the federal member representing both sides of the inlet in this sensitive area, I recognize the right of local councils to make decisions regarding the planning and development of the communities which they represent. For that reason, I have not raised my voice against the installation of yet another refinery on the Burnaby side or the projected development of a large commercial enterprise on the north side of the inlet. Yet, it is my feeling that this vital growth area stands at the crossroads at this point in time. I pray with all my heart that the federal government, the provincial government, the greater Vancouver regional district and, most important of all, the municipal governments will catch the vision of the future and, putting partisan politics aside, work together, in the words of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) "to develop in a co-operative way good techniques of managing urban growth to avoid congestion and pollution". The four levels of government that I have mentioned can, with frequent consultation with community groups, so manage developments that the people of this area, which extends far out into the Fraser Valley, will be assured of the ultimate goal: the development of a truly livable region.
If I may conclude on a parochial note, may I finally beg the indulgence of the House to pay tribute to the fine work of the co-ordinators of the provincial debating finals which took place last week in Burnaby-Seymour. Winners from all provinces will compete in a national debating final in May here in Ottawa. This is an excellent national program for training future citizens and politicians, and
The Address-Mr. Hopkins
an excellent example of community involvement. I am proud also that Burnaby-Seymour has provided so many world skating champions through the fine work of the North Shore Winter Club.


Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew North-Nipissing East):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, along with the other members of the House, I should like to extend my congratulations and those of my constituents to Their Excellencies, the Governor General and his good lady, on taking office and wish them well. Secondly, I should like to congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the cabinet and the many members of the government caucus for their contribution to the throne speech debate and to a dynamic and useful program for the second session of the twenty-ninth parliament. There is one thing to which I do not pay much heed, and that is the criticism of rubber stamping that this party receives, but I can say on behalf of my own colleagues that every member is a part of the party in general.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leonard Donald Hopkins: This session has been taken up, to a large degree, in discussions on petroleum and energy in Canada. But there is one thing that should be made very clear and kept foremost in everyone's mind and that is that over the years since the 1940's federal governments in Canada have been spending millions of dollars on nuclear energy research in this country. Today, we are foremost among the nations of the world in the development of nuclear power and its domestic uses.
One of the things that has not received nearly enough emphasis throughout 1973, and throughout the debate on the energy crisis in Canada, is the happy fact that Atomic Energy of Canada at Chalk River and Deep River, which I am glad to have in my constituency, is the mother of the most efficient and successful power source in the world today. Indeed, it is the mother of the entire Ontario Hydro plant in Pickering. Ontario Hydro had the courage to go ahead and make the decision to try it, but it was the expertise of Atomic Energy of Canada that has made that plant possible and will make other plants possible. In our constituency in particular, and in the country at large, we should be taking our hats off to the science community at Atomic Energy in Chalk River and Deep River, as well as the National Research Council for leading the way to a new and bountiful source of energy for the world.
Sometimes we become so involved with our own problems that we forget to tell people about our successes. We had a very famous Canadian in the past, who went down fighting in the election of 1957, in the person of the Right Hon. C. D. Howe. I should like to remind members of this House today of something that has probably long since been forgotten, but it was the Right Hon. C. D. Howe who was the initiator of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. It is because of his initiative, in spite of the criticism that he received in this House and in spite of the fact that sometimes he arrived at decisions in a hurry but they were usually the right decisions, that one of the most expensive research institutions that we have in Canada was started, one which produced much good for mankind, not only in Canada but in the world at large. This nation owes him

March 11, 1974
The Address-Mr. Hopkins
thanks for taking leadership and for his courage back in the 1940's.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leonard Donald Hopkins: The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) has been named "man of the year" by the business section of the Toronto Globe and Mail. He has carried himself well through a very difficult period and in the debates in the House of Commons. I do not care who laughs or what comments are made about him. He has taken a stand in this House and he has done his work well. He deserves the credit of the Canadian community.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Especially the big companies.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Recently, I have had the honour to visit our Canadian armed forces in Europe where I had several briefings and visited our servicemen in the field. I have also had the privilege of visiting the U.N. forces in Cyprus. We now have a large contingent in Egypt. I do not think people really appreciate how difficult U.N work is for Canadian servicemen. It requires a lot of patience and great dedication. Our servicemen who serve in these positions around the world in the NATO forces and in our Canadian forces in Europe are to be commended to the nth degree for the image of this nation that they are giving around the world.
While in Cyprus I also had the opportunity to speak to some of the people on both sides of the conflict there. It still looks like a very difficult issue to settle. But there is one thing that must be said for the senior officers as well as the rank and file in the armed forces, and that is that regardless of the tasks they are given to do, they take these tasks seriously. In spite of the problems with which they are faced, they go ahead and do the job.
I would be remiss if I did not say a few words about the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the work it has done in parts of eastern Ontario. In the upper part of the Ottawa valley, a large section of which I have the privilege of representing, as well as in other areas that I do not represent directly, such as the towns of Renfrew, Arnprior, Eganville and so on, if it was not for DREE and its input into that region we would not be getting ahead nearly as well as we are today. In spite of all the criticism this department has received from various areas across Canada, it is welcome in our section of eastern Ontario any day. I will stand up in the House and support the minister any day.
In the new agreements that will be forthcoming on DREE, some of which have already been made, I hope there will be a considerable input and that my area of eastern Ontario will continue to benefit.
Mr. Speaker, I would be very remiss if I did not congratulate the mayors, the reeves, the industrial commissioners and the people who have really tried to make this system work. We all know that it is one thing for government to bring in policies, but it is another thing for the people in the local areas to pick up the ball and carry it

down the field, making use of those policies. I hope we continue to have strong and dedicated people in municipal governments in this part of Canada, and indeed across the country. Sometimes we do not give municipal politicians the credit they deserve.
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to make a further point about the town of Deep River. Because of the existence of large plants of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited at Chalk River and Deep River, which employ 2,450 people, it is sometimes thought by both senior levels of government that since the town of Deep River receives a grant in lieu of taxes from that Crown corporation the town does not qualify for the award of other grants. This is unfair to the town. It has been in existence since the 1940's and now requires a lot of money for maintenance as well as growth. I do not feel that the existence of that grant in lieu of taxes from AECL should be used as an argument to refuse the town of Deep River the same grants it should normally receive, just as any other community of its size across Canada.
There have been many discussions inside and outside this House in regard to the LIP program and the minister has come under fire about some projects. We have to realize that human beings are not perfect, not 100 per centers. In spite of the criticism that has been levied at the odd LIP program, in my estimation it has been one of the most successful programs for providing services and worthwhile work in small communities that would otherwise be absolutely forgotten.
There are many small communities scattered throughout my constituency, which is the largest of 77 in southern Ontario. I would not be ashamed to take anybody to any part of my riding to show them the work undertaken through the Local Initiatives Program to service the small communities. I hope the criticism, which has been overemphasized, of particular projects, that have failed will not be used as a sledgehammer to kill a program as a result of which much good work has been accomplished.
Mr. Speaker, a part of the Speech from the Throne dealt with freight rates and freight policies across Canada. These are probably equally important to the DREE program. Many industries have been assisted in settling in various parts of Canada, but perhaps they should be encouraged into slow growth areas with a freight rate policy that would assist in their success. This is the way to put permanency into the usefulness of the DREE program, and I do not think we can talk about the one without talking about the other. We have also a key role to play in providing roads for transportation, and I hope that greater emphasis will be placed on this in eastern Ontario in the future as an enticement to economic development.
Earlier, Mr. Speaker, I mentioned that our forces in Europe, Cyprus and Egypt are dedicated but their job is a very trying one which demands a great deal of patience. When talking to the men in the field I realized that the one thing they missed was sports news, hockey results and so on from Canada; things which are a way of Canadian life. Upon my return I wrote to a major oil company in Canada to ask if it would sponsor tapes and video taped programs for the armed forces in Europe, Cyprus and Egypt. I sincerely hope that this will work, and if it does I
March 11, 1974

will be approaching the appropriate ministries to assist in bringing these facilities to the armed forces overseas.
There are many things that our armed forces do of which people are not aware. For example, in the preservation of ecology, our maritime aircraft and naval vessels monitor pollution on our coasts and report major offenders to the appropriate government department for action. I had a very interesting experience approximately two weeks ago in visiting Maritime Command.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I regret that I must interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired.


Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this opportunity to offer my congratulations and good wishes to His Excellency the Governor General. I think that the installation of our new Governor General reminds the country of the importance of his office, and the Crown which he represents, an importance that over the years has been lost sight of by the government of this country, until very recently. We are aware of how the government began to take a new look at the monarchy and the representation of it after October 30, 1972. I think it is fair to say in a quarter of a century before that, that a series of Liberal governments had reduced the importance of the monarchy, it is vital for us to take this occasion to recall the importance of the Crown and the parliamentary system, to recognize the tactical value it has in the way our country is governed.
I think one of the lessons that we, as Canadians, can learn from Watergate is that in the parliamentary system we have a far superior form of government, and basic to that system is the function and role of the Crown.
I wish to congratulate both the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. The hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Stollery) and the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Pelletier) set forth their case with clarity, conviction and sincerity, although with somewhat misguided enthusiasm for the subject on which they had to speak. Both hon. member made fine speeches.
I wish, in passing, to refer to the address of the hon. member for Sherbrooke because it was in great contrast to some of the speeches I have heard by other hon. members from his province, speeches which have contained inflammatory language, which have shown a derogatory spirit on the language issue. That attitude should not be brought to this House and should not be evident in this country. What we need, as some of us recognize, is that issue to be taken outside the realm of controversy and party competition. I regret that some of the remarks made on the Speech from the Throne have done little but contribute to the ill-will and misunderstandings of the past.
Most serious of all is the way in which the Speech from the Throne has failed to give the people of Canada and members of this parliament the sense of direction which we need because of the critical situation which Canadians face. The speech has been described by many commentators as lacking rhetoric. It certainly lacks a program. The country can stand absence of eloquence; it cannot endure an absence of understanding. At this point in Canada's
The Address-Mr. Stackhouse
history we need leadership. The country does not need a government which give top priority to its own survival: it needs a government that will give it a sense of direction.
I recognize that it is scarcely possible to find this sense of direction under a government which cannot decide whether it should follow the Liberal direction or the socialist direction. The country cannot be given that direction if the government does not know its own direction. This is of vital concern to us all because of the crisis situation in which this country now finds itself.
When a general election is held in Canada, and held it must be despite the chameleon adaptiveness of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the choice for Canadians primarily will not be between two parties but between two ways of life. One way of life is to be seen by the present alliance between Liberals and socialists. It is based upon the conviction that the government should be a kind of Big Brother, at the centre of life, and take over every aspect of life of the Canadian people. That way of life we see demonstrated in the way in which the role of government is expanding in Canada under the present administration which is taking on behemoth proportions.
It is now expected that the public service of Canada will expand to over 330,000 employees in the forthcoming fiscal year. If we add the members of the armed forces and others directly or indirectly on the federal payroll, we find that there will be working for the federal government directly or for the public service, including Crown corporations, in the neighbourhood of 500,000 persons, representing 5 per cent of the labour force of this country. The cost of that massive force mounts every year. The bill for the federal government is rising at a speed 50 per cent greater than the growth of the gross national product. The federal budget is such that there is now a levy on each person, adult and child, of $1,000 or more per year. The cost of living for Canadians last year increased by 9.5 per cent, but the cost of government will increase by more than 20 per cent.
I ask this question: what do Canadians have to show for this? Much of this increase in cost is based upon the faith claim made by supporters of the government that whatever problem the people face, the government knows best what the solution ought to be. Name a single need which Canadians have experienced and you will find there has been some attempt by the government to present a fully funded program to deal with it. We have agencies, boards, commissions, corporations and groups of all kinds drawing on the public purse. We have projects, coalitions, organizations and committees, all reaching out with open hands for federal grants.
We have poured billions of dollars into programs for removing regional disparities, eliminating slums, creating employment and improving the quality of life. Yet Canada still has deprived regions, substandard housing, jobless persons, mounting rates of crime, marriage breakdowns, drug addiction and alcohol abuse. It is clear that the spending of more and more public money by the federal government is not going to meet the needs of the Canadian people. We see that, for example, in the escalating costs of prisons. Last year the cost of operating our penitentiary service increased. The cost of keeping an inmate in prison has risen from $11,000 per year to $13,000 per year.

March 11, 1974
The Address-Mr. Stackhouse
When we debated this issue in the previous session of parliament, I hazarded the prediction that if the rate of increase in the cost of running our penitentiary service continued to the end of this decade, by the end of the 1970's we would be spending $20,000 per inmate per year. I was wrong: we will reach that figure by 1978 if we continue to escalate costs at the present rate. Yet we see no indication of the government being aware that these expenditures do not achieve what they purport to achieve. The government has inflated the cost of its penitentiary program in order to put greater emphasis on rehabilitation. That aim I am sure all parties support. Certainly I do. Yet in exchange for the great expenditure the government has put out we have had little that is effective under the heading of rehabilitation. Actually, despite all the expenditures on our prisons, we have a recidivism rate of 80 per cent, which means that 80 per cent of the inmates of our penitentiaries have been in a penal institution previously. We find that instead of being rehabilitated, progressing and developing as normal citizens, a great proportion of prison inmates return to the penitentiary.
I cite this example to show that in one area undiminished growth in government expenditures will not achieve the objective which the government claims as justification for the growth in expenditure. In the Speech from the Throne I find no hint that the government will conduct a major re-examination of penitentiary services and the penal system in our country. Editorials in the Toronto Globe and Mail and the Toronto Star in recent weeks have reflected analytically and critically on the increased cost of our prisons and on the failure of our prisons to deliver the rehabilitative goods.
Those newspapers have challenged the government to face this issue honestly and to see if there are not more effective ways in which the public purse can be protected and offenders against the law dealt with. In this matter we have another example of the way in which the government is spending, spending, spending without being able to demonstrate to the public that in exchange for the massive outlay in public funds it is able to deliver the goods which it has set out to deliver. I hope, therefore, this House of Commons will be far more critical of the attempts by the government to inflate the federal budget.
[DOT] (mo)
One of the facts of life in Canada today that the government has refused to recognize is the hard fact that a major element in the high cost of living is the high cost of governing, and that the government of Canada is itself a contributor to the inflationary crisis that is now affecting the people of Canada. The hon. member who preceded me spoke with some enthusiasm about the way in which all Liberal members of parliament contribute to the thinking of the Liberal government. One gets the impression that the caucus of the government party is one great, expanded cabinet meeting. If that is so, it would certainly be salutary and in the interest of the people of Canada if more and more Liberal members had an economizing influence upon their high-spending ministers.
One thing that has become clear to the people of Canada is that they are being required by the taxation process to put more money into their government and they are not getting back from the government the kind of service to

justify this outrageous expenditure. For example, I have here editorials from the Ottawa Citizen commenting upon the growth of the federal budget. The Ottawa Citizen states it is costing us more for the public service to do less. The Montreal Star refers to the way in which thousands of persons have been added to the federal civil service, while the service gets worse.
We have to realize that across this country it is becoming more and more clear that simply having a program initiated by the government at extraordinary expense will not meet the needs of the people. We must recognize that it is time we had a government that has some trust in the people of Canada and which recognizes that if the people of Canada could have more of their own hard-earned income remaining in their hands, they would be able to deal more effectively with their own problems.
We need to replace the Big Brother complex of this government, which believes that it primarily has the right and capacity for meeting the needs of the Canadian people, with one that recognizes the Canadian people have within their competence the wherewithal to meet their needs and to deal with their problems. What they require most is some freedom by which they can have more control over the income for which they have laboured. The Big Brother mentality of Liberal socialism that now governs Canada is robbing each taxpayer of that for which he has laboured.
If this parliament were really serving the needs of the people of Canada it would be seeking a program, enunciated in a throne speech, that would emphasize the way in which a government ought to trust the people of Canada. We have had too much Big Brother government: what we need is more faith in the people.


Mr. Herb Breau (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to join other hon. members in congratulating the mover and seconder of the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Stollery), and the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Pelletier).
They showed that they are not only able parliamentarians but also that they can speak with conviction and are concerned with current problems, not only with those within their constituencies but also with those that concern us as Canadians and citizens of the world.
Mr. Speaker, as my time is limited, I shall spend less time than usual on discussing the Speech from the Throne, especially when dealing with my constituency and its problems. I shall restrict my comments to one problem, which I believe is a very important one at this time. Even if this is not a local problem, one which concerns only my constituency, in view of its importance at the national level and the effects that it could have on my constituents, I shall deal mostly with unemployment insurance, with the criticisms aimed at this system and with the famous reforms and investigations that some people in this country, particularly the members of the Progressive Conservative Party, would like to see undertaken.

Before doing that we must deal with one other issue that has been discussed in this debate and all over the country. That is the issue of inflation and rising costs in Canada. I
March 11, 1974

wish to put on the record-I will not use the word "stupid"-how illogical is the position of the Progressive Conservative Party with regard to inflation and rising costs.
There is no evidence at this time of cost-push inflation. The inflation is being caused by extreme shortages, not only in Canada but in the world. To suggest the simplistic solution of wage and price controls only because it is an appealing political slogan is very irresponsible. The Conservative Party says it has its roots in regions of this country including my own area in the maritimes. They want to freeze the salaries of the people in my constituency and in other parts of the maritimes. These people work for $2 an hour, and sometimes less. Even if they earn $2.50 an hour, how will their problems of inflation be solved by freezing their salaries for 90 days? That is not only ridiculous but irresponsible.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herb Breau: Members from Newfoundland and Nova Scotia have been talking about the terrible rise in food prices. The price of fish in Newfoundland, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia has never been so high. For the first time in my short experience I can see fishermen getting a fair price for their catch. They are finally receiving a good income with which to support their families. However, the Conservatives would like not only to freeze the price of their product but their income.
I can cite figures to show that salaries of fish plant workers in Newfoundland and New Brunswick are about $3 an hour for the first time in the history of the maritimes. However, the Conservatives are saying to these people that they will solve their problems by freezing their income. Not only does it not make sense from an economic point of view, because it has failed in Britain, the United States and anywhere else where it has been tried, and not only is it stupid, but how can those people talk about social justice on the one hand and policies like that on the other?


Mr. Blenkarn:: Oh, oh!


Herb Breau: The hon. member for Mississauga (Mr. Blenkarn) comes from the Toronto area where people earn $5 or $6 an hour. He does not understand what it is like to work in a fish plant for $2 an hour. I can appreciate his position. However, even if there were no members of his party from areas of the country where people work for low wages, I thought he would have enough heart not to suggest economic policies which mean that poor people have to bear the cost.


An hon. Member:: That is unfair.


Herb Breau: I wanted to speak about unemployment insurance because again we hear the same two standards expressed by the Conservatives-


Mr. Danforth:: The same old bunch over there.


Herb Breau: Time and time again members on the opposition benches bring up errors in administration, dramatizing everything that occurs. The Liberals brought in this
The Address-Mr. Breau
program in 1971 at a time when they were in a majority position in the House. We did so because we believed it was good legislation, a step toward social justice; and we did so because the labour movement in Canada has failed to organize or to represent poor workers. It is well known that the labour movement has not succeeded in organizing strong labour movements among the poor.
When the Liberal government brought in the new act in 1971, a measure of social justice was brought to these people for the first time. By doing so we ensured that those workers, too, would enjoy a degree of independence of the kind possessed by workers in the riding of the hon. member for Mississauga who can bargain successfully for $5 or $6 an hour and compensation in the event of lay-offs. In my constituency, the large majority of workers do not have that power.
I should like to read part of an article by Mr. James Stewart which appeared in the Montreal Star. We have heard a great deal of nonsense about employers in New Brunswick and elsewhere being unable to get workers because of the effect of unemployment insurance benefits. That picture is completely false. I have lived in New Brunswick all my life and I know a great many poor people, people who draw unemployment benefits, and I have yet to meet a man who has refused a well paid and secure job. It is true that I have met people who have refused jobs that I would not give to a slave. It has been stated that because of unemployment insurance, employers cannot get workers in the fish processing or the forest industries. The article to which I referred states the following with reference to a study which was made of the forest industry in New Brunswick:
Out of approximately 550 persons identified as having left employment in the forest industry, only some 90 have been identified as drawing unemployment insurance benefits.
This means that some 460 people left for other reasons. Many industries have been asking people to work like slaves. When members constantly raise questions directing attention to weaknesses of administration, they should remember that when we brought in the new act we had to merge two acts together. When that is done, problems are bound to arise. Critics are playing upon the fears and, in some instances, upon the hate of those who are against this system of aiding the less fortunate in society. They are encouraging those who wish to destroy any program which gives defenceless workers a chance to become more independent. A lot of workers in my constituency have become more independent because of the UIC. I do not apologize for this. Neither do I apologize for those associated with the labour movement in other parts of the country who can bargain from strength and achieve security and a decent standard of living. Many people in my constituency no longer have to go out into the woods in December, January and February in six or seven feet of snow. They can draw benefits-


An hon. Member:: In other words, they don't have to work.


Herb Breau: Would the hon. member who made that comment like a job in the woods, in seven feet of snow at forty bucks a week? Could he live on that? This is what has happened over the years. We have given people a
390

March 11, 1974
The Address-Mr. Wise
chance to become independent. In the past they were exploited. I am not saying there are no weaknesses in the act or in the work of the commission. There are bound to be some administrative weaknesses. But I draw it to your attention, Mr. Speaker, that last year a new concept was introduced into UIC administration-I forget the English term, but in French it is called "le concept d'administra-tion par modules ou les modules administratifs." The administration of the UIC offices was broken up in such a way as to bring the staff closer to the unemployed worker, with the result that the civil servant dealing with a case is better able to understand the worker's claim and the worker, for his part, has an opportunity to understand the act better. This humanization process will probably lead to fewer abuses.
In this program there are, of course, bound to be weaknesses and abuses, but there is not one government program or area of public policy of which I am aware in which no abuses occur. I was in business myself. I used to meet a lot of businessmen and I know how they can arrange quite legally, to avoid all sorts of taxes. Why is it so bad for poor people? Why is it so bad if a person does abuse the unemployment insurance program, when others are allowed to go unchecked just because they have a better education and a different life? The UIC was established by a Liberal government because it saw the need for social justice, because the labour movement has failed to protect poor workers. Any review of the work of the UIC had better not detract from that concept of social justice. As I say, this measure was not brought in at a time when we had to bow to pressure from the New Democratic Party: it was at a time when we enjoyed a majority in this House.
Last year there was a lot of talk about Bill C-125. That bill was brought down by the government as a measure of the concern for some of the abuses to which attention had been called. The reason the bill did not move through all stages was not simply because of opposition from the NDP. It is probably a good principle to say that workers leaving their jobs without just cause should not receive unemployment insurance, but there is no way in which this principle can be administered before we are sure that humanization and decentralization of the administration has been tested thoroughly. We must make sure that people are not judged by a civil servant who is 100 miles away.
In addition, we must drastically change the appeal procedures. More appeal committees are required in rural areas and small communities so that decisions are made in a humane way. I conclude by saying that this review had better not retract from the concept of social justice from which the legislation was born.


Mr. John Wise (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a pleasure for me to join with other members in the final stages of this throne speech debate. I should like to preface my remarks by extending my best wishes to His Excellency the Governor General and Madame Leger. He has already made his mark felt in the Canadian fabric, and I am sure all Canadians look forward to seeing His Excel-

lency and his wife in the near future as they begin their tour across the provinces of this great country.
I should also like to pay tribute to that great statesman who will be sadly missed, not only here in Ottawa but indeed all across this country, the Hon. Roland Michener, a great man who has reached into the hearts of all Canadians. To him and his wife I wish many joyous years in their new life. Congratulations should also be extended to the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne.
In the past week a great deal of criticism has been levelled at the government by many members of this House for the failure that it displayed so remarkably during the past session. To me, this Speech from the Throne sounds no different from others I have heard and read. In particular, it has a very familiar ring; it reminds me of that given a year ago. Speeches produced as of late by the office of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) for such occasions always sound dull, dead and full of the same old promises and hints that the government is taking the wishes and desires of the people and the provinces into consideration.
The Prime Minister has described the throne speech as a matter of fact program setting out the intentions and the priorities of the government in this second session of the twenty-ninth parliament. It is a matter of fact speech in that the government has forgotten, or just plain refused to deal with, the important issues that face Canadians today. One of the greatest issues, of course, as one only need ask any Canadian, is inflation, not the so-called energy crisis. Another is the spiralling cost of goods and extreme shortages, particularly shortages in the construction and building industry at the present time. It is obvious that the government has tried to buy time by hiding the facts from the people.
As much of the press and news media to the south of us say, if you give the people a new crisis or problem it will take their minds off the real problem. This is why the minority government has leaped at the opportunity to use the energy crisis as a cover-up. What does the government want to cover up? Obviously, the one thing it did not want to acknowledge was the cancerous effect that inflation was having on the health of the economy of this country. Inflation has turned those on fixed incomes into nothing better than beggars who are reliant upon the few crumbs that this government saw fit to throw in their direction last year. Inflation has been blamed on worldwide problems such as the United States economy, even the Zulu problem in Africa. In other words, Mr. Speaker, everyone has become the scapegoat instead of the goat, which in this case is this government and its partner in the coalition that we have seen in the House during the past year.
This throne speech has been termed by many hon. members a complete and absolute failure. It has failed to provide a means for halting the inflationary spiral that my party has been warning of for months. It has failed to give hope to the people of this country. Instead, it has given them the story that we will have to put up with it for a little bit longer. Many people have noticed the mild form of brainwashing that has been going on in recent weeks in press releases and statements made on behalf of the government. First we were told that the economy of Canada
March 11, 1974

was growing at a fast rate. Then we were told that it was growing even faster than the rate of most other countries. Then we were told that we could afford to suffer more because we had had it so good up until now. It all adds up to one thing, Mr. Speaker, and that is that the worst is yet to come.
Last Thursday the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) who made, as always, an eloquent speech in the House, presented a detailed analysis of the actual rate of inflation that has been experienced in Canada in recent years. As he pointed out, in 1971 the Prime Minister said that inflation was licked, that we in this country had beaten it. This, of course, was at the expense of the workers; we experienced the greatest rate of unemployment we have ever known in recent years.
In 1971, inflation began at the mild rate of 1.6 per cent. By the end of the year it had risen to 5 per cent, and so on until at the end of 1973 it had reached the rate of 9.1 per cent. These figures reflect the government's attitude to government: it is a group of people who are reluctant to act, each relying on the other to prop up the boat. In other words, the boat is out of control and we can all expect to be floundering in the future under the ineptness that this government has displayed.
Today Canada is beset with deep-rooted and chronic problems. It is up to us to decide whether we want to cure those problems or to sit by and do nothing about them. There are many signs in Canada today that unemployment will continue to rise in some regions of this country, while in others, such as my own area, labour shortages will exist. There will be further price increases, creating more social inequities and requiring more government expenditure, resulting in even greater inflation. We have a serious economic problem, and if we are to survive something must be done about it.
One thing that a government must not do is to put forward the proposition that we sit idly by and do nothing. But this government's policy seems to be to sit and wait, hoping that the inflationary forces will go away and that things will work out all right in the end. This is the road to disaster. There has to be a recognition of the responsibility to maintain price stability. To pursue the government's present course of action, to take more of what we have had already-which is really what the throne speech promises-will lead to higher inflation, greater increases in prices and more frustration for those unable to meet those prices.
The list of failures one can draw out of the throne speech evidences the lack of mention of any of today's important subjects. For example, there was no mention of a planned reduction in or elimination of the federal sales tax on all clothing and building materials. Why not? There was no mention of the program of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) to consult and negotiate with his provincial counterparts to lower the age of eligibility for old age pensioners to 60 from 65, either on a voluntary basis or on a year by year basis.
No mention was made of any inquiries into profits from oil, intercity rapid transit and a host of other items needing legislation. No provision has been made for a full inquiry into the Unemployment Insurance Act and the way the commission has been administered. The govern-
The Address-Mr. Wise
ment has failed to deal adequately with the acute shortage of farm labour. If there were provision for the same number of farm labourers as there are government employees hired to administer the schemes and many plans that exist today, there would be no difficulty in this area and Canadian farmers would not have to scrounge all over the world in an effort to find workers to harvest crops.
Too many people find it more profitable to collect unemployment insurance benefits, and the benefits of other schemes, than to work. Others who work and receive less than those on unemployment insurance and other government schemes are understandably dejected. It is an undeniable fact of human nature that an individual is happier when he or she is productive. Human beings cannot be content for too long without achieving, without striving, whatever their goal or the end result. Just being, without doing, runs counter to human nature and to history. Therefore, the man who wants to work but cannot feels deceived and rejected.
Perhaps the most serious consequence of all this is that people who have lost their incentive to work and to succeed have lost faith in themselves and their government. The first is disastrous, but the second, of course, is understandable. This is a tragedy beyond description. It is particularly a tragedy for a young country which has so much in the way of human and material resources, a country which should be on the threshold of its greatest era.
This is the path down which this government is leading us. So preoccupied is it with its so-called crisis of the moment, so preoccupied is it with its lust for power that it is blind to the course of events which, I am sad to say, is not unfolding as it should be. Recent figures released by Statistics Canada show that the consumer price index is reaching ever higher points. In fact, it was only a few months ago that we saw the highest percentage increase in almost 30 years. Although these trends have been forecast, it is still depressing to have the cold reality verified by statistics. To me, it seems inevitable that if we remain on our present course Canada will suffer economic chaos and disaster.
It is the bread and butter issues that make Canada, and it is the bread and butter issues that are foremost in the minds of the people. It is the things that affect bread and butter issues that should be examined, if we are to resolve our problems. Canada's problems on the domestic front will not be resolved by spending hundreds of thousands of dollars in financing groups to overthrow the white regime in Africa. Our problems will not be solved by the spending of hundreds of thousands of dollars on metal abortions called sculptures, while people live at or below the poverty line. Our problems will not be solved by wasting money in refurnishing government offices at high cost, or by having the plants inside public service buildings changed every few months.
We in Canada require a new, imaginative and different economic policy. We need a policy that will embrace the future in security for all Canadians-the old, the young, the French, the English and the new Canadian, as well as the poor and the not so poor. No other objective is appro-
392

March 11, 1974
The Address-Mr. Penner
priate for Canada than the objective of making a nation that is truly great. That objective, I submit, has been missed by this minority government.


Mr. B. Keith Penner (Thunder Bay):: Mr. Speaker, during the recess of parliament, my colleagues and I from northern Ontario travelled rather extensively throughout that vast region which extends from the Manitoba boundary to the boundary of Quebec. Incidentally, that huge region of which I speak is much more than the hinterland of Toronto. It is also something greater than the underdeveloped backyard of Ontario. Northern Ontario in itself is, and must continue to be considered by the federal government as one of the major economic and geographic regions of this country.
During our tour, my fellow members of parliament and myself sensed a new attitude of optimism among the people who inhabit this region. Far from feeling neglected and forgotten, these citizens of Canada now see that the future is on their side and that greater prosperity and economic development is on the verge of being theirs.


Walter David Baker: The Davis government is on their side.


B. Keith Penner: The Davis government has just recently discovered northern Ontario, as indicated in their Speech from the Throne. It has paid lip service to the region but we in northern Ontario are not fooled by that, and that is why we have not elected any Tories to the House of Commons from our region.
In this world of serious shortages, we in northern Ontario possess a great deal of what is needed and what is in increasing demand throughout the world, including pulp, paper and paper products, lumber, iron, copper, lead, zinc, gold, freshwater fish, wilderness areas for recreation, and breathtaking natural beauty to satisfy the eye of the most discriminating artist. It is even suggested by some that before too long we may be producing oil from wells located near the shores of Hudson Bay.
Facing all this development as we are, we are also confronted with a serious difficulty, namely, the need for an adequate labour force to bring on-stream the resources which we have and which the world needs. Strenuous efforts are urgently demanded to attract many thousands of new people into northern Ontario to work in the mines, the mills and the forests of this region. Much of the work is hard and we require a hearty breed of people who are physically fit and who during their time off are able to enjoy and find satisfaction in outdoor recreation such as skiing, skidooing, fishing, hunting, boating and hiking. To bring these people from the congested cities of this land and from overcrowded countries abroad, we must make available to them a number of basic requirements, including adequate housing, of course, essential community services such as sewage treatment, water, health care and recreational facilities including radio and television communication. Many communities in my constituency badly need upgraded facilities for recreation in addition to that which is offered by the outdoors itself.
We are very pleased with the announcement by the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) that additional funds will be provided the CBC for its so-called "accelerated coverage plan." It may surprise some hon. members of this

House to learn that while city dwellers have multi-channel television, there are communities in northwestern Ontario still lacking even the basic radio-television services provided elsewhere by the CBC. Pressure is also continuously being exerted on Bell Canada to expand and upgrade telephone communications in remote areas of sparse population. The capital cost of these projects is immense, but we do not apologize for one moment in expecting people in Canada who already have these services to help us and to share the cost. After all, we have provided much of the natural wealth which has helped to make possible the very high standard of living enjoyed elsewhere in Canada and now we are asking for some return.
It has long been the practice in this country to extend certain tax advantages to those companies engaged in resource development, particularly mining. This system was altered to some considerable extent by the federal government's tax reforms and most provinces are now. making changes also to reduce these tax privileges. Be that as it may, one possible solution to the manpower shortage in the resource sector, which has never been applied in Canada to my knowledge, would be the offer of special tax advantages to those who work in the mines, the mills, the forests and on the railroads in our resource regions-those who work hard under certainly less than favourable conditions and those who live in communities which lack many of the amenities which people elsewhere in Canada, particularly in the urban areas, have come to take for granted.
It is one thing to work in air-conditioned offices, with coffee breaks, lunch hours, soft chairs, conference rooms and cafeterias; it is quite another thing to handle a chainsaw all day, operate a heavy drill deep in the earth, or run a deisel locomotive for hundreds of monotonous miles through a tunnel of coniferous trees. If we want the natural resources of this country to be processed and turned into manufactured goods for our use and for export, and if we want to provide the liquid wealth for business and investment-and I am sure we do-then we must give extra consideration to those who work so hard in developing these resources. They must be well paid, better paid than most, I suggest. They must be given improved housing, health care and recreational facilities. In addition, it seems to me we should consider that an extra tax exemption is due to the workers of this country who produce our natural wealth. We now give special consideration to those in business. The previous speaker mentioned the way in which people in business are able to use the tax laws to their benefit. I argue that those who dig the ore and cut the trees need, and deserve, a special resource-developer exemption of at least $1,000 per year. This will, of course, cause some bureaucratic outcries to the effect that such a proposal is complicated and may be difficult to administer. It will be asked, who is a resource developer? There is no doubt that if you drill rock in the damp and dust of a mine, you are a resource-developer; or if you handle a chain-saw in the forests of this land in all kinds of weather, you are a resource-developer. Because of the difficult nature of their work, less of what these resource-developers earn should be destined for the government treasuries of this land.

The time is brief for participation in this debate, but before concluding I should like to make a few comments about our railroads. The railway companies of this country certainly need a vigorous shaking up. Employee morale on the CPR is appallingly low. Although morale is somewhat better on the CNR, it still leaves much to be desired. Those in the running trades on the CNR, for example, are terribly overworked and fatigued. They put the maximum number of trains through the railway towns of northern Ontario. In the very midst of this situation, the CNR and the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers have conspired together-there is no other word for it-to force upon the CNR engineers in Nakina and Hornepayne, Ontario, a run-through proposal which involves extra miles, longer hours, more time away from home, further fatigue and an additional threat to safety.
Tomorrow morning a meeting is scheduled with a union representative and officials of the Department of Labour to make a plea for a moratorium on this run-through proposal. We will also ask for an inquiry in the town of Hornepayne with the workers who will be affected. We hope that during our discussion tomorrow the union leader will remember that to call another man "brother" means to act in his interest, to defend his rights and to be concerned about his well-being, rather than to work in concert with the company to initiate change in the name of efficiency, which seldom proves to be the case and which only imposes new hardships on these men.
During the life of this parliament, and no doubt in the next one, more and more attention will be paid to the natural resources of Canada which we possess in such abundance. New policies will be required to guarantee a continuity of supply, more processing in Canada and better communities located in our resource regions. Certainly, as I have indicated in my brief remarks, fresh incentives are needed for the worker who performs the hard labour in order to raise still further the standard of living for Canadians wherever they live.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, first I should like to compliment the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. Also, I echo the best wishes of other members to His Excellency the Governor General upon his appointment. While I have nice words to say, I should like to compliment the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) for finally realizing that the shortage of serviced land has created the enormous problem-which exists in respect of housing in this country. He referred, unfortunately only in minor detail, to the proposal made by members on this side of the House and adopted, so to speak, our suggestion that this government has a responsibility to use its funding, its power over the money supply of this country, to make it possible that efficient land be available for building.


An hon. Member:: A deathbed conversion.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: It certainly is a deathbed conversion, but finally, once again, this government has adopted policies proposed on this side of the House.
I was also pleased to hear the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) say that he intended to get tough with the big
The Address-Mr. Blenkarn
guys big business, big labour and big government. I am surprised that he did not speak to the parliamentary secretary from the riding of Gloucester and advise him that that essentially is the basis of an incomes policy. It is unfortunate that the party which governs this country cannot understand economics.
However, what I really wish to speak about today is the inordinate cost of housing and, in particular, housing land. It is unfortunate that the Minister of State for Urban Affairs is not here. When I spoke on the question of housing costs and housing lot costs in the debate last year, the price of a lot for a single family house in my city of Mississauga was about $20,000. Unfortunately, I must report to the House that because this government has done nothing about the cost of housing land, and because it has allowed inflation in respect of housing to run rampant, the cost of a single family lot in Mississauga-not just one, but 90 lots in a subdivision; and not an ideal lot or subdivision but one which backs on the Queen Elizabeth Highway, with all its noise has been negotiated for $42,500, an increase of well over 100 per cent in one year.
Mr. Speaker, May I call it six o'clock?


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
["It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.\nAt six o'clock the House took recess."]
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, before the supper adjournment I stated that land prices, indeed house prices in my constituency certainly and also across the country, were disastrously high a year ago for a young family wanting to buy their first house. To describe them as disastrously high today would not even begin adequately to describe the problem. A year ago the Urban Development Institute indicated that possibly no more than 5 per cent of families could afford to purchase a new house with the minimal down payment required to cover the financing. I suggest to you, sir, that even though we have the increases in wages this year, under no circumstances can any but a very few young people raising a family begin to contemplate the purchase of their own house.
As I said before supper, I welcome the indication by the minister that he is prepared to do something about serviced land. There is an old political saying that members of the opposition often use: too little, too late. With prices of housing rising today at an unprecedented rate, it is certainly too little, too late. Presumably one of the problems is the fact that this government continues to rely on Statistics Canada for an indication of housing costs. I would like to remind them that Statistics Canada, in determining housing costs, is not referring at all to new houses prices; it is referring to the cost of maintenance of housing. To most of us, the cost of keeping our house does not increase because we have an existing mortgage or an existing lease on an apartment, so Statistics Canada does not really reflect the enormous escalation in costs. It may refer to heating costs increasing, it may refer to electricity

March 11, 1974
The Address-Mr. Blenkarn
costs increasing, or to some increases in interest rates, but those increases are only a bag of shells compared with the real costs for those wanting to enter the housing market, for those who have no home, who have a new family and who want to get started in life.
In Toronto alone the average price of a house sold under the multiple listing service last year increased by $9,000. I doubt that there are many members of this House who, relying on the salaries paid here, and even if their wives are working, would be able to save in one year $9,000 after payment of taxes. That is the extent of the increase. It boils down to this fact, that those who have been trying to get a few dollars together to buy a house suddenly see the cost of that house going up and up.
I can say to you, sir, that in my city of Mississauga the price of a house is increasing at the rate of nearly $2,000 a month. When I asked the minister last Friday what he was going to do, and did he realize that the price of every house was going up at the rate of $50 a day, seven days a week including Sundays, the minister said something about social housing and he mentioned the Speech from the Throne. I say that the Minister of State for Urban Affairs and this government have no concept of the social damage they are causing in condemning forever most young families and their children to wandering in apartment corridors or using apartment parking lots for playgrounds. That is the policy of this government. They are not really concerned about what in fact is happening. They rely on Statistics Canada and say that the cost of housing went up 7 per cent or 8 per cent. That is not the case at all. Perhaps for the average person it did go up by only that amount, but for those who have young families to raise the cost of housing has become prohibitive. Yet my friends to my left continue to support this excuse for a government.
We in this party welcome the government's suggestion that it will support urban transit. There are now arrangements for service on both the CNR line running through my constituency and the CPR line servicing Streetsville and the centre parts of Mississauga. That rail line could well support commuter service. This boils down to the whole question of servicing, because the Speech from the Throne seems to suggest the minister thinks that just increasing sewage assistance programs would be an answer to the problem of the cost of servicing. Surely by now the minister realizes that urban transit, parks and water service are an integral part of making serviced land available so that houses can be built. Surely the minister realizes that just increasing sewage assistance programs is not enough. Although it is welcome, it is just not enough. As I have said, it is too little, too late. In fact, it is very much too little, and in many cases very much too late.
That brings me to the very serious problem now confronting this country. To a large extent it was set out by the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies) when he spoke earlier in this debate. He suggested that we have a housing problem, but that housing problems cannot be solved in the inflationary climate that exists. So long as prices continue to escalate, this government's answer seems to be more social housing. Pretty soon they will have people earning $20,000 a year qualifying for social housing.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Donald Alex Blenkarn: These people would have everybody in blue jeans.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Governor General and the Prime Minister live in social housing.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: One of the major problems is that people throughout this nation have no confidence in paper money because this government has no confidence. This government has no intention of stepping in with an incomes policy or with a commodities policy. I am glad the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) is here, because I was after him earlier today. He said that what I said was rhetoric, but look at the way he produces blue books. The only increase in size is, not physically but in the size of the figures at the bottom of the pages. Billions of dollars are allocated by this government for one expenditure after another, and the cost of government grows and grows like a snowball rolling down a hill. Surely in a government that was concerned about people there would be some control over government expenditures, but the money supply has been increased by 50 per cent or 60 per cent in three years.
People in this country have no confidence in paper money: witness the lines in banks to buy gold and silver; witness the price of Olympic coins and their shortage. People with no confidence in paper money are rushing into the housing field to buy residential housing; they feel that real estate will protect them and their savings against the ravages of inflation. Housing is already in short supply, but the price is being pushed up by one speculator vying with another. "Every man for himself" is all this government talks about. The message is, "Protect yourself against inflation in this country, because Trudeau's gang is not going to help you". That is fine for the rich and for the privileged, because they have the credit with which to buy real estate; they can get a bank loan or go to a mortgage company and get a mortgage loan. They can buy and bid up the price. You fellows would like to continue to support them because you really do not believe in the ordinary fellow; you believe in the privileged groups such as the big unions.
That is exactly the kind of attitude of this government and its lackeys to my left. They really do not care about the ordinary person. This government does not care about organizing and using its powers over banking and financing to make sure the banks will no longer advance money directly or indirectly on second mortgages. It does not care that trust companies and loan companies will continue to use the sale price as the valuation price, even though the value of the bricks and mortar represents less than one-third of the total price in many cases; even though most of the value is in land, and land values are bid up; even though all sorts of people who need housing compete with speculators, real estate agents and lawyers. Those who have the bucks in their pockets and the credit allowed by the banking system, which should be under the control of the Minister of Finance, continue to finance speculators.
Let me tell you a couple of stories, Mr. Speaker. One of my senior employees bought a house the other day that
March 11, 1974

was listed at $79,000. Before he bought the house he heard that three or four other offers had been made, so instead of bidding the list price he bid $81,000. He was lucky; he got it by bidding $250 higher than anyone else.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him by the rather exact rules decided upon today has expired.


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, recently there has been some publicity about a private member's bill that I introduced which calls upon this House to have a committee formed to examine the request that has come to Canada from the council of the Turks and Caicos Islands for a closer relationship with this country. The press coverage on this matter has been very large. From the smallest to the largest newspaper in Canada the idea has been examined. It has been covered by radio and by both national television networks. The story of the islanders wanting to join Canada has taken on a life of its own away and beyond my advocacy in putting it forward and many people have become interested in the idea.


Mr. Yewchuk:: Would you like to be the first governor?


Max Saltsman: I would not mind.


Paul Yewchuk: I thought you were looking for a job.


Max Saltsman: I have not seen an idea capture the imagination of the public to the extent that this one has, during my years in parliament. It is not that this is the most serious problem facing Canada and deserves priority, because Canada has many weighty problems to deal with. We heard of those problems in the Speech from the Throne. But in some ways the idea of these islands is a relief to Canadians from the discussions of inflation, housing, employment and all the other great issues in this country. This is nevertheless an important idea, Mr. Speaker, and many people in Canada want it examined. My office has received hundreds and hundreds of letters urging me to continue bringing the matter before the parliament of Canada and enlisting the support of the members of this chamber.
The idea has developed from the initial reaction of newspapers taking a sort of humorous view of it, as a kind of winter madness thing that seizes a member of parliament. Reaction has ranged from the idea that I was seeking publicity in bringing this matter before the country, to the idea that after nine years parliament is finally getting to me: "The man is off his rocker even to be thinking about things like that". I hope neither of those two extreme views is true, Mr. Speaker, because I have been serious about this matter from the very beginning. It is not the sort of thing that one plays around with. One does not play with the emotions of a group of people who have made a serious request to this country. I am asking the Canadian government and the House of Commons to respect the sincere petition that has come to this country to examine the idea of a closer relationship.
Basically, what I want to do in the few minutes available to me tonight-because there is not enough time to go into detail-is deal with essentially the attitude that has emanated from the government and which presumably is
The Address-Mr. Saltsmcm
the position of the Department of External Affairs as expressed by the minister. First of all, they do not want to hear anything about it; they want it to go away. They do not even want to examine the idea, and they certainly do not want to discuss it. I can understand that there are some serious issues involved in a closer relationship with a group of islands in the Caribbean regardless of how well intentioned the islands, or myself or others advocating the idea may be. It means that we would have to examine our foreign policy in the Caribbean. You cannot just talk about whether 6,000 people in the islands are going to come into Canada as if that is the end of it. It has repercussions on our foreign policy in the Caribbean and our relationship with other countries there, and their future.
If these islands were to come into some kind of closer union, they would receive benefits from this country and we would receive benefits from them. Other countries in the Caribbean might then make the same request to the Canadian government and we would have to decide what our foreign policy would be. So I am not discounting the fact that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) has a perfect right to be wary of a proposal of this kind and to consider its seriousness.
It is also very obvious that if the Turks and Caicos Islands were to come into Canada in one form or another, they would probably be better off than other countries in the Caribbean with the repercussions that flow from such a situation. It would also mean that Canada would be challenging the United States in the Caribbean. The United States dominates the Caribbean in commercial matters because of the port facilities in Florida. If we were, by taking in these islands, to become part of the Caribbean, we could challenge the commercial supremacy of the United States in that area. It also means we would be willing to accept black people into confederation in the same way as we have accepted white people.
When I talk about the Turks and Caicos Islands becoming part of Canada, people say, "That is pretty well impossible. It cannot happen". I always respond by saying, "Why not?" If Newfoundland became part of Canada, why cannot these islands become part of Canada? They are closer to Ottawa than British Columbia. So distance should be no object. We must decide whether the only people who are eligible to become citizens of this country are white or whether blacks as well are to be eligible.
I do not discount the seriousness of my proposal. I like to think that we in this country have advanced to the point where colour, religion and similar factors do not make any difference and men and women are accepted into our society for what they are. Many can say that; on the other hand, many will say that we have not reached the point at which we are without prejudice and can comfortably assimilate many people of different kinds. That will be the point we shall need to determine. We must ask if we are ready to remove distinctions between people, especially people who are asking to become part of this country.
They are serious about becoming part of Canada, and it is quite proper for the Department of External Affairs to

March 11, 1974
The Address-Mr. Saltsman
raise such issues and to worry about them. However, I object when the Secretary of State for External Affairs raises issues which are less than real and are designed to confuse rather than to clarify the situation. First, the minister talked about a new form of imperialism. He has since modified his position: he no longer talks about imperialism, he talks about colonialism. He said that our action, if we assimilated the islands, might be interpreted as imperialism or colonialism. Why in the world did he make a statement like that? It is not Canada which wants to take the islands in; it is the islanders who have petitioned Canada for they want to become part of this country.
The minister's utterances reflect the views of liberalism. According to modern liberalism, it is fine for such islands to seek independence. We will give them a little foreign aid, pat them on the head and tell them to go their own way, but we want no part of them. Such thinking masquerades as modern thinking. It is all right to atomize the world! I suggest that by taking members of a poorer society into our midst we would be fulfilling our responsibility as a richer society.
The minister talked about building a fence around the islands. Has anybody built a fence around this country? A fence does not keep out the poor. It is our immigration policy which keeps out the peoples of the Caribbean. That is the fence we have built around this country, and if you take the islands in we car>
build it around them, if that is what you want to do. The situation would not be the same as in Grenada: the people in the Turks and Caicos Islands want to belong to Canada.
The minister does not understand the reason for so much unhappiness in the Caribbean. White people give almost nothing to the people in the Caribbean, even though they may invest money and spend time down there as tourists. The real benefits which come to a people do not come from the few jobs you may provide in the tourist season. They come from being part of a society, part of a social structure, part of its wealth. If we want to help people, if we really want to redistribute wealth, we will take them in. If we take them in we may see the beginning of the end of people being pushed around, and perhaps the introduction of a modern form of federalism. Talk of modern federalism is not popular: talk of countries splitting apart seems to be more in vogue.
What bothered me most about the minister's statement was his bland suggestion that we must not raise expectations. How patronizing! We must not raise their expectations. You could almost hear him saying, "After all, they are people who do not have much education. They are not sophisticated. They would not understand." Mr. Speaker, these people are educated, and they do understand. They understand only too well how remote is the possibility of their being taken in. Yet remote though the possibility is, they want to see it debated in this country. They badly want to be part of this country and are willing to take a chance on the acceptance of this idea.
I can almost hear the minister saying what was said 20 or 30 years ago about programs like medicare. Some said, "We must not talk about medicare. It will raise the expectations of people, expectations which can never be satisfied. You must not talk about old age pensions of $35 or

$40 per month. You would only raise expectations. The poor will be upset because they cannot get such a pension and we cannot afford to give it to them."


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is exactly what Paul Martin said.


Max Saltsman: When you do not want to do something, you can always say that talking about it will raise expectations. Bringing forward this subject has laid a heavy responsibility upon me. I am fully aware of it. The alternative was to do nothing. It seems to me that what has been happening in the Turks and Caicos Islands is unique. It offers us a challenge to which we can respond. The danger of raising expectations must be faced, in the hope that we can provide a better future for the people in the islands and bring a new and beautiful area into Canada.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have the opportunity to speak in this debate and to extend my congratulations to the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Stollery) and the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Pelletier). They are typical of the young, vigorous, knowledgeable and enthusiastic people who come to parliament. That is why this is such a dynamic place wherein so many things happen. I congratulate both hon. members on their speeches. Both members are bilingual. Even though they come from different types of ridings they display the same esprit de corps and the same enthusiasm for their work here. I also extend my best wishes and the best wishes of Algoma riding to our new Governor General and Madame Leger. We wish them well in discharging their new responsibilities as representatives of our country.
Perhaps more interesting than anything else has been the change in attitude of the opposition that we have seen in this parliament since the last speech from the throne was debated. The first session of the twenty-ninth parliament opened on January 4, 1973, with the opposition practically sitting on the edge of their seats waiting to move across the aisle to become the government. We do not see that kind of anticipation or expectation now. We do not hear them saying, "Within the next couple of months or so, when we take over the government of this country . . . " It is very understandable why they now have reduced enthusiasm and expectation. Their whole outlook has really dampened because of the progress made in the first session of the twenty-ninth parliament.
That session was one of the most productive sessions of parliament in many years. Over 50 pieces of legislation were passed. All of the major commitments for legislation outlined in the Speech from the Throne were carried out in that session, including many important items. The energy debate and the debate on legislation concerning privacy and wiretapping seemed to dominate the scene during the last two or three months of the fall session.
However, when historians write the pages of history for the first session of the twenty-ninth parliament they will find it significant because of the very many important pieces of social legislation that were passed. I think of the family allowance bill which increased family allowances
March 11, 1974

from $7.21 a month on average to $20 a month on average across the country. I think of the significant changes that were made in the old age security system, both the universal old age security pension and the guaranteed income supplement, and the fact that even though we previously tied this to cost of living increases, it was accelerated to become effective quarterly if there were increases in the cost of living.
I think of the changes that were made to the Canada Pension Plan to remove the 2 per cent ceiling in the benefits of the plan due to inflation. I think of the whole outline of attack on our social problems through the orange paper which the Minister of National Health an Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) brought forward in the spring of 1973. Much progress was made in the discussions with the provincial premiers on this policy, and more is to come. Certainly during 1973 the biggest and most expensive items were adopted as legislation by this House. Many pieces of legislation and policies adopted by the government were to counteract the effects of inflation on those who cannot protect themselves, people in the low income brackets and pensioners.
I think, also, of the assistance provided in respect of food prices, such as the subsidy on bread. A long-term agreement was made with the Canadian Wheat Board to ensure a stable price in the cost of flour over a seven-year period, combined with a subsidy not only to give the wheat producers a stable price for the next seven years but to give stability to this essential item in the diet of Canadians. I think of the consumer subsidy for milk. The government took action to control the increase which was inevitable in regard to oil produced in our country when world prices rose rapidly. I believe the 1973 session was very productive. I am confident that the session now beginning will be equally productive.
The Speech from the Throne refers to maintaining high levels of income, production and employment to increase the supply of food and other commodities. It refers to increasing the production of our country so that we may produce as many new jobs this year as in 1973. In his budget speech in the spring of 1973, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) very modestly talked about creating at least 300,000 new jobs. By the end of the year over 430,000 new jobs were created in Canada, a record for this country. This is certainly the kind of fiscal and monetary policy which we need in a country whose work force will increase by 50 per cent from 1965 to 1980. There can be no doubt that with this continued increase in our economy there will also be more jobs in 1974.
There is also reference in the Speech from the Throne to protecting people from the effects of inflation by programs which were implemented in 1973. These were designed to help those on fixed incomes and large families through family allowance benefits and increases in veterans pensions of some 25 per cent. These programs were all implemented in the 1973 session of this parliament. Likewise, the government has acted to cushion increases in prices to consumers. I refer to the action that was taken relating to oil prices and subsidies on essentials such as bread and milk.
In his speech on December 6 the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) gave the initial outline of a national energy
The Address-Mr. Foster
policy; a plan to have one price for the whole country, a plan to be self-sufficient later in this decade by the construction of a pipeline, and the use of some of the export tax revenues to ensure that the price of oil in eastern Canada will be at reasonable levels. Perhaps one of the most important thrusts of the Speech from the Throne is the plan to ensure adequate supplies and production of food. To do this it is proposed to place many bills before the House in this session which will ensure there is a fair price for the consumer and a reasonable return for the producer.
It is planned to place a bill before the House relating to the Agricultural Stabilization Act to ensure that producers can produce their products and that if there are large-scale fluctuations in the producers' price, they will be protected. There will be changes in respect of advance payments. In the past we have had a scheme of farm stored produce on which advances could be made. This will be extended. I understand the limits will be raised in all parts of Canada.
The Speech from the Throne also refers to improved assistance to encourage young men to go into farming. This is very important. During the recess I attended a conference in Ottawa on the need for farm labour. This problem is being faced right across our country. At an earlier time farmers could perhaps run a simple operation without much help other than from the family. However, as the family grows up and moves away, and as farm units become larger, there is a greater need for hired help.
The conference went on to discuss in detail the measures necessary to encourage more people to work on farms. We also talked about a program being implemented this year by the Department of Manpower to establish farm labour pools especially for the assistance of market gardeners and fruit growers who require a large number of people for relatively short periods. Under this scheme, young people and others who wish to enter the labour force for a short period will be transported to countries where the crops are grown in an effort to overcome the labour difficulties faced in these areas.
Perhaps no greater problem faces Canadian agriculture today than the shortage of feed grain and its high price.


An hon. Member:: There is no shortage.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Certainly, those who produce feed grain are fortunate to receive the price of they do today-possibly three times higher than it has ever been in our history. There is certainly a crunch felt by those producing beef, on the basis of this high-priced grain. I am confident the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), in his usual capable way, will be coming forward with a solution in the coming days or weeks.
There were one or two items of great interest to my constituents announced in the Speech from the Throne and elsewhere. I refer especially to the announcement by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson) that changes are being made in the DREE program under which incentives are given to industry to locate in slow-growth areas. Under the new program, smaller enterprises are now able to qualify for assistance. The minimum limit has been lowered from $60,000 to $25,000 or five

March 11, 1974
The Address-Mr. Reynolds
jobs, whichever applies. In November, 1973, a development seminar was held in my constituency and the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion was the keynote speaker. The question of the size of the enterprise which would be eligible for a grant was raised on that occasion.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House are not so naive as to believe we have no problems to face in this second session of the twenty-ninth parliament, nor do we fail to understand their depth and the difficulties in finding solutions to them. But I ask the members of this House, "Would you be willing to trade these difficulties and the material and human resources which we have to deal with them with those of any other country in the world-Britain, United States, West Germany, you name it?" Not one person here would be willing to make such a trade. So let us not pay too much attention to the negative, carping criticism of the opposition. Let us not adopt stupid simplistic solutions such as the wage and price freeze which the Conservatives have advocated and which have failed in other countries.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired.


Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, let me first pass on to the new Governor General my best wishes and those of the people of my constituency. I wish him well and I wish his good lady well as they enter their first year of office.

I also wish to congratulate the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Stollery) and the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Pelletier) for having replied so brilliantly to the Speech from the Throne.

Why have they had to absorb these large freight rate increases when the people of eastern Canada are asking for equality of oil and gas prices? We have the resources in western Canada, a lot of them in British Columbia, and we are willing to share those resources with the people of eastern Canada. We also want them to help us out on freight rates. We think that this is only fair.
Another issue bothering the people in my riding is the Post Office service. We see some grand advertisements in the newspapers about how the Post Office offers this great one-day service: put your mail in by eleven o'clock and get it delivered the next day, say the advertisements. I see examples all the time where that just is not so. In fact, I asked the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Gray) to investigate the Post Office for false advertising. The people of British Columbia do not know what is happening with their mail. It is not arriving on time. A municipality the size of Delta, with some 65,000 people, has just one post office and that is all. We asked the minister for another one, but the department is not even considering it. The post office in British Columbia is now jokingly called the "royal snail" because it seems to take a very long time to get mail from British Columbia to anywhere in Canada.
Unemployment insurance is another matter that has been bothering the people of British Columbia. As most hon. members who have a constituency office in British Columbia know, their secretaries are receiving about five phone calls a day citing problems with the Unemployment Insurance Commission. These problems are very legitimate. People who deserve to get their unemployment insurance are not receiving it because of some problem within the commission.
The Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis) said in a speech in his riding about two months ago: "When we go back for the next session this government is going to bring in some strong laws to straighten out this problem". The minister in charge of the Unemployment Insurance Commission said that this was not true. Since then we have had the throne speech and it now appears the government is going to do something about the Unemployment Insurance Commission and manpower.
Why will not this government do what tne Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) asked, and hold a full inquiry into the Unemployment Insurance Commission so we can find out what is wrong before the government introduces some other program? People within the commission are working very hard at their jobs, but the government is going to disrupt their work with another program which probably will not work any better than the one it had in the past.
Regional economic expansion is another area that bothers the people of British Columbia. In the last election I said that we were not getting our fair share of money; the government said that we were. I put some questions on the order paper and found out that in 1972 the province of Quebec received $66 million. The province of British Columbia received only $650,000. This answer was given by the minister, so I presume the figures are factual. The people of British Columbia do not believe that this is giving them their fair share.
The Address-Mr. Reynolds
The year before that a company by the name of Evans Products opened a mill in Golden, B. C., and received a $2,250,000 grant. They employed 250 people, and everybody thought it was an excellent program. This past year the same type of mill was closed down in the city of Vancouver by Evans Products, which put 250 people out of work. I think this is one area the Department of Regional Economic Expansion should look into and make sure that such things as this do not happen. This is only one example that occurred in British Columbia, but all members of the House know of other examples that parallel this one.
Information Canada has also been an issue in the city of Vancouver. This government opened a beautiful office at the corner of Granville and Robson Streets. There was a bit of an uproar in the city when people found out that they paid $11.67 a square foot in the building they leased for both the first and second floors. After an investigation the people were told that other people were renting space in the same city block for between $2.50 and $5.50 a square foot on the second floor, and that $5.50 was the maximum price that anybody else paid. Yet, as I say, this government was paying $11.67. On the first floor in that block, people were paying anywhere from $6.50 to $11.50 a square foot.
The value of the building that the government leased was $550,000. When the government took a five-year lease from the firm that leased the building to them for $126,000 a year for the first year, building up to $156,000 for the fifth year, it increased the value of the building to over $1 million. I think the people of Canada deserve a better answer than the one the government has given them to date as to exactly why they paid so much money for this building, and who decided that the building would be leased instead of bought, since the building was for sale a few months before the government leased it.
I should like to touch for a moment on housing. This is a problem in my riding where there has been such a startling increase in population. The government says it has done a lot of things to help housing, but what are the things the government has not done? Firstly, it has not removed the sales tax on building materials. This adds to the cost of every home and apartment in this land. The government has eliminated tax incentives for investors in apartment buildings. As a result, apartment buildings are now 99.5 per cent full in Vancouver and just about equally full in other parts of the country.
The NDP government of British Columbia froze land development and automatically land prices skyrocketed. If the government would only let free enterprise build houses without government interference, there would be plenty of housing in Canada and prices would be reasonable. We have only seen a large increase in the price of housing during the last couple of years because the government has been interfering. I have a clipping advertising houses in Houston, Texas. A 1,700-square foot home there sells for $22,900. If houses at this price can be built down there, they can be built here in Canada. But the cost of housing in Canada has increased as a result of government interference at all levels. The federal government must take the biggest share of the blame because of its sales tax on building materials and its elimination of tax incentives for people who invest in housing.

March 11, 1974
The Address-Mr. A. Lambert
I should now like to say a few words about penitentiaries. We have a large penitentiary situated in our area. I give the present minister a lot of credit for what he is doing in our penitentiaries, but I question some of his decisions, such as hiring three people with a Master's degree to go into the British Columbia penitentiary to work in the recreational area and looking for two more. They are not promoting the people who have been working in the penitentiary for years. They are not giving them the opportunity to take further education to increase their own abilities so they can get ahead in their jobs.
Why do we need five professional people in recreation in the British Columbia penitentiary, serving a population of 600 people, when the city of New Westminster and the city of Delta cannot afford to hire that many people? Why does this government not invest some money in the youth of the nation? Perhaps then we will not have so many people in our penitentiaries.
I should like to close, Mr. Speaker, by mentioning an issue that has been given prominence in our area. I refer to price fixing among seven major cement companies in British Columbia. These seven companies were accused of, and pleaded guilty to, conspiring to prevent or lessen competition and were fined a total of $433,000, the largest fine ever imposed under the Combines Investigation Act.
I think there are some questions that have to be asked about this matter. We must remember that Jimmy Sinclair, a former cabinet minister in the party of the government sitting across from us here, was president of Lafarge Cement, one of the seven companies. The late Frank Ross was chairman of the board of Lafarge Cement, and he also had a close relationship with one of those across the floor. We must also remember that when the charges were laid, the minister of justice at the time who was in charge of the investigation was quickly shifted from that portfolio to another. The present minister of housing and urban affairs was also shifted into his present portfolio pretty quickly from consumer affairs.
Why did these things happen, Mr. Speaker? I think that question needs to be answered by this government. Why did these companies plead guilty so quickly? Why did not some of them go to court and try and fight this charge? I think they are just trying to hide something and that this government should have an inquiry made into price fixing in British Columbia.
It is of interest to note that after these charges were made and these firms pleaded guilty, on January 1 of this year Ocean Cement and Lafarge Cement increased their prices again by the same amount. Then on March 1, Lafarge and Ocean Cement increased their prices yet again by the same amount. So these companies are still up to their same old tricks. They have paid the largest fine ever imposed in Canada. In view of the connection of these companies with members of the Liberal government across the way, I think the Canadian people deserve an inquiry into price fixing and that this government should hold this inquiry with the utmost haste.


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of the present session of the 29th Legislature I

owe to myself to participate in the debate on the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. First, I wish to congratulate the movers of the Address, the hon. members for Spadina (Mr. Stollery) and the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Pelletier). It is quite appropriate, in a democratic Parliament, when someone is making a first speech in the House, for his colleagues to congratulate him because they know from their own experience that it is a first step which will allow him later to express himself better and participate more easily in the debates.
Mr. Speaker, I also wish to join my colleagues to congratulate His Excellency the Governor General and Mrs. Leger and extend to them the best wishes of the people from the Bellechasse riding that I represent. I was pleased to see, with many others, the great humility with which the new Governor General has presided over the opening of this second session. I was very pleased to see that the Governor General chose to renounce the traditional dress and that he was really like everyone else, someone who holds his position with a great competency but also with a great humility.
I also wish to say to the Chair how pleased I am that we can continue our work under his humble guidance. I also wish to congratulate the Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees of the Whole House (Mr. McCleave), the Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole House (Mr. Laniel) and the Assistant Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole House (Mr. Boulanger): I wish them all a long and fruitful career in this House.
The first session of the 29th Parliament was quite productive, Mr. Speaker, since many bills furthering the respect of human and family rights were carried in spite of a minority government in the House which shows that even under a minority government, when we do our best, it is possible to provide for our country a more efficient administration that under a majority government. To be convinced, one has only to consider the 28th Parliament and note that a majority government, Mr. Speaker, was unable to increase family allowances. The amount of old age security pensions had also been increased by a ridiculous percentage, contrary to what happened since the beginning of the 29th Parliament. This shows that Canada, even under a majority government, can do more to provide security for the aged, but it nevertheless remains that thanks to the goodwill shown by all, it was possible to implement those material, physical and financial possibilities and ensure to old people a maximum of security.
Mr. Speaker, it is with satisfaction that Canadians see that this minority government is much more responsive to their demands. It is less arrogant and more inclined to accept in a democratic system the rules of a true democracy, those of a government of the people, by the people and for the people. Obviously, there is yet much to be done before it becomes reality because, Mr. Speaker, trusts, multinational corporations and financial powers still have a strong hold on the government through their contributions to the treasuries of traditional parties.
To be convinced, one only has to consider the goings-on in the oil, sugar and food industries controlled by big corporations.
Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne is nothing but a conventional procedure still used in Parliament for it
March 11, 1974

does not always reflect the legislative measures that the government intends to have adopted by the House. Indeed, the throne speech of the first session of the 29th legislature announced many more radical measures than what was in fact introduced. On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, the throne speech of the second session of the 29th legislature promises very few measures that would solve the many problems facing the Canadian people, while it is highly possible that this Parliament will be presented numerous bills which have not been mentioned in the speech.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, I say that the Speech from the Throne is part of a parliamentary tradition that we respect, of course, but that we should modernize and adapt to modern times, to the present times, to this century.
So I make the wish that this session will be one of deep reform, particularly in the financial area, so we can finally make financially possible what is physically feasible, and the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) gave an affirmative answer last week to my colleague for Champlain (Mr. Matte). I welcome this because formerly, not too many years ago, there was a denial of that suggestion, that possibility to make financially possible what was physically feasible by the people of this country.
However, Mr. Speaker, I accept less than I ever did the fact that a sovereign government, as should be that of Canada, should let its policies in all sectors of the economy of this country be dictated by those who have the privilege to control the economic blood of this nation, that is the real credit of this country, namely the privilege of minting the real credit of this nation which is produced by the over-all activity of its people.
Mr. Speaker, the activity of all those working in this country in any field or branch is the real credit of this country whereas the financial institutions to which I referred earlier are the banking institutions of this country which are governed by the Canadian Bank Act and now have the privilege to mint the credit of this nation, and that is why I say that in 1974 things should no longer happen that way.
We, in this Parliament, should give back to our government sovereignty in that field so it will act as a genuine manager, a genuine steering office, as is done in a co-operative, so that everyone may really benefit from the activities of the members of the Canadian society.
However, Mr. Speaker, I read in the throne speech the wish to submit a measure finally allowing the provinces to have and control a sort of provincial bank, as proposed by the former premiers of Alberta and British Columbia, the hon. Mr. Aberhart and Mr. Bennett. Last week, by the way, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) admitted that this initiative or proposal had been initially taken or made by the former premier of British Columbia, and I do hope that the minister, who is now smiling at me, will continue to benefit from the experience of this politician who still can, although he retired from political life, render many great services to our nation.
I hope that measures to be brought in to this effect will not solely be make-believe ones but sound projects giving to provinces a useful tool which will enable them to financially help municipalities fulfill their task as govern-
The Address-Mr. L. Marchand ments closer to people, by providing for a city or a municipality the essential public services at a cost in line with its paying capacity and with reality.
I would also like, Mr. Speaker, to talk about the young unemployed, educated or not. It has become an acute problem in Canada, a problem in which all serious Canadians as well as any responsible government should be interested in order to bring in a solution before it is too late. This problem of unemployed youth is in my view narrowly related to the difficulties that are facing people from 60 to 65 who have also some serious troubles in seeking employment or still in earning an income giving them financial security until they are 65, when under the present legislation an old age security pension will be paid to them.
Mr. Speaker, the unemployment problem is disturbing since according to a document tabled at the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee following a sitting on November 22, 1973 by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras), 47 per cent of Canadian unemployed are aged 24 or less.
The main difficulty of young people in getting on the labour market is their lack of experience, and that is the traditional excuse that employers use in refusing a job to the young people who offer their services, either in the public or private sector.
Mr. Speaker, if more understanding is not shown to these young workers, the country will certainly pay for it. Indeed, instead of taking advantage of the energy of these young people to develop the country and make it more prosperous, we will have to give them a certain amount of security, otherwise we will bear the brunt of their dissatisfaction, and instead of enjoying the effects of their dedication, we will suffer the effects of their frustration instead of benefitting the effects of their devotion. Because of the experience we have acquired, it is our duty as adults to take the necessary steps so that our young may become assets in this country instead of liabilities, as it is much too often unfortunately the case within an economic system which disregards the contribution of the young. We are influenced against our will by a society which is profit-oriented instead of being service-oriented.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must regretfully interrupt the hon. member, but his time has elapsed.


Mr. Len Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of my few remarks I should like to congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on the appointment of our new Governor General, Mr. Leger. I wish Mr. Leger and Madame Leger godspeed and every good wish as they carry out their very important work on behalf of Canada. I think they are off to a good start. I am sure those of us who attended the ball Their Excellencies held at the opening of this session of parliament appreciated the very fine hospitality shown to us all. I should like to say that Madame Leger is very charming. She has a very difficult role as the wife of the Governor General. It is a very important role. She has that very fine attribute, a good memory. When I met Madame Leger the night of the ball, she told me that she had met me a couple of years ago

March 11, 1974
The Address-Mr. L. Marchand at a dinner held at the National Arts Centre. Her memory is a great attribute, and I believe she will carry out her duties very well.
I also wish to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. I believe both members gave excellent addresses. They conducted themselves very well at the start of our debate on the Speech from the Throne. In 1968 I had the honour to second the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, and my colleague the hon. member for Madawaska-Vic-toria (Mr. Corbin) was the mover. This is an important honour that is given to members. I know that my constituents of Kamloops-Cariboo at that time very warmly received my nomination by the Prime Minister. I am sure the constituents of these hon. members also appreciate the honour bestowed upon their members.
I am very happy about a number of very important things contained in the Speech from the Throne. Some of the matters worth mentioning have started to unfold. I refer in particular to the legislation in respect of native housing. Mention of this appeared in the Speech from the Throne and later the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) announced a very important policy regarding native housing. A number of ingredients contained in this announcement are very important.
First of all, it met almost verbatim the representation made to the government by the Native Council of Canada. The Metis, the native people not under the Indian Act, I believe for a long time have been left out of society. I do not think provincial governments by and large have done a very good job on behalf of the Metis people. These people have come under provincial jurisdiction, and by and large they have been left out of society. In addition, society has tended to leave out the non-treaty Indian people. I think this announcement by the minister is probably one of the most significant statements in respect of housing or any othe matter to be made in a long time by the national or any other government on behalf of the Metis people in this country.
I hope that as progress is made down the road to implementation of this policy the native groups will be consulted more and more and will be used a great deal more in the implementation of the policy. When the announcement was made, I believe it was very warmly received by the president of the Native Council of Canada, Mr. Tony Belcourt. Very often when announcements are made, the native people are skeptical, but that was not the case this time. They said that maybe they were entering a new era.
All too often there is confrontation between native groups and the government, and this is not the way to proceed. There must be consultation between them and understanding, and policies worked out and implemented. I welcome this decision by the minister. I think it is farsighted, and I hope that the provincial governments which have been responsible over the years for the Metis people and the non-status Indians will respond in a very positive manner to the minister's call to them to meet the other part of the policy. If they cannot, then I suppose the minister will perhaps have to look at it again. However, in

all sincerity I call upon the provincial governments throughout the country to respond positively to the needs of the Metis people and the Indians.
I think there is the highest concentration of Metis in the prairie provinces. I believe the province of Alberta has been trying very hard to respond in positive ways to meet the needs of the Metis and Indians. It is a rich province and there is no reason in the world why they cannot respond positively to the lead that has been given by the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. We find that Saskatchewan has by and large been pretty responsive, but the policies of Saskatchewan and Manitoba have not been sufficiently far reaching so far as the Metis and the Indians are concerned. I think that with this policy we are entering a new era of responsiveness to the needs of the native people and I hope we can really do something with the new housing policy announced by the Minister of State for Urban Affairs.
I want to join a number of my colleagues who have spoken about the needs of Canadian cattlemen. I represent a constituency that has quite a large cattle population. I suppose the cattle population of British Columbia numbers up to half a million in peak periods. In my own riding it is perhaps up to 100,000. It is probably one of the constituencies with the highest cattle population in British Columbia.


Erik Nielsen: That's lot of bull.


Len Marchand: I should say that a good bull sale is going on in Kamloops tonight. It is one of the best shows. Kamloops is the centre of the cattle industry in B.C. and we are proud of it. It means that $37 million to $40 million a year passes through the city of Kamloops from the cattle industry, which is pretty important. The cattlemen of Canada, and the cattlemen of B.C. in particular, have had a pretty tough time. I hope that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), together with his colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) who is here tonight-


An hon. Member:: He doesn't care.


Len Marchand: -and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie), have taken note of the real needs of cattlemen. Their needs are quite acute at this time, and I hope the government will see fit to impose a positive program of tariffs so that the situation of Canadian cattlemen will not be jeopardized any further. I know that the Minister of Agriculture has been responding in a positive way, since he became minister, to the needs of cattlemen and I believe that he will come through again.
I want to say a few words about the cattlemen in my own riding and cattlemen in British Columbia and expand upon why they have had such a difficult time. The winter of 1972 was a very difficult one. As a result, the hay crops were frozen out and a number of ranchers in the interior of B.C. had no hay last summer. Also, the dairy farmers found themselves short of hay because of the severe winter. The crops were frozen out and they did not have time to reseed. This was coupled with a very dry summer in the interior of B.C. The dairy farmers and ranchers in British Columbia were paying up to $110 a ton for hay this

winter. That has hit them very hard. I spoke to a number of the producers who were having to sell their herds. This is one of the worst things that they can do at a time of inflation; it means that in time the supply will not be there because many of the producers have sold their herds due to the severe shortage of hay.
In the few minutes that I have left I would like to touch upon another matter that has very much concerned the residents of Kamloops. A week or so ago CRTC, which is an independent commission, rendered a decision for the provision of cablevision to Kamloops. One might say that we should have been happy, but most of the people were not very happy with that decision. Many of them felt they were being treated as second-class citizens. The decision provided that the cablevision company could provide only one commercial non-Canadian channel. You can go up a little way to Merritt, 60 miles from Kamloops, and find that there they have access to all three commercial nonCanadian channels. If you go to Penticton, Kelowna, Cranbrook or Kimberley you will find that these places, all of which are not very far from Kamloops, have access to all the American networks. In Vancouver they have access to all the channels. But the CRTC in its wisdom decided that Kamloops could have only one commercial American channel. The people of Kamloops feel very strongly about this decision. They feel it is the wrong policy and the wrong decision.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Len Marchand: Why should they be treated any differently from the people who are in Kelowna, Penticton, Merritt and Vancouver? If big, bad American television is not good for us, then it should not be any good for the people on the coast either.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I will commence by extending the traditional compliment to the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to Speech from the Throne, the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Stol-lery) and the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Pelletier). However, I will not follow the usual tradition of speaking this evening about matters affecting particular concerns in my constituency, although I have good cause for doing so particularly since in this session we have embarked upon a study of legislation affecting our two northern ridings, Yukon and the Northwest Territories, which is rather important to the people of those territories. I could speak about the bill introduced by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) today which will bring about what he is going to characterize as certain large steps forward, but there will be an opportunity to debate these matters later.
I was somewhat surprised today at the reluctance of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) to go ahead with the introduction of the bill to amend the British North America Act 1867-1965 in order to provide two more seats in the other place which undoubtedly are to be occupied by one appointee from the Yukon and one from the Northwest Territories. This would be in keeping with the recommendation of the joint committee of the House and the other place on the constitution which held
The Address-Mr. Nielsen
hearings all over the country a few years ago. I am glad to see that legislation coming forward. I think members will find it to be almost verbatim with a bill that has been standing on the order paper in my name for a good many years.
Rather than deal with those matters concerning the ridings of Yukon and the Northwest Territories, as opportunities will be provided in the future to speak about them, I want to speak about something that is nearer to the hearts of all Canadians. That is inflation, taxes and the ever increasing cost of living in the country and the part the government is playing in contributing to the absolutely uncontrollable situation that confronts us today.
It is a fact that in the years 1968-69 to 1974-75 the percentage increase in the main estimates is 103.5 per cent. They went from $7,170.3 million in 1964-65 to $22,022.9 million in 1974-75. I am happy to see the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) in their places tonight because some of these figures perhaps have not been presented to them before in this fashion. One might call them Peter and Paul. The lid is off; the Minister of Finance obviously cannot control the spending of his colleagues, and the President of the Treasury Board is obviously unable to bring his influence to bear.
In the last year, 1973-74 to 1974-75, the increase in the main estimates was 9.7 per cent. One of the greatest areas of wasteful government spending is in departmental information services. We all recall that when Information Canada was set up it was supposed to do away with the information services hitherto provided in each of the departments. It was supposed to be a central place where information would be available to all Canadians. Now we see that the public relations offices in the departments have not been diminished at all but have been increasing. Even after the advent of Information Canada in 1970 there has been a multiplication of costs rather than a reduction.
The latest statistics of February, 1974, reveal that there were 747 publicists on the federal government payroll, with 378 openings, for a total staff of 1,125. The number of government-owned buildings in the national capital region alone is over 600, and buildings leased by the government either in whole or in part stand at over 150. The value of the annual leases has jumped 50 per cent to $29 million in the last five years.
A return which was tabled to a written question revealed that in the fiscal year 1970-71, the total-and here are some statistics: I saw the Minister of Finance smiling a moment ago but perhaps these might be drawn to the attention of his colleagues because they are rather embarrassing-entertainment bill for the year 1970-71 for government departments and agencies, including the Prime Minister's office, amounted to $1,892,194.
The breakdown for travelling expenses in the same year was very interesting. In 1970-71, travelling expenses for all departments, including the Prime Minister's office but excluding the agencies of the Crown, which are plethoric-to hit a few of the highlights-were, Department of the Environment, $7,201,886.15. One might ask where they went. The Department of National Health and Welfare, just for travelling, spent $3,987,377. That department is very active in the entertainment field and spent $49,050.

March 11, 1974
The Address-Mr. Nielsen
The Department of Transport, which one would think could get around less expensively, spent $6,970,189; and the Postmaster General, whose department has one of the greatest deficits in government, spent $3,004,970.23. In entertainment, the Department of the Environment spent $55,716.83. Sir, spending in this government is entirely out of control.


Mr. Baldwin:: How about that $20 billion farce-the budget?


Erik Nielsen: Yes, and one might ask about the $8,000 cabinet meeting held last year. Rather than choosing one of two more than adequate cabinet rooms on parliament hill or one of the Prime Minister's establishments, the Prime Minister decided to hold a one-day cabinet meeting at the O'Brien estate, an NCC property. It took the NCC two weeks and between $6,000 and $8,000 to put the house in shape. These expenses did not include the cost of trucking furniture from the Conference Centre, security men, the luncheon caterer, cars to transport the ministers to and from the meeting, or the time of the Privy Council staff dispatched to provide wood for the three fireplaces.
I should like to go into another area of uncontrollable inflation, Mr. Speaker, namely, government growth. In 1969, when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) pledged to freeze expansion of government personnel, the size of the public service was 230,000 excluding commissions, corporations, the armed forces and contract employees. Since then the public service has increased by over 57,000. In the Toronto area alone the increase was from 18,450 in 1971 to over 20,000 in 1972; in the Ottawa-Hull area from 66,000 in 1971 to 75,000 in 1974, and in the Montreal area from 23,400 in 1971 to 25,400 in 1972.
There was a constant barrage of criticism of the government for these uncontrollable increases. If put in terms of a monthly increase, it becomes more staggering. Who in his right mind would say that it is reasonable to expect growth in the civil service of this country of some 1,300 per month?


An hon. Member:: Drury.


Erik Nielsen: I suppose the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Finance think that is a normal growth rate.


Mr. Drury:: It is research staff for the Tories.


Erik Nielsen: Let me speak now about ministerial absences. We are faced with the highest inflation rate, the highest tax rate and the highest cost of living in the history of the country. The government called for an extended Christmas recess, ostensibly for the purpose of working out a legislative program which would meet these crucial problems. Then we found in the last week of February that the only minister of the Crown in Ottawa to be dignified with the rank of acting prime minister was the nineteenth ranking member of the cabinet, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Gray). He was the only one who could be found. What a way to guide a country!

This happened when most of his colleagues were enjoying the sun in southern retreats and the Prime Minister was skiing in St. Moritz. I do not suggest that ministers should be begrudged holidays, not at all; but it is a bit much, when both unemployment and inflation are on the rise, that the only minister who can be found at his desk in Ottawa is the nineteenth ranking member of the cabinet, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.


John Napier Turner: Where were you?


Erik Nielsen: I was working in the Yukon, not sunning myself and getting lovely and brown as the Minister of Finance did.


John Napier Turner: You have to pick up your mail sometimes, Erik.


Erik Nielsen: As Mr. W. A. Wilson said in the Montreal Star, referring to the energy conference of last January 22 and 23:
Conferences that fail, broadcast the lack of preparation that went into them. The rush from the failed conference to the ski slopes and the beaches suggests strange orders of priorities.
There we see one reason for the uncontrollable situation which we face. Government members are simply not doing their jobs. Would not the cabinet have been better advised spending their recess in preparing legislation to get at the roots of the major problem facing Canada today, unemployment and inflation, rather than vacationing or spending their time attending foreign conferences which should be given a much lower priority?
Sir, I do not have time to put the rest of these disgusting statistics on record. All I can say is that the sooner the government leaves the treasury benches opposite, the sooner there will be some sanity in this country.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As it is 9.45 p.m., it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38(5), to interrupt the proceedings and forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of the main motion.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the main motion?


Erik Nielsen: On division.
Motion (Mr. Stollery) agreed to.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That the said address be engrossed and presented to His Excellency the Governor General by Mr. Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
['That the said address be engrossed and presented to His Excellency the Governor General by Mr. Speaker.']
Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I move, in accordance with Standing Order 58:
That this House at its next sitting consider the business of supply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
March 11, 1974

Mr. McKinley:: Mr. Speaker, I know that tomorrow has been set aside as an allotted day for the opposition. Is someone on the government benches opposite able to say what we will be considering on Wednesday?


Mr. Reid:: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the House leaders will be meeting again on Wednesday.
At 9.46 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, March 12, 1974