1974-03-01

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to move:
That the estimates of sums required for the service of Canada for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1975, be referred to the several standing committees of the House, as follows:-
The motion is in the regular form. I have circulated copies so that it might not be necessary for me to read it. It is a very long motion.


Mr. Speaker:: The President of the Privy Council, seconded by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, moves that the estimates of sums required for the service of Canada for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1975, be referred to the several standing committees of the House, as follows. Shall I dispense?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: The balance of the motion follows:]
To the Standing Committee on Agriculture:
Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, L30, 35 and 40 relating to the Department of Agriculture.
Vote 45 relating to the Canadian Dairy Commission
Votes 50 and 55 relating to the Canadian Livestock Feed Board
Vote 60 relating to the Farm Credit Corporation.
To the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts:
Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 and 35 relating to the Department of the Secretary of State
Vote 40 relating to the Canada Council
Votes 45, 50 and 55 relating to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
Votes 10 and L15 relating to Information Canada Vote 60 relating to the Company of Young Canadians Vote 65 relating to the National Arts Centre Corporation Votes 70 and L75 relating to the National Film Board Vote 80 relating to the National Library
Votes 85 and 90 relating to the National Museums of Canada Votes 95, L100 and L105 relating to the Public Archives Vote 15 relating to the Canadian Radio-Television Commission.
To the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence: Votes 1, 5, 10, L15 and 20 relating to the Department of External Affairs
Votes 25, 30 and L35 relating to the Canadian International Development Agency
Vote 40 relating to the International Joint Commission
Votes 1, 5, 10, 15 and 20 relating to the Department of National Defence
Vote 25 relating to Defence Construction (1951) Limited.
To the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs: Votes 1, L5, 10 and 15 relating to the Department of Finance Vote 25 relating to the Department of Insurance Vote 30 relating to the Tariff Board
Votes 1, 5, 10 L15, L20, L25, 30, 35 and 40 relating to the Department
of Industry, Trade and Commerce
Vote 45 relating to the Standards Council of Canada
Vote 50 relating to Statistics Canada
Vote 20 relating to the Economic Council of Canada
Votes 1 and 5 relating to the Department of National Revenue.
To the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry:
Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 relating to the Department of the Environment.
To the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs:
Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20 and 25 relating to the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs
Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50 and 55 relating to the
Department of National Health and Welfare
Votes 60 and 65 relating to the Medical Research Council
Votes 1 and 5 relating to the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs
Votes 10 and L15 relating to Central Mortgage and Housing
Corporation
Votes 20, 25 and L30 relating to the National Capital Commission Vote 30 relating to the Food Prices Review Board.
To the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development:
Votes 1, 5, 10, L15, L20, L25, 30, 35, 40, L45, L50, L55, L60, L65, L70, L75, 80, 85 and 90 relating to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Vote L95 relating to the Northern Canada Power Commission.
To the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works: Votes 1, 5, 10, and 15 relating to the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources
Votes 20 and 25 relating to the Atomic Energy Control Board
Votes 30, 35, L40 and L45 relating to Atomic Energy of Canada
Limited
Vote 50 relating to the National Energy Board
Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, L30, 35 and 40 relating to the Department of Public Works.
To the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs:
Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 relating to the Department of Justice Vote 1 relating to the Department of the Solicitor General Votes 5, 10 and 15 relating to Correctional Services Votes 20 and 25 relating to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
To the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration: Vote 1 relating to the Department of Labour Vote 30 relating to the Unemployment Insurance Commission Votes 1, 5, 10, 15 and 20 relating to the Department of Manpower and Immigration
Vote 25 relating to the Immigration Appeal Board Vote 5 relating to the Canada Labour Relations Board.
To the Standing Committee on Regional Development:

March 1, 1974
Main Estimates, 1974-75
Votes 1, 5, 10, L15, L20 and L25 relating to the Department of Regional Economic Expansion
Votes 30, 35 and 40 relating to the Cape Breton Development Corporation.
To the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications:
Votes 1 and 5 relating to the Department of Communications
Vote L10 relating to the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication
Corporation
Votes 1 and 5 relating to the Post Office
Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, L30, 35, 40, 45, L50 and 55 relating to the Department of Transport
Vote 60 relating to the Atlantic Pilotage Authority
Votes 70 and 75 relating to the Canadian Transport Commission
Vote 80 relating to the Great Lakes Pilotage Authority Ltd.
Vote 85 relating to the Laurentian Pilotage Authority
Votes 90, 95 and L100 relating to the National Harbours Board
Vote L105 relating to Northern Transportation Company Limited
Vote 110 relating to the Pacific Pilotage Authority
Votes 115 and 120 relating to the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority
Vote L65 relating to the Canadian National Railways.
To the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections:
Vote 10 relating to the Chief Electoral Officer.
To the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs:
Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50 and 55 relating to the Department of Veterans Affairs.
To the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates:
Vote 1 relating to the Governor General and Lieutenant Governors
Vote 1 relating to the Privy Council Office
Vote 15 relating to the Commissioner of Official Languages
Vote 25 relating to the Public Service Staff Relations Board
Vote 1 relating to the Ministry of State for Science and Technology
Vote 5 relating to the Science Council of Canada
Vote 110 relating to the Public Service Commission
Votes 1, L5 and 10 relating to the Department of Supply and Services
Vote 15 relating to Canadian Arsenals Limited
Vote 20 relating to the Auditor General
Vote 20 relating to the Canadian Commercial Corporation
Vote 5 relating to the Canadian Intergovernmental Conference
Secretariat
Votes 1, 5, 10, 15 and 20 relating to the Treasury Board
Votes 25, 30 and 35 relating to the National Research Council of
Canada.
To the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization:
Vote 1 relating to the Senate
Vote 5 relating to the House of Commons
Vote 10 relating to the Library of Parliament.


Mr. Bell:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We realize this motion is not debatable, but I do have what might be called a Baldwin caveat, named after the illustrious member for Peace River.
In view of the fact that none of us is really happy about the way estimates are handled in committee, we hope that no restrictions whatsoever will be placed on the appearance of civil servants before committees. We also hope we will go back to our old roles and that the Macdonald doctrine that was instituted and dug up in December of last year will be once again thrown on to the scrap pile. We trust we will get down to business and that civil servants, without any inhibitions, will be able to go before

committees and help us deal with these estimates properly.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Caouette (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member rise on a point of order?


Gilles Caouette: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I merely wish to make the same comment as usual. It concerns a document we have just received and which was printed in English only. I wish to indicate to the mover of this motion that, from now on, we should like to have it in both official languages, namely with the French translation.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I should like to raise a point in connection with the business of the House later today. Under the rules a vote would normally take place at 4.45 p.m. on the subamendment that has been moved. It has been suggested-I believe agreement has been reached to this effect-that the bells might be rung at 2.30 p.m. and that the vote be taken following the ringing of the bells, with the understanding that there will be some compensation for debating time that might be lost during the taking of the vote, and that this time be added at the end of the afternoon.


Mr. Speaker:: The understanding of the Chair is that the bells will ring at 2.30. It is not clear whether the President of the Privy Council was going to suggest that there be a limit on the ringing of the bells.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Fifteen minutes, Your Honour.


Mr. Speaker:: The bells will ring for fifteen minutes, so that the vote will be at 2.45. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
March 1, 1974


WAYS AND MEANS
Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, at the conclusion of the last session the House had not completed consideration of two sets of proposed tariff reductions. Pursuant to Standing Order 60(1), I wish to table a notice of a ways and means motion which combines a previous notice of October 23, 1973, removing duties on certain petroleum products and a notice of January 10, 1974, extending tariff reductions introduced in the budget of February 19, 1973. These proposals are reintroduced without change.


PROVISION OF BOXCARS-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, as a result of grain exports lagging by 34 per cent, terminal elevators half full, elevator space at country elevators either non-existent or at a minimum because annexes cannot be filled with tough grain, railway companies 130 million bushels behind in grain shipments, and the minister and the Wheat Board making an appeal for grain even though agents cannot accept it, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Hamilton), under the provisions of Standing Order 43:
That the whole question of grain movement be referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications to make an emergency study with a view to recommending to the government and the Canadian Transport Commission that they order the railways to allocate sufficient cars to move grain in order that full advantage can be taken of the buoyant market.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, the urgency of my request for leave to propose a motion pursuant to the terms of Standing Order 43 arises from the fact that this is the last sitting day before March 3 when one of the proudest creations of this parliament, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, launches a new television series. Having been privileged to see a preview, I propose to move:
That this House offers its congratulations to the CBC on its production of the TV program series entitled "The National Dream", which amongst its other accomplishments so vividly portrays the arduous,
Veterans Land Act
and at times hilarious, activities of some of our most distinguished predecessors in the Place, as they laboured to make Canada truly a nation extending from sea to sea.
Perhaps one of the spiritual descendants of Macdonald or Mackenzie-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has indicated what his motion is. I am willing at this point to inquire whether there is unanimous consent under the terms of Standing Order 43.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.


PROVISION OF INFORMATION BY OIL COMPANIES ON RESERVES AND PRICES-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, under the terms of Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to discuss a very urgent matter.
In view of the serious doubts regarding energy shortages, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That the House take this opportunity to study without delay the necessity of special legislation to order oil companies to divulge their exact surface and underground oil reserves as well as the selling prices to gas stations.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no unanimous consent; the motion, therefore, cannot be put.


VETERANS LAND ACT
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I also wish to move a motion under Standing Order 43. The government's intention to phase out the Veterans Land Act on 31 March, 1974, denies to the veterans of Canada their rights under the veterans charter and breaks faith on a commitment made by government in the name of the people of Canada.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Madill):

March 1, 1974
Price of Bread
That this House order the government to introduce a motion to effect a delay in phasing out the Veterans Land Act until an assessment can be made of the results of a survey being carried out on the effects of the phase-out, and to determine by reference to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs that the action contemplated is in the interest of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


PROVISION OF BOXCARS-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 43 to move a motion of urgent necessity. It has to do with the failure of the two major railways to move sufficient supplies of grain to Vancouver and Thunder Bay to meet present and future export requirements and the inability of the minister in charge of the Wheat Board to assure this House that our target for grain sales will be met this year. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Knight):
That the Standing Committee on Agriculture meet forthwith, and that the minister in charge of the Wheat Board and officials of the Canadian National Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway be asked to appear before that committee in order that the movement of grain by rail may be fully examined.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Terry Grier (Toronto-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Food Prices Review Board yesterday afternoon published a full report on the matter of bread price increases I should like to move, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, seconded by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom):
That this House instruct the government to take all steps necessary to ensure that the threatened rise in bread prices does not exceed, as a maximum, the levels recommended by the Food Prices Review Board.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


SUGGESTED LEAVE FOR CERTAIN MEMBERS-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. H. T. Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 and in a case of urgent and pressing necessity, I ask unanimous consent of the House to move:
That, in accordance with Standing Order 5, this House grants leave of absence to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso so that they may travel to Westminster in order to provide vital advice to certain members of the House of Commons there.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Miller Bell: They have enough trouble.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I also rise pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the recent announcement by the Minister of Health for the province of British Columbia that the provincial government was not interested in acquiring any land outside the hospital grounds of the George Darby Veterans Hospital in Burnaby, British Columbia, in view of the fact that federal government lands at Jericho in the city of Vancouver were returned to that city for the original purchase price, and in view of the fact that 9,000 residents of the municipality of Burnaby have petitioned for the return of the said lands, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Nelson):
That this House go on record as approving the return of the George Darby lands to the municipality of Burnaby for the original purchase price.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.
March 1, 1974


VETERANS LAND ACT
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I am still here and I should like to present a motion under Standing Order 43. Perhaps the government House leader, who is also still here, might second it for me.
My motion, Mr. Speaker, relates to a matter concerning which the House has already rejected a motion this morning, but because it is in more general terms and because I have left out anything provocative I earnestly hope the House will consider it. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. MacEachen), or by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters):
That the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs be authorized to consider the implications of the phasing-out of the Veterans Land Act and to make any recommendations with respect thereto.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and seconded by the hon. member for Timiskaming. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance. Last summer and subsequently he called upon his own colleagues to exercise restraint with regard to the preparation of estimates. I should like to ask the minister whether the approximately 20 per cent increase in the estimates tabled by the President of the Treasury Board yesterday complies with or is consistent with the policy the Minister of Finance was calling for, or whether these estimates with their 20 per cent increase in expenditures perhaps represent a change in the policy of the government and the Minister of Finance?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, if the House were to compare the main estimates tabled yesterday by my colleague, the President of the Treasury Board, with the main estimates for last year, it would be seen that the increase in expenditure amounts to 11 per cent.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: No, 18 per cent.
Oral Questions


John Napier Turner: 1 am talking about forecast expenditures.


An hon. Member:: No-the main estimates.


John Napier Turner: As my colleague
explained yesterday, the increase in the estimates is primarily attributable to the increase in statutory items and the increase in items which were destined and meant to protect those in our society on fixed incomes and with families, by larger transfer payments to protect Canadians from erosion of their purchasing power. I can say to the hon. gentleman, as the government has said on several occasions, that we do not intend to fight inflation in this country on the backs of the poor or the weak.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, it is pretty hard for the Minister of Finance to fight anybody when he does not know what he is talking about. I should like to address a question to the President of the Treasury Board. This is a matter of record. Is it not correct that the estimates tabled yesterday by the President of the Treasury Board are some $3,621 million above the corresponding estimates tabled one year ago or about 19.6 per cent? Is that not correct, and is it not clear that the Minister of Finance does not know what he is talking about?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will allow the President of the Treasury Board to reply to the question but I am sure the hon. Leader of the Opposition will appreciate that a question in those terms is hardly in order. From a procedural standpoint I will perhaps disregard the last part of the question and assume that the minister will reply to the first part.


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is asking whether the figures in the blue book tabled yesterday are correct. They are. Sometimes the arithmetic he applies to them is correct and sometimes it is incorrect. What he is endeavouring to do is to make assumptions regarding the future course of supplementary estimates in the current year. The government, in every year, endeavours to prepare as farsighted and complete a plan of expenditures as is possible. In the last year, the year 1973 that we have just been through, there were, as I think the hon. Leader of the Opposition will agree, rather extraordinary economic dislocations.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Miller Bell: The weather.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: These called for quick and substantial measures. The government provided those measures and this led to substantial modifications of the estimates' plan laid down much earlier in the fiscal year. He is then comparing, in a sense, apples and oranges-


Thomas Miller Bell: Rotten eggs!


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: -given the two different sets of
circumstances.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

March 1, 1974
Oral Questions


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: Here comes a lemon.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make the point that the minister spoke for several minutes, clearly avoiding, clearly refusing, to answer the question I asked him.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: That is right.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I put the question to the minister again, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a fact that the difference between the estimates tabled yesterday and the corresponding estimates introduced by the government one year ago is not some $2 billion, an increase of about 11 per cent, but some $3,629,000,000 or nearly a 20 per cent increase? Is this not correct? I ask the minister very bluntly to answer that question and not prove himself guilty of trying to cover up the facts.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, rather than try to follow the arithmetic, and I did not write down the figures the Leader of the Opposition gave, I will refer to page 1-16 of the blue book of estimates which was tabled yesterday. The main estimates for 1973-74 tabled one year ago were as follows: On the budgetary side, expenditures were $18,393 million; on the non-budgetary side they were $803 million, rounded. In the current main estimates tabled yesterday, expenditures on the budgetary side are $22,022 million and on the non-budgetary side $1,274 million. I will not try to do the hon. gentleman's arithmetic.


Mr. Fairweather:: Now, subtract. You are hoist on your own petard.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The hon. gentleman asks me to retract.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: No, subtract.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: There is nothing to retract in those figures.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Terrence Wyly Grier: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs that also involves some arithmetic. I hope members will concede that it is relevant to the ordinary taxpayer and consumer of Canada. It arises from the fact that yesterday afternoon the Food Prices Review Board released a study of the projected bread price increase in which it stated categorically that the increase should not, at maximum, exceed two cents. Is the minister now prepared to give the House an unequivocal assurance that he and the government are prepared to act and implement the recommendation of that board?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have been discussing this matter this morning on an urgent basis with the minister in

charge of the Wheat Board, the report just having been received by us late yesterday. I think we should see what the bakery industry is willing to do on a voluntary basis first, and I think we should have that response as quickly as possible. I want to repeat the commitment given by the Prime Minister in his statement last December, and confirmed in the Speech from the Throne, that the government is prepared to take appropriate action. Members will recall that the Prime Minister's statement last fall was that we would first see what voluntary action the parties are ready to take. I think they should make a response as quickly as possible.


Terrence Wyly Grier: Mr. Speaker, as none of the predicted increases are attributed either by the board or by the bakeries to the cost of wheat, may I ask the minister why consultation was required with the minister in charge of the Wheat Board? Arising from that and as a consequence, may I repeat my previous question to the minister. Is he prepared to give categorical assurances based upon the facts before him and the assurances which were contained in the Speech from the Throne three days ago?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I think I can only confirm the assurances which have been mentioned in the Speech from the Throne and previously. I again say that I think we should see what response the bakery industry is prepared to make to the report that came out late yesterday. I hope they will make their response as quickly as possible.


Terrence Wyly Grier: Surely the House is interested in the response of the government and not in the response of the bakers. My further supplementary question arises from the report. Does he intend to investigate the suggestion contained in the board's report that certain operations of the bakeries and the Bakery Council of Canada may be resulting in interference with the proper operation of the market and represent restrictive trade practices?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, this morning I drew these comments in the report to the attention of the acting director of the combines branch. I can certainly confirm that if he feels that under the law a question has been created about a possible breach of the act he will take the appropriate action.


REPORTS OF FOOD PRICES REVIEW BOARD ON RETAIL FOOD STORES AND EGG MARKETING-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the fact the minister is not prepared to commit himself on the report of the Food Prices Review Board dealing with bread, may I ask him whether he is now in a position to tell the House what action the government took on the report of the Food Prices Review Board with regard to its retail food stores survey, released in November, and the charges recommended by the board at that time? Also, what action has the minister taken on the recommendations in the board's report released in January regarding egg marketing in Canada? Surely the minister has had enough time to study those two reports.
March 1, 1974


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Yes, Mr. Speaker. At my request the Food Prices Review Board sent us 159 instances of possible breaches of existing law. A review indicated that 119 of them did not have anything to do with any existing law. The remaining 40 were investigated. As a result, 22 charges were laid involving six different stores. The remaining instances mentioned by the board are dealt with in stage one of the competition policy bill which I presented to the House on November 5. I hope the House will get down to debating and deciding on this bill as soon as possible. With regard to the report on egg prices, I think my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, will be pleased to give some information to the House on that matter.


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


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, surely we are going to hear from the Minister of Agriculture.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member rises on a point of order to suggest we should hear from another minister. For the moment, I think we should attempt to complete the first round of questions. Perhaps the hon. member will not mind if I recognize the hon. member for Champlain and return to this question later.


SUBSIDIZATION BY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF OIL EXPLORATION IN QUEBEC
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Could he tell us whether the federal government is granting special aid to the Quebec government or to private companies to spur oil exploration within the province of Quebec?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, no special funds have been granted by the Canadian government to that province.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the minister.
Could he tell us whether the Quebec government or some private companies have made him a request to that effect?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I think that neither the Quebec government nor any private company have made such a request to the Canadian government.


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Will he tell the House whether he is aware that a company by the name of SOQUIP is now conducting oil explorations in Quebec, more specifically at Joly in the riding of Lotbiniere?
Oral Questions


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As the right hon. Prime Minister said on December 10 last, we plan to set up a national oil company to achieve the same objectives as those of SOQUIP in Quebec.


ATHABASCA TAR SANDS-INTEREST EXPRESSED BY JAPAN IN FINANCING DEVELOPMENT-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I welcome him back after his trip to the Middle East where he represented Canada well.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I would like to know whether the government is giving any consideration to loans from foreign sources, to wit, Japan, to secure some $20 million to develop the Athabasca tar sands? What consideration has the government given to this matter?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, we have received a note from the government of Japan indicating in the most general terms the interest of that government in discussing with the government of Canada the development of the Athabasca tar sands at such time as we deem it appropriate to seek the involvement of other countries. As has been mentioned several times, we propose to have further discussions with the province of Alberta in this regard, but the tempo of development we would seek for the oil sands, given the increased demand in Canada in the next decade, would not, as we see it at the moment, leave very much oil available for export.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Was this message received since the Minister of Supply and Services made a statement in Vancouver welcoming such investment? Was that note received from the Japanese government since that time?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No, Mr. Speaker. That has been the position for some time. I think I would have to say that the Minister of Supply arid Services, as in all things, is an enthusiast.


John George Diefenbaker: If the Minister of Supply and Services had available knowledge of this note, was he speaking with the authority of the minister and the government or does the minister think the Minister of Supply and Services should stay with his pots and pans and Sani-flush?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I believe the hon. member for St. John's East and the hon. member for Skeena have supplementar-ies to a previous question.
70

March 1, 1974
Oral Questions CONSUMER AFFAIRS


REPORT OF FOOD PRICES REVIEW BOARD ON EGG MARKETING-GOVERNMENT ACTION
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary to my previous question and it is addressed to the Minister of Agriculture. What action has the government taken with regard to the recommendations of the Food Prices Review Board concerning egg marketing, which were released in January of this year? The first recommendation suggested that the price of eggs in Canada be lowered without delay to reduce the present excess margin over cost while maintaining a fair return to producers. The board also recommended that exclusive marketing be taken away from the CEMA and the egg marketing board. What action has the government taken on these recommendations? My question is all the more urgent because-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the minister might be allowed to reply.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, it has been six weeks since the House last sat and the government has taken no action on the recommendations of this board which is costing the taxpayers $2 million a year.


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the government has taken action according to the powers or obligations vested in the Minister of Agriculture and the Farm Products Marketing Council whi<;h reports to me. Under that legislation I asked them to make a thorough study of this Food Prices Review Board report. Parliament vested the power to do that in the Farm Products Marketing Council and that is what they are doing. The report will be made public as soon as it has been completed. They are working on it at the present time and it should be finished shortly.


PROPOSED INCREASE IN PRICE OF BREAD-REQUEST FOR INQUIRY INTO ACTIVITIES OF FLOUR MILLING COMPANIES
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs with regard to the prospect of an increase in the price of bread. Will the minister cause an inquiry to be made into the activities of the flour milling companies which own a great number of bakeries and are able to pad the price of flour and make it appear as though the cost to the baker is more than it actually is? Will the minister investigate that type of situation?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to see that the hon. member's comments are drawn to the attention of the director of the combines branch so that, if there is a basis for action to be taken under the Combines Investigation Act, which is the authority for such activity given to me by parliament, that action can be taken.


FOOD PRICES REVIEW BOARD
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. It arises from the disclosure in the 1974-75 estimates that the budget of the Food Prices Review Board will amount to $1.9 million for the next fiscal year, an increase of 90 per cent. Does this added expenditure indicate any new powers for the board?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: The board will continue to carry out the mandate given it under the Inquiries Act in line with the recommendations of the Committee of the House on Trends in Food Prices.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: I asked the minister whether the increased expenditure would mean any new powers for the board. I was not talking about the existing set-up.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: My answer was clear, I think. I will try to shorten it if the hon. member had difficulty with it. The answer is no.


SHORTAGE OF BOXCARS TO MOVE GRAIN-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. Norval Horner (Battleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. In light of the failure of the railways to move grain to Vancouver where presently 12 vessels are waiting and ten more are expected next week, and since the railways have fallen 14,000 cars behind the targets set by them on January 6, would the minister inform the House and the country what action the government is prepared to take if this crisis continues?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, we have been holding intensive discussions at the official level and with management concerning the problems that have arisen. The hon. member is quite right when he says that the railways have fallen behind the targets they themselves established as being reasonable for this period. This raises serious questions about an adequate explanation for such conduct even given the limitation upon the number of cars available in the country as a whole. One can appreciate that very difficult winter conditions have impeded the operation of the railways because of the tremendous amount of power required for snowplowing in the prairie region and also because of time out spent by power units affected by snow conditions. The question is whether the railways are doing all they can to overcome these difficulties and how quickly they will mobilize every possible part of their resources in order to overcome the over-all problem and get us back on target.
March 1, 1974


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister based on the latest figures released by Statistics Canada which indicate that Canadian workers are encountering a progressively deteriorating situation. In light of his speech yesterday, I would ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that average weekly earnings in December, 1973, were down by approximately $5 compared with November earnings and were only 5.9 per cent higher than those of December, 1972, while the consumer price index moved up over the same period by 9.1 per cent thus eroding any gains made by Canadian workers? If the Prime Minister is aware of this situation, is the government prepared to introduce specific measures which will offset inflation to a level at which a worker can regain the purchasing power of his dollar?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member will stay around for the rest of the session he will see what action the government is taking to deal with this situation.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Since the Prime Minister does not wish to answer the question and since this is a responsibility of the Minister of Finance, can the minister advise us whether the budget will contain any new measures to ensure that any increases in wages will not be eroded by a high rate of inflation? Can the Minister of Finance give us that assurance?


John George Diefenbaker: He can't.


An hon. Member:: No arithmetic needed.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's seatmate says no arithmetic is needed and I can understand why he would want to say that. I think the House is entitled to look at the figures not only of the average wage as against the cost of living, where there has been a slight falling behind-


Some hon. Members:: Slight?


John Napier Turner: -but to take into account also the figure of real disposable income, that is to say, the income of the average Canadian after discounting inflation, discounting taxes, adding transfer payments such as family allowances and taking into account the reduction of taxes in my budget of last February. Thus, for 1973 compared with 1972 the average Canadian, in terms of real disposable income, was 6.8 per cent better off.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me this is debate between the hon. member and the minister rather than questions and answers and perhaps anticipates the debate to take place following the question period. However, the hon. member will be recognized for a supplementary.
Oral Questions


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I appreciate the lecture the minister gave. I posed my question to him on the basis of information disclosed by Statistics Canada which shows that the purchasing power of the Canadian worker has been eroded by high inflation. Does the minister propose to bring in by way of a budget measures which will protect the Canadian worker in the event of higher wages being received? That is all I am asking.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I was doing my best to reply to the hon. member's question in the same terms as those in which he put it to me. I got my figures from Statistics Canada, too.


TRANSPORT
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact the Canadian Transport Commission has not yet turned over to the western premiers the information concerning freight rates promised to them by the Prime Minister some seven months ago, may I ask whether the right hon. gentleman can tell the House why this has not been done and when the western premiers are likely to get the information that was promised them?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport, who unfortunately is ill, did report to me that he had met with the western ministers responsible for transport and that they had discussed this very matter about a month ago, I believe, and had reached a satisfactory conclusion as to the way in which to proceed.


David Orlikow: Since the western premiers indicated yesterday that they are not getting the information, which can only be supplied voluntarily by the railway companies and they are not co-operating, is the government considering bringing in the necessary amendments to present legislation to require information on freight rate costs to be made available regularly as requested by the western premiers?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member has pointed out the nature of the difficulty. The commitment we made at the Western Economic Opportunities Conference was based on the assumption that there would be co-operation from the railway companies in this matter. There is some difficulty in getting these figures under the law as they interpret it, but we are still attempting to ensure that we will get their voluntary co-operation and that we will not be obliged to bring legislation into the House. However, if the government does feel it has to obtain legislative authority from the House I hope we will receive quick and spontaneous co-operation from all sides.
27398-6i
Oral Questions VETERANS LAND ACT

March 1, 1974


REQUEST THAT MARCH 31, 1974, EXPIRY DEADLINE BE EXTENDED
Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Veteran Affairs. In view of the many resolutions received from veterans organizations across the country which indicate that the overwhelming majority of some 900,000 veterans are in favour of extending the March 31 expiry deadline for the Veterans Land Act, can the hon. gentleman tell us what action he is taking and whether we can expect an extension of the deadline to meet the views of hundreds of thousands of veterans?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, this matter is under review. I will bring an answer to the House in the near future.


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact the minister has been giving the same answer for the past year, in view of the fact that a commitment has been made in the name of the people of Canada by past Prime Ministers that no veteran will ever be able to say that Canada has broken faith, and since there was never any indication that anything under the veterans charter would be phased out, would the Prime Minister use his good offices to ensure that the deadline will be delayed until it can be determined that its imposition is in the best interests of Canada's veterans?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have received testimony from veterans' organizations, including statements in their official publications, that the present government has done more for the veterans than any other.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I think it has been demonstrated that the present Minister of Veterans Affairs is equally one who has brought forward action which has been wholly supported by the veterans and I am confident he will continue to do so.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have reached the point when I must seek the co-operation of hon. members to limit the number of supplementary questions because we are approaching the end of the question period. I will recognize the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe on a supplementary question, followed by the hon. member for Drummond.


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question I should like to direct to the Prime Minister. Granted that the veterans of Canada are well treated, the proposed action respecting this phase of the veterans charter is going to deny over 100,000 veterans the right to build homes. Even though the government is doing what it can to provide houses, this action will throw another 100,000 into the mainstream and the set-up we have under the veterans land administration could relieve that problem. I would ask the Prime Minister to reconsider and give

a yes or no answer to my question whether he will take this necessary action to delay the phasing-out?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have heard the member's arguments and I have heard them before. All I can do now is to support the position of the Minister of Veterans Affairs and express my confidence in him.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: Which is nothing.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Jean-Marie Boisvert (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
Since Quebec has only had in 1973 9.2 per cent of the Canadian farm income, which constitutes a decrease of 6.2 per cent compared with 1969, when Quebec had 15.4 per cent of the farm income, could the minister tell the House whether he intends in the near future to take steps to enable Quebec agriculture to take an equitable share of the national farm income?


Mr. Leopold Corriveau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I take notice of this question on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture who will be pleased to answer it as soon as possible.


Jean-Marie Boisvert: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture.
Could he tell the House whether he intends reviewing the government's dairy policy in order to give some impetus to agriculture in Quebec and take it out of its present stagnation,, because at the present time, the situation is untenable for Quebec farmers?


Léopold Corriveau: Mr. Speaker, I think that at the present time, the cabinet and the Department of Agriculture are working very hard to find new orientations for the dairy industry. I think that in a few days the Minister of Agriculture will be happy to announce the new dairy policies of the government.


PLANS TO OVERCOME DEFICIT IN FULLY MANUFACTURED PRODUCTS-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Will he take the first opportunity on motions to outline to the House what plans the government intends to introduce early this session to overcome the serious situation brought about by a $5.9 billion trade deficit in fully manufactured products in this country during the first 11 months of 1973?

Oral Questions AGRICULTURE


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I have been reviewing recently the trade statistics for the past year. We had a very substantial surplus on merchandise trade, close to $2 billion. The figures also reveal that there has been an over-all increase in our exports of better than $5 billion, an amount greater than total exports when the questioner was the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, as the minister in his smart-aleck way completely avoided answering my question I will repeat it. Will he take the first opportunity on motions to outline to the House his plans for overcoming the serious situation brought about by a $5.9 billion deficit in fully manufactured products, products which provide jobs for Canadians?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I should like to remind the hon. member that about a year ago the House took very important action from the point of view of supporting Canadian manufactured and processed goods. I am referring, of course, to the reduction in corporate tax rates, one of the most significant measures taken. I should also like to remind him that if he looks at all the figures he will see there has been a very substantial increase in exports of fabricated products during the same period.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Were any federal government representatives at the meeting held in Winnipeg between the Manitoba and North Dakota governments regarding the Garrison diversion?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of the Environment):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there was an observer from my department present.


A. Daniel McKenzie: As the Manitoba government has agreed to let the diversion proceed, does the minister also agree in view of the fact it has been reported that it will seriously degrade water quality in Manitoba, and in view of the fact the Secretary of State for External Affairs has stated that meetings are to be held between the Canadian and United States governments regarding this diversion?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, several submissions have been made to Washington through the Department of External Affairs, all of them in opposition to this project in the United States. We have had some assurance, at least from the State Department of the United States, that it too is opposed to it.


CATTLE-SUGGESTED ESTABLISHMENT OF TARIFFS AND QUOTAS TO CONTROL IMPORTS FROM UNITED STATES
Mr. Jack Cullen (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture or his parliamentary secretary. In view of the large influx of cattle from the United States I should like to know if consideration is being given to Mr. Charles Cracey's suggestion of establishing not only tariffs but possibly quotas in order to stabilize the situation?


Léopold Corriveau: Mr. Speaker, I shall take note of the question on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture who will be glad to answer it shortly.


PRICE OF HOME HEATING OIL IN OTTAWA AREA
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs concerning the price of home heating oil in the Ottawa area. I believe the minister was made aware of this problem some three weeks ago. In view of the fact that Gulf and Imperial Oil are shipping home heating oil by pipeline from Toronto to Ottawa and that the price is 2714 cents a gallon in Toronto and 34Vi cents a gallon in Ottawa, although transportation costs amount to only 1.7 cents a gallon, what action does the government intend to take to roll back this unjustifiable price increase for consumers in the Ottawa area?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I have been discussing this matter with officials of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources who have been conducting an analysis to determine the extent to which the price can be linked to oil from western Canada as distinct from oil which I understand is continuing to come from the east. It may be that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, who is responsible for that program, may have some further information to provide following his return.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct this question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Does the government intend to launch an investigation into this violation of the price freeze on western Canadian oil production, since the oil comes from western Canada, and investigate also why consumers of home heating oil in the Ottawa area are forced to subsidize this price increase?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, sir.
Oral Questions AGRICULTURE

March 1, 1974


ACTION TO ASSIST BEEF PRODUCERS IN LIGHT OF IMPORTS SELLING AT BELOW CANADIAN COST OF PRODUCTION
Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, this is a supplementary question. In the absence of the Minister of Agriculture, because of the importance of the matter I should like to direct the question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that imports of beef into Canada are now at a market price below the actual cost of production on Canadian feedlots, many of which are either closing down or contemplating such action, will the minister indicate whether the government contemplates any action to bring relief to these producers, and what this policy might be?


John Napier Turner: Of course, Mr. Speaker, we are reviewing the situation as we have done ever since the market was rendered unstable by the American lifting of controls. We have the matter under constant review.


INDUSTRY
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce concerning Radio Engineering Products Company Limited, a company situated in New Brunswick which the government found necessary to take over in order to protect itself in relation to loans to the company and an indebtedness of $4.5 million. Has this company been sold and, if not, are steps being taken to sell it? What steps are being taken to collect the $4.5 million indebtedness to the Crown?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, the government acquired a majority of the shares of Radio Engineering Products Company Limited with the object of retaining significant technological skills in Canada, to provide continuing employment in northern New Brunswick, and to improve and stabilize the financial position of the company in order that it might be resold as a continuing business operation. The company has recently gone through a difficult period, largely the result of the level of business. Recently some useful headway has been made in diversifying the company's operations, and significant progress has been made in negotiating contracts for future production. I am hopeful that this process will continue.


Alfred Dryden Hales: The minister did not answer my question as to what steps have been taken to collect the indebtedness of $4.5 million.


Alastair William Gillespie: As I have indicated, Mr. Speaker, the resources of the company are modest. An effort has been made to sustain the company and to put it in a fully competitive position.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Joe Hueglin (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, may I address my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. On January 22, contrary to the custom of recent years, the flag of the Free Ukraine was not flown at Ottawa City Hall. As this break with custom was based on the initiative and advice of the minister's department, is it to be considered that this unfortunate precedent will be applied to the flags of all peoples whose homelands are now included within the Soviet Union-the Latvians, Estonians and Lithuanians as well as the Ukrainians?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman may know, there is no law in Canada about the flying of flags. When the Department of External Affairs is asked for its advice, as it sometimes is, it cannot, of course, endorse the flying of any flags other than those of governments which are recognized by Canada. That is the only advice we can give. But it is only advice. People can do as they wish since there is no law on the subject. One has to make a distinction, of course, between countries. For example, Canada does not recognize the incorporation of the Baltic states into the Soviet Union, which is quite different from the position of some of the other countries to which the hon. member is referring.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Niagara Falls will be recognized for a supplementary, after which the Chair will call orders of the day.


Joseph Fred Hueglin: It is, then, very clear that the minister's department was approached by the mayor rather than the other way round?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, that is my understanding. We do not look around and say that a certain flag should not be flown. If we are asked for our advice we must give it, of course, in terms of our relationships with other countries. I would hope, too, that when municipalities decide what they are going to do they will observe the ordinary international courtesies.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day. The hon. member for Scarborough West is rising on a point of order.


BILINGUALISM
Mr. John Harney (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order or a point of privilege which Your Honour might consider procedurally inappropriate but which nevertheless is extremely important in substance to this House and to the country. In the Globe and Mail this morning there is a news article on the front page which states in its body and in its headline that we, the parliament of Canada, are about to spend $8.56 of every $100 on bilingualism.
March 1, 1974

The simple fact is that we are going to do nothing of the kind. The report in the Globe and Mail is out by a factor of 10. I wonder whether the President of the Treasury Board, for the sake of the record of this House and of the understanding by the people of Canada of a very important but nevertheless very sensitive policy of this House, would clarify whether he or his department gave this miscalculated information to the Globe and Mail or whether it came from Statistics Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is hardly a point of order. It is perhaps a question that might have been raised in the question period. The Chair has no objection to allowing the minister to reply to the hon. member's question, but since the question period has expired this would have to be done with the consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think we have been having trouble with our arithmetic today. In this case, as the hon. member has pointed out, a Toronto newspaper, the Globe and Mail, has correctly reported information obtained from the blue book and from Treasury Board that roughly $188 million will be spent in support of a variety of bilingualism policies of the federal government.
However, the author has gone on to conclude that $188 million out of the total of the estimates represents 8.56 per cent of the total sum, or $8.56 for every dollar.


Some hon. Members:: Wrong again.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That is misleading, and perhaps it has misled the Leader of the Opposition. I hope the Globe and Mail will make every effort not only to correct but to acknowledge correction of this statement.


Mr. Speaker:: Before recognizing the hon. member for Don Valley, the hon. member for York West is rising on a point of order.


Mr. Fleming:: Mr. Speaker, I want only to interrupt for a moment, as chairman of the Toronto Liberal caucus, to recognize the mayor of the great city of Toronto who is sitting in the Liberal gallery this morning.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think I owe it to the House to remind hon. members that it is entirely out of order to bring to the attention of the House the presence of distinguished Canadians or distinguished visitors. This was done yesterday by one of the gentlemen to my right. I thought I should not say anything, but if we are going to get into the habit from day to day of recognizing the many distinguished people who visit our galleries, then we may find ourselves spending as much time recognizing visitors in the galleries as we do on Standing Order 43 motions.
The Address-Mr. Gillies


SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, February 28, consideration of the motion of Mr. Stollery for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto by Mr. Stanfield (p. 31) and the amendment to the amendment by Mr. Fortin (p. 45).
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to commence my remarks by congratulating the mover and seconder of the Speech from the Throne; by offering my felicitations to the Governor General and wishing him every success in his term of office, and by congratulating the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) on his brilliant address yesterday.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James McPhail Gillies: Indeed, may I also congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on his fine performance as well as the other leaders of the parties in this House.
Actually, the question whether or not one is prepared to support the Speech from the Throne really depends upon whether or not one can decide from what is said that this government has the vision and imagination to solve the economic problems that are facing Canada, problems which indeed are prevalent in the world today. There is no question that the world today is experiencing its greatest economic challenge since the 1920's. Clearly this is a period when we need imagination, enthusiasm and the ability to adopt new ideas in order to cope with the current economic situation. I was pleased to see that attention was given to this particular matter in the speech.
The economic difficulties facing the world today are very clear and apparent to everyone. They began to emerge last year when a rapid and dramatic change came about in the supply of energy to the countries of the world. The problem has manifested itself in two ways: in terms of supply and in terms of price. The supply problem is most apparent in those countries that depend upon foreign oil from Middle East sources-countries such as Japan, the countries of the European Common Market, and to some degree the United States. As a consequence of this supply problem, there will probably be a slowing down in the rate of economic growth of these countries during the course of the present year.
More important, perhaps, in the long run it will lead to a different allocation of resources in those countries. But far more important than the supply problems which are generated by the situation in the Middle East are the payment problems. Under the pricing policy of the Middle East it is clear that payments will be in the neighbourhood of $75 billion. The simple fact is that those payments cannot be made under any type of conventional system such as has been in the past. Indeed, for some countries, such as India, which is going to have to use half its exports to pay for oil, the payment problem is beyond comprehension.

March 1, 1974
The Address-Mr. Gillies
The point I want to make is that no one is suggesting that we will find a solution to the international economic problems in the old conventional methods of the past. No one is saying that we can have simple changes in the value of foreign exchanges which will clear the payment problems. Indeed, we have to hope that out of meetings such as were held in Washington a few weeks ago, and in Rome at the start of the year, that new economic policies will be developed that will make it possible for these problems to be solved. Because no one knows whether the problems can be solved, there is probably more uncertainty in the world today, so far as economic policy is concerned, than has existed for many, many years.
The reason I mention this problem in world international economic affairs is that I believe that, just as we need new and imaginative methods to solve the problem of international payments, we also need new and imaginative solutions to the economic problems that we have in Canada. The question that you have to ask yourselves, and which every member of parliament has to ask himself when he looks at the Speech from the Throne and the suggestions in it, the broad generalities that are there, is: can we have confidence that this government has really understood the changes that are taking place in the Canadian economy.
We must ask ourselves whether we can have confidence that this government knows the changes in economic policy that have to be made in order to deal with those problems in an effective fashion. I think it was Talleyrand who once said, "How sad it is to live in the middle of a revolution and not know that it is going on". We know that a revolution is going on in terms of economic policy making at the international level. The immediate impact of the oil price changes have made that very clear. But we seem to be unable to recognize that in the development of our domestic economic policies we have also had a revolution in the structure of our economy and the way in which the economy is working. Unless this is perceived, it is very unlikely that we will solve the economic problems of the present, let alone those of the future.
In the Speech from the Throne we do not see anything about a new industrial strategy for Canada. There is nothing in it about a resource policy for Canada, nothing on pricing policies, nothing on a trade policy and, most important, nothing about solving the most important problem we have in Canada today, that is the problem of inflation. In fact, there is only one issue in Canada today and that is the question of what we should do about inflation and the increasing cost of living, because there is no way in which we can solve any of our other problems until we get inflation under control.
Does anybody really believe that we can do anything about the housing problem in Canada until we deal with inflation? Does anybody really believe we can solve the problems of regional disparities of income before inflation is lowered? Does anybody really believe we can solve the problem of income distribution before the problem of inflation is solved? We cannot. The same is true of the problems of poverty. The critical thing that must be done in this parliament is to come to grips with domestic inflation and come to grips with it now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James McPhail Gillies: Otherwise, we are wasting our time here. Moreover, if we do not solve the problem of inflation and if we allow inflation to continue at its present rate, whether it is 9.1 per cent or 10 per cent, the fabric of our society and of our economic system will not survive. The people of Canada will simply not put up with an economic system and with a government that is unable to limit inflation. I think it was Lenin who said that if you wish to destroy an economic system first, you debauch the currency. That is what we are doing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James McPhail Gillies: Actually, the inflation problem will be solved and inflation will end in Canada at some time. It will come to an end in Canada in the traditional business cycle fashion. If we do not get inflation under control in this country, we will end up with a collapse of our economic system, a rise in unemployment, and a depression possibly of the dimensions and kind we have had in the past.
What can the people of Canada make of a government which states in the face of the inflation rate we have now that nothing can be done about it in the short run, although something might be done about it in the long run. The people of Canada will not accept such a proposition. What can the people of Canada think of a Prime Minister (Mr.'Trudeau) who goes on a television program and says that there will be an increase in the cost of living in 1974 as high as in 1973. The implication of such remarks are that the people had better protect themselves against inflation because the government cannot protect them.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


James McPhail Gillies: What are the people of the nation to think of a government that is not prepared to try hard to do something about inflation?
What is the government's excuse? The government says that it really cannot do anything about inflation in Canada because it is a world-wide problem. Certainly, there is inflation around the world. Every country in the world is suffering from inflation, but there is a fundamental difference between the inflation that is being experienced in Canada and the inflation experienced in many other countries of the world. We have isolated ourselves so far from the impact of the great increases in oil prices which are so inflationary in other countries, but more importantly our inflation, unlike inflation in other countries in the world, is not caused by the fantastic increase in the cost of our imports, which is the case in Great Britain, Japan and many other countries. The inflationary impact in our country caused by the world-wide inflationary situation is due to the increase in the price of our exports. This is something we could do something about, but we have not. So, to suggest that we have an enormous inflation in Canada because of world-wide conditions and to try to pretend we have the same problem as Britain or Japan is absolutely wrong.
If you look at the statistics on price increases in our imports, you will see that prices have been up about 8.2 per cent until the oil situation. The price increase of our exports is about 14.5 per cent, and of course the general increase in prices is about 10 per cent. No one can say that

if we want to do something about inflation we cannot do it because of world-wide problems. The reason we do not do anything about it is that we do not want to do so, we do not want to disrupt some of the patterns and traditions of the past. What we have decided to do is not to isolate ourselves in any way from the international forces that add to inflation in Canada.
What one would have thought would have been done a year ago, or two years ago, essentially was to allow our exchange rate to rise. But we did not do so. We kept the exchange rate floating with the American dollar, but it has been a very peculiar type of float, as the leader of the NDP likes to point out. It was a float designed to maintain parity with the U.S. dollar, because any time capital movements took place that might have changed the exchange rate, the money supply or the interest rates were changed.
When the U.S. dollar was devalued our dollar was also devalued, at a time when any rational policy would have been designed to slow down export demand in the face of rising prices. Instead, we assisted in increasing the demand by following economic policies which assured that the Canadian dollar would stay in parity with the American dollar. What we have done has been to allow the prices of our export products to rise domestically in face of world demand, and the government seems willing with some exceptions, to accept world prices on the domestic market. It has done nothing to slow down the demand situation by operating with a really flexible exchange rate, as one would have expected it to do.
We moreover, have not really looked at the question of whether or not our policy of exporting everything we can export, of trading for trade's sake, is really what we should be doing in this changing world. Surely, the message in the change of the Arab oil policy is that we have to begin to think seriously about the use of our non-renewable resources. Does it make sense in Canada today to sell our resources at the highest price to the highest bidder? Not only does this have enormous inflationary effects but it also raises the question of whether it is a moral position to take. Are we really prepared to let our resources go to the highest bidder? Do we really want the rich countries to become richer and the poor countries to become poorer because we are willing to let our resources go to those countries which can pay for them under any conditions?
The government contends that it will try to solve the inflation problem in Canada over the long run with some type of supply policies. Mr. Speaker, we remember our experience with the government's previous supply policies, with its policy of killing chickens to raise the price of eggs, and with its program in the west to reduce the production of wheat. If the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) is really concerned about supply problems, if he thinks supply is the answer to inflation, then why doesn't he do something about supply problems now? Why doesn't he slow down some of the exports of our raw materials? Why does he not have them processed in this country? Why doesn't he have a supply policy right now?


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


James McPhail Gillies: It is absolutely wrong to suggest that inflation in Canada is induced entirely by external forces. That is not true. If we want to do something about the problem we can do it if we only have the will, the courage, and the imagination to move.
At the same time as we have had this failure to do anything so far as supply is concerned, we have followed a fantastic expansionary domestic monetary policy. By and large inflation is a monetary phenomenon. I completely and absolutely agreed with the member for York South (Mr. Lewis) yesterday when he made the statement that it is wrong to say that inflation is caused by increases in wage rates. It is not. The increase in the money supply, in the dimensions that we have experienced in the past few years, guarantees that we are going to have increased inflation. Over a period when production is being increased by 17 per cent or 18 per cent, you cannot increase the supply of money by 50 per cent without having an inflationary situation. You have to make a distinction between fiscal and monetary policies, a big distinction. But the government has never been prepared to make a distinction, to recognize that the impact of monetary policy is primarily on prices, and that the impact of fiscal policy is primarily on output.
It is quite conceivable that monetary and fiscal policies can work in opposite directions, but we have had inflation induced in this country by an increase in the money supply unmatched by any other industrialized nation in the world in modern times.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the government asks people across this country to be restrained in their expenditure patterns and policies. But today, depending on how you work out the figures we find that the government, in a year when the inflation rate is 10 per cent, is increasing its expenditures by-pick your own figure-20 per cent.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Be fair; it is only 19.6 per cent.


James McPhail Gillies: By 19.6 per cent. It defies the imagination. Doesn't the government really want to do something about inflation? To increase expenditures by that dimension in an inflationary period makes no sense at all.
The reason we have so much inflation in Canada is government policy. The government's own policy has created most of the inflation that we have in our economy. The question is, why do we have these absolutely ridiculous things going on? It is almost a psychological problem, but actually I suspect it is more of a political problem.
When you think about it, Mr. Speaker, the reason has to be that the government was so bruised by the policy it followed two or three years ago, a mistaken policy, of slowing down the economy to try to fight inflation-in the process creating 7 per cent unemployment, the highest unemployment rate in the industrialized world at that particular time-that it has frightened itself into following another mistaken policy. There is no question that inflation did slow down at that time, but as a consequence of that policy the government apparently has decided it can do nothing at all about the demand-management side of the inflation problem. It is so frightened that something may happen to the unemployment rate that it will not act. This makes no sense. If the economy moves up, with reasonably full employment, you get inflation if you keep

March 1, 1974
The Address-Mr. Gillies
putting more money into the system, and if you keep on increasing government expenditure.
No one, least of all the party to which I belong, has any interest in trying to control inflation by creating unemployment. This would be a stupid and a morally improper policy; bad economically, bad socially and bad politically. But this does not mean that the government has to throw away one whole aspect for dealing with inflation as this government has done. The government is afraid to slow down any sort of excess demands in the economy and, as a consequence, inflation continues. It will continue in Canada this year even if it drops in other countries; it will continue because of the policies the government is following. It is creating inflation; you have to have some demand management policy or inflation will grow.
With a 10 per cent rate, it is inconceivable that we do not have some sort of demand-management policy. We have no supply-management policy, no demand-management policy, no exchange rate policy, no monetary policy and we wonder why we have inflation. The government is creating it and it will continue this year at a rate equivalent to last year.
My final point is that the inflation problem will not be solved in Canada unless we try to perceive Canada and the economy as it really is. Unless you perceive the nature of the' structure of the economy within which you are operating, there can be no solution. It is important to see reality. What are the realities in the Canadian economy at the present time? What is the first reality? We are in the middle of enormous inflationary expectations in this country. Does anybody at all believe that we are today in an economy with normal expectations? Why is the price of gold at $185? Why is the cost of houses in Toronto increasing at the rate of 27 per cent or 30 per cent per year? We are in an economy that is operating on inflationary expectations. If you try to apply policies in this economy that are based on the assumption that expectations are normal, they will fail.
The first thing any government has to do is try to break such inflationary expectation? That is imperative. But the evidence we have had in the last two days gives no confidence that the government will even try. Anyone who reads the Speech from the Throne will have to conclude that it is a program for more inflation, not less. The Prime Minister says it is inevitable.
Second, it is imperative to look at the realities of the structure of the economy. We have made economic policy in this country, and other countries too, since the end of 1945 in terms of monetary policy, fiscal policy and so on, on the basic assumption that we are operating in a truly competitive economy. The reaction is anticipated from policies is the reaction expected in a competitive economy. We have not had that type of economy for a long time and we do not have it now. In a period of inflationary expectations where prices are established not primarily by operation of supply and demand but by administrative pricing decisions, what is going to happen? You are going to have escalating prices that perform no economic function in the system at all.

Does anybody in this House really believe that an increase in the price of housing in Toronto this year of 27 per cent generated a greater increase in the supply of housing this year than a 5 per cent increase in price would have? Does anybody believe that the profit reported today by corporations are necessary to generate new investment in the future? No. Why are these thing coming about? It is because there is no competitive force operating in many areas of the economy. Whether we like it or not, large portions of price setting are done on an administrative basis. There is no countervailing power. If we do not recognize this in the making of economic policy, there is no chance that economic policies will work.
What do you do under these circumstances? The first thing is to break the expectation and give an indication that the government is serious about fighting inflation. That is why in our party we have said that one of the first essentials is to try to gather everyone into the effort against inflation. We believe it is essential to have a short-term freeze on elements of the Canadian economy in order to indicate to the Canadian people that we are serious about doing something about inflation.
Yesterday the Prime Minister said that such a shortterm freeze could operate successfully in the short run, although it created problems for the long-run. The director of the program in the United States confirms this view. No one really suggests that a short-term freeze is not successful in slowing down expectations and bringing a slowdown in the rate of inflation in a country. But everyone says that if you do not follow it with an incomes policy, an economic policy, a competition policy and so on, it will not work. They are right. At the same time, it is quite clear that if you follow only a monetary policy or fiscal policy alone, it will not work. What you need is the combination in the economy of an incomes policy, a monetary and fiscal policy, and an exchange rate policy developed together. A question is, are you better off to try to deal with the profit situation with an excess profit tax or some sort of incomes policy? It is quite clear that you are better off with an incomes policy, not only because of the fact that sometimes you can hide taxable costs, but primarily because what you are trying to do is not collect more revenue for the government but to keep prices down.
I was astonished yesterday when the Prime Minister said that he did not know what an incomes policy was. It is quite clear what an incomes policy is. You establish in your economy a permissible level for profits, a level high enough to permit continuation of investment in the economy. It is as simple as that. You do not have to have rates of profit increase by 30 per cent or 40 per cent in your economy to get new investment.
It is unfair for the government to say that they are going to ask everybody to do something about inflation when the government itself is not doing anything about it. It is spending more. It is not going to get effective action through voluntary controls. What you have to do if you want to get inflation under control is establish an incomes policy in conjunction with the private sector and in conjunction with labour and consumer groups.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member might indicate what his conclusion will be because his time has expired.
March 1, 1974


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


James McPhail Gillies: You cannot expect, in a period of inflationary expectation when there is no competitive force operating, to get these prices under control. It will not happen. We must have an incomes policy. I have never heard anything like what the Prime Minister said yesterday about the effects of income policy on low income groups. The only thing I ever heard that was more outrageous was the suggestion that the NDP was not supporting the Carter tax reform. There is not one scintilla of evidence anywhere to suggest that an incomes policy works against people in low income brackets. How can a Prime Minister who presides over a government which has permitted inflation to take 10 per cent away from the people in Canada in the last year oppose an incomes policy on grounds that it is going to hurt low income groups. Such a suggestion is absolutely outrageous.
The fact is that inflation destroys people in the low income brackets. Under inflation, income is not transferred from high income to low income groups; it is transferred from low to high income groups. Inflation destroys the middle class and those in low income brackets, and to try to make a case for some political reason in this country that an incomes policy is going to hurt those in the low incomes brackets is absolutely ludicrous.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: It is irresponsible.


James McPhail Gillies: It is irresponsible. If we do not have an incomes policy, these people in this country will be terribly hurt. They are being hurt, now.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must inquire whether there is unanimous consent for the hon. member to continue.


An hon. Member:: Two minutes.


Mr. Speaker:: I must bring to the attention of the hon. member and of the House that we ought to recognize at least two more speakers between the present time and the time of the vote. Those members would include the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald). We are running short of time.


James McPhail Gillies: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I feel very strongly about this issue. In conclusion, I say that we, in this House, cannot allow inflation to increase. We need not allow inflation to increase. We can put policies into effect which will lessen inflation in this country. We are not at the mercy of international whims in this matter. I believe that if members in this House are aware of the plight of their constituents and really want to represent the people of Canada, they will vote in support of the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, having read and re-read the Speech from the Throne where several pieces of legislation are announced, and in view of that list of measures, we cannot now judge their value because
The Address-Mr. Rondeau
we are not yet aware of their content and cannot say whether they will solve Canada's present problems.
I shall limit my remarks to the present economic situation in Canada and not to any measures in particular. I would also like, Mr. Speaker, to support my colleague, the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) who has moved a sub-amendment in the House, yesterday.
Mr. Speaker, considering the almost utter confusion that now exists in Canada and on account of which all Canadians, and rightly so, do not know where they are going, everyone is asking himself the same question: Where are we going? What is going to happen with the prices rocketing as they do? What is going to happen with the inflation that the government had promised to check? We realize today its deplorable flop. It just poured more oil on that inflation blaze. Socialists look at the present inflation with satisfaction because it places all individuals on an equal footing, that of the poor, because inflation has reduced those who possess to the same position as the dispossessed ones.
Last Sunday evening, I was listening to the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) on a CBC broadcast, as he was interviewed by a well-known socialist, Mr. Andre Payette, husband of a CBC employee, and who gets a salary of more than $75,000 a year. Mr. Andre Payette asked the right hon. Prime Minister what were his immediate objectives for 1974. The Prime Minister replied that he wanted the removal of social inequalities.
Mr. Speaker, to remove social inequalities in Canada there is no better way than the inflation we know at the present time. With inflation, social disparities will vanish because it will dispossess everybody and there will be no more social inequalities, because everybody will be in the same position, namely among the people dispossessed by the state and possessed by trusts and finance.
That is why the right hon. Prime Minister declared that he could not reduce inflation, first, because he is the servant of those who created inflation and secondly, because he wants equality for all through the removal of social inequalities and that in his opinion, the best way to achieve socialism is to let inflation dispossess everybody.
What will come out of the present energy crisis that was artificially created? To solve it, the federal government will give $400 million to the multinational corporations that created the artificial crisis.
Under the false pretext of shortages, multinational gas and oil monopolies will make in 1974 the biggest profits in their history while at the same time oil tankers loaded at full capacity cannot unload in the port of New York because tanks are full and because the governments which are at the pay of multinational companies sing the false song of artificial shortages.
What will happen, Mr. Speaker, with our savings which melt like butter in the saucepan of inflation? What will happen with these shortages of various materials which get more and more acute because our production system is eaten away by the cancer of finance and held tight in the tentacles of finance and monopolies? What will happen in April or May when farmers will have to borrow money

March 1, 1974
The Address-Mr. Rondeau
from banks at an interest rate of 1214 per cent to buy the seeds whose price will vary between $13 and $90 a hundredweight, and this in Canada, in a country producing various seeds.
Mr. Speaker, this spring several farmers will have no money left to seed and others will not want to seed anymore under such conditions. Next fall the products will still be rarer and more expensive, hence prices will go up more quickly than the useless cataplasms of a government walking on economic crutches.
Prices go up more quickly than pensions, allowances or salaries. Prices go up with the elevator while incomes climb up the stairs. From day to day there is an ever widening gap between incomes and costs and as those costs excede incomes, debts increase tremendously each day. The steering wheel of our economy is broken. We are told about the shortages of gas, oil, sugar and all the by-products of gas and oil. The United States are about to impose compulsory rationing; Canada, as a "good economic sheep", will follow suit the very next morning.
In view of this confusion, in an effort to cheer themselves up and excuse their ineptitude, the right hon. Prime Minister and hon. members of the Liberal party, walking on economic crutches, compare the situation in Canada with those which prevail in underdeveloped countries. They say that we should rejoice because our lot is better than those of India, Pakistan or Ethiopia. Canada is not deprived of rain or water. Our crops have not been destroyed by earthquakes or droughts. And yet, hon. members of the Liberal party are about to articially create an economic drought. Canada is not lacking in fertile land and Canadian farmers have known for a long time how to benefit from science, technology and progress.
In Canada, we no longer use pickaxes for farming. You surely have to be blind or an invalid with economic crutches to compare the economy of Canada with that of countries which have not yet reached a high level of science and technology and where the work and production methods are less advanced than those used in Canada in 1874. The Liberals are satisfied with comparing our economy with that of countries which have not yet reached the point of carts and horses. This truly shows their economic inability and shows that they are still using the economic methods of 1874, which means that they are at least a hundred years behind as regards technology.
Mr. Speaker, the beavers of Canada have not progressed in 100 years. They build their dams on our rivers and creeks in the same way as in 1874.
They did not make any progress from the point of view of the economy, production or working methods. However, in Canada, beavers are ahead of the Liberals from the economic standpoint because they are building dams. When the dams are completed, they do not owe one cent to anybody. They build dams without getting into debt. When the dams are completed, they own it without any debt with the bank. They have the assets without any liabilities. When they build a dam, they do not go to New York on a raft as the Liberals do by air to borrow so that they can build a dam. Beavers never had to discontinue the building of a dam as Mr. Bourassa did in James Bay for lack of money. The beavers can build without entering

into debt whereas Mr. Bourassa and the Liberals can build only thanks to debts made in New York and elsewhere.
In 1974, the Canadian economy is under the total control of banks and monopolies which are branches of banks. The banks, their "economic tentacles", and the monopolies have completely destroyed our capitalist system of private enterprise in Canada. And yet some ignoramuses are still claiming that we are living under a capitalist system and take pleasure in denouncing a capitalist system which no longer exists.
A true capitalist system is a system under which anyone can become and remain the owner of a capital or any other asset, a system under which the government is encouraging everyone to remain the owner of some kind of capital.
Governments today, particularly the Liberal government in Ottawa, are doing their best to dispossess everyone to the benefit of banks and monopolies under the pretence of reducing social inequities.
We are living under a monopolistic system which in terms of economics is called economic liberalism.
In Canada, private enterprise is nearly bankrupt and the capitalist system has disappeared. It has been stifled by monopolies. Money and credit stem from and are controlled by banks and production is controlled by bank subsidiaries. The price of sugar is controlled by a world monopoly rooted in England. Food products, such as potatoes, fish, beef, even beans and pork are controlled by food monopolies that buy the whole production from producers who are financed and controlled by banks.
The potato monopoly, once it has taken over the exclusive control over all potato production, creates an artificial shortage of potatoes, increases and establishes prices, exploits consumers after ruining producers.
Jamaica is a sugar cane producing country. The whole sugar production is bought beforehand by the English sugar monopoly which exports entire ship-loads of sugar from Jamaica whereas the slaves who produce sugar cane do not even get one teaspoon of sugar to put in their coffee jn the very country where this product is more than abundant.
The same thing occurs in Cuba, as well as in Jamaica since it is a banana producing country. Cuban people are loading ships with sugar to be exported whereas they have rationing coupons for sugar in their pockets.
In Canada, the same thing is happening with regard to potatoes. The same occurs in relation to fish in the Mari-times and British Columbia, and to wheat in the west, since a federal monopoly, namely the Canadian Wheat Board, controls the price of wheat and sells to communist China at a price that is three times cheaper than that paid by the poor Quebec farmer on the Canadian market. Canada is a wheat producing country and within a few days, bread will sell at 50 cents a loaf. Potatoes are now sold $10 a hundred weight, and sugar $30. In Cuba, that is called Communism. In Canada, they speak of economic liberalism. The difference between them is as follows: in Cuba, the government has an overall control, whereas, in Canada monopolies control everything including the government.
March 1, 1974

Banks have a monopoly over money and the creation of credit, and their branches, the monopolies, control the balance of our economy. We live in a monopolistic, not a capitalist economy. The 300 chairmen, presidents and directors of the ten Canadian chartered banks control as directors the 800 largest Canadian companies or multinational monopolies.
The Royal Bank of Canada alone increased its assets by $3,600,000 in the last 12 months. Its branch, the Royal Trust, a trust company, heads real estate transactions in Canada and the control over the security and bond portfolio.
The people built Canada and they own the liabilities, the debts. Monopolies handled the figures and own the assets. In face of the control over production by monopolies and the parasitic exploitation of producers by multinational monopolies there is a solution, Mr. Speaker, and it does not come from those who led us into the present confusion because they are part of it.
Social Crediters have the solution. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call it one o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair. The House will resume at 2 p.m.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I was saying earlier that Social Crediters have the solution to the problem of monopoly control in Canada. And this solution lies in the following principle, namely that any new production should be financed with new interest-free credits.
If this principle were applied, Mr. Speaker, the tentacles of monopolies would simply be cut off and they would lose all economic life-blood, namely the parasitic profits that they suck like bloodsuckers.
The application of this principle, would enable producers to remain in control of their production up to the consumption stage. They could then plan their own marketing while living off their products while waiting for consumers.
Producers would no longer be at the mercy of monopolies that buy up production at ridiculous prices in order to be able to pay their perpetual debt to the banks which own or control monopolies. If this principle were applied, monopolies would become useless for the same reason that a finance company does not do business in a district of millionaires where it would be useless. It could not do business for lack of customers to exploit.
Contrary to what socialists claim, it is not necessary to nationalize monopolies, and replace them with an even more dangerous state monopoly, because it would hide behind legislation and bureaucracy. If this principle were applied, producers could do their own marketing and dispose of their own goods by selling them directly to consumers.
The Address-Mr. Rondeau
There is no need to nationalize and control monopolies by creating price control boards appointed by them. You only have to remove the need for them. Anti-trust legislation is powerless against monopolies because it can easily be evaded and the firms found guilty of collusion can easily afford any fines that may be imposed on them by passing them on in the sales price of the next production.
We cannot either curb the monopolies, since until today they have subdued the producers and the governments whom they finance.
Mr. Speaker, when production is completed and ready to meet the consumers' needs, there is a delay between finished production and ordered consumption or sale to consumers.
Finished production is ready for consumption and is called inventory. Inventories account for billions of dollars temporarily capitalized of which monopolies only, as subsidiaries of banks, can bear the financial cost.
We have to look at what is going on in the various sectors of production to find that producers are at the mercy of monopolies which buy their products at a ridiculously low price and sell them on the market at an exorbitant price, for they have set themselves the prices, exploiting the producers when they buy the products, and the consumers when they sell the products for consumption.
This exploitation of producers and consumers by monopolies specialized in every production sector is one of the main causes of inflation. In order to remedy this situation, producers must keep control over their production up to the consumer's level if we want to achieve a good economic balance of prices based on competition which disappeared because of the exclusive control of monopolies specialized in every sector of production. Producers should not be at the mercy of parasitic monopolies which, through the credit they are provided by their "mothers", the banks, get rid of all competition during the period between the end of production and the start of consumption.
For instance, New Brunswick potato producers have like other producers plentiful crops and bank debts. As they cannot benefit from new interest-free credits to fund their new production of potatoes, sooner or later the bank manager ask them to reimburse their loan even before production gets to the consumer. I have seen myself buyers representing the potato monopolies being given all the credit they need by the bank and buying from the producers their potato crops at the price they choose to give since the producer is unable to compete for his loan makes him dependent on the banks. The same situation applies to maple syrup producers in Beauce or elsewhere.
Monopolies intervene autocratically between production and consumption. This is the reason why there is a tremendous rise in food prices at the consumer level. Monopolies take control over production and then control consumer prices. When production is ready for consumption it has become socialized since it can serve society immediately. It must be financed by a social credit, a new interest-free credit to enable the producers to live off their products while waiting for consumers and to prevent parasite monopolies from wedging in between producers and

March 1, 1974
The Address-Mr. D. S. Macdonald
consumers. That new interest-free credit would be reimbursed by the producer when he sells his produce.
Maple syrup and potato producers could organize themselves to sell their produce. All categories or groups of producers, local or regional, could do so.
That, Mr. Speaker, is true economic corporatism, healthy competition, real capitalism and private enterprise. Competition would be stimulated by enabling more producers to produce and small producers to compete with the large. Thus monopolies would become useless in the midst of producers, just as finance companies are amongst millionaires.
For example, a 1974 car built in 1973 is ready to be sold to a consumer in November 1973, while it is actually purchased in November 1974. A 14-month period elapsed between the end of production and the consumption or sale to the consumer. This means that the consumer must pay at least $700 in interest to the finance company which has financed the car when it was in stock, to say nothing of the financing costs incurred by the consumer who must buy on credit, which makes about $1500 in interest being paid for the financing of the car in stock before and after the sale to the consumer. The same applies to farm machinery and in all areas of any type of production.
The small efficient producers are at the mercy of monopolies. There is no more competition between producers, for monopolies have been set up between the producers and the consumers. Prices increase continually at the will of monopolies, and the producers, not earning a reasonable profit, stop producing. Products become scarcer, as is the case at present, and we find ourselves in a period of galloping inflation.
Economists looking for solutions on the mountain of problems of their own creation see the mountain and are up in the clouds, while the solution is under their very nose, but they took the solution for the mountain. They are looking for the solution on the mountain of problems, they are looking for the fly on the mountain although it is under their nose which they take for a mountain.
Mr. Speaker, if we had to find tomorrow a solution to our economic problems, it would be a nightmare for economists who are in perpetual search for a solution, for when the solution is found, they would have to produce goods instead of making or maintaining our economic problems. Economists, always in quest of solutions, would become unemployed unless they would direct their abilities and experience to more productive areas than that of creating problems, of causing the economic chaos in which Canada finds itself at present.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to join the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and other members to congratulate Their Excellencies Mr. and Mrs. Jules Leger on their nomination to this high function and to express them my best wishes.
I am convinced that like his predecessors, His Excellency Mr. Leger will distinguish himself as Governor General of Canada.


May I at the same time express my congratulations to the urbane and eloquent hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Stollery), my neighbour from downtown Toronto when he is not in Central America, and also one of my electors I understand, who in moving the address made such a significant speech.

Let me congratulate also the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Pelletier), one of the foremost figures of this great Liberal team of the Eastern Townships.

This seems an appropriate occasion to review some of the events on the energy scene in the past year, and also to talk about some of the current problems which will be faced during the current parliament.
At this time last year, my department was busy putting the finishing touches on a report on the energy situation in Canada, a report which was published in June of 1973. Its analyses provided a basis of information upon which Canadians and this parliament could make some decisions about basic energy policy. It established a basis of understanding concerning the fiscal, economic and social characteristics of the Canadian energy system immediately prior to the world events which suddenly thrust Canada and the world into an energy crisis during the latter part of 1973.
This crisis, which is still underway, centres on world oil supplies and on the aspirations of the major oil exporting nations. For Canada's part, it has threatened supply shortages and greatly increased prices for imported oil. This crisis has, however, served to focus immediate attention on the importance of new national energy policies reflecting the federal government's responsibility to ensure adequacy and equity in energy supply and pricing in the interests of all Canadians.
The crisis has clearly demonstrated the duty of the federal government to take effective action to determine the balance of priorities between energy producer and consumer needs, and among the various regions of Canada. Fortunately, the energy policy study and the detailed analyses which went into it permitted the government to meet this mandate from a very considerable base of knowledge.
Commencing early in September 1973, a series of important policy initiatives have been taken to ensure both the adequacy and equity of supply for Canadians, as well as a degree of insulation from the international prices for oil, prices which have been dictated by the policies of oil exporting nations rather than by the customary economic factors of supply and demand. The federal government initiatives have not been limited to measures relating solely to the immediate oil crisis, but rather have extended into forward looking policies for all energy forms. Perhaps I might just briefly review these.
They have included a price restraint policy on Canadian crude which has benefited all our consumers of this oil and the manufactured products produced by industries based on Canadian oil; a price control mechanism on imported oil to ensure that only actual increases in purchase costs are passed on to Canadian consumers; the
March 1, 1974

extention of the Canadian crude oil pipeline system into the Montreal market area, which is underway, and a proposal has also been put forth for an all-Canadian pipeline in the future; an oil export tax has been imposed to ensure that the difference between the lower Canadian price for crude oil and its return from export markets flows back to the Canadian public through the federal and provincial governments; the establishment of an energy supplies allocation board to ensure our capability to respond rapidly and effectively to any future deterioration in world oil supply and the proposed establishment of a national petroleum company to expedite the search for and development of new petroleum resources. We have proposed, in that context, the expenditure of $40 million on oil sands research and technology to permit full and rapid development of that resource. The proposals have also included a system to use oil export tax revenues and federal funds to ensure that during the period to the end of March of this year there will be no widening of the east-west price differential on oil, and a proposal for a one-price oil system in Canada which, from the first of April this year, will keep Canadian prices at less than international prices but which will provide the revenues necessary to first find and develop new resources and to offset the higher costs of oil imported into eastern Canada.
An office of energy conservation has been established to develop short and long-term plans for a more prudent and efficient use of our energy resources. A federal government task force has been set up to ensure an effective system of establishing and following priorities for research and development of new energy sources and improvements in existing technology. Federal financial assistance has been offered for the development of stronger regional electric transmission links to improve security of supply and to minimize utility costs.
Federal financial support has also been offered for the first nuclear power unit in any province, and for a second unit if regional benefits and security of supply result therefrom. A new export policy for uranium has been proposed, designed to ensure future Canadian supplies and to obtain the maximum possible benefit from exports. Programs have been proposed to speed up the development of a national inventory of our uranium resources so that this work would complement the on-going appraisal programs of oil, gas and coal resources.
These and other measures have the ultimate objective of Canadian self-reliance in the energy context. With the assistance of the petroleum industry in Canada, it has been possible to overcome the short-term supply problems this winter, and the longer range measures which have been announced will increase our degree of self-sufficiency in the future.
We recognize that increasing energy costs will be difficult to avoid. But the measures which have been taken on oil costs have had the effect of avoiding a 12 to 14 cents per gallon price increase in fuel oil and gasoline east of the Ottawa valley, and a possible 20 cent increase across the country, had international prices been allowed to prevail in Canada. Pricing proposals for the period commencing April 1 will allow the price increases which are necessary to ensure future supplies, but will establish a pricing
The Address-Mr. D. S. Macdonald structure across Canada which will vary only as the result of transportation costs.
Both for the present and for the period after April 1 Canadian consumers must be protected from the tax increases which have been imposed by governments of the producing countries. The purpose of the price cushion will be to protect from such increases and not more. It will not, in particular, be permitted to secure a higher margin of profit to the refiners. So that while the higher cost paid for crude oil by the refiners due to foreign taxes will be reimbursed, particular care will be taken to ensure that public funds are not used to do more than cushion the consumer against such costs.
For the purpose of authorizing such payments in the February-March period, my colleague the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) will be bringing forward a supplementary estimate to cover this period. Of course, in the period from April 1, following discussions with the provincial government, further legislative measures will be put forward to provide this same cushion.
All of the measures which have been taken have had to be compressed into a much shorter time frame than we would have liked. At the time of the publication of our energy report, I outlined plans for a phased transition allowing ample time for full discussion and debate of the options available to us. But because of pressure of external events we have had to move quickly in some cases, and we still remain in a position of some emergency in dealing particularly with the question of price.
This brief review of recent events relative to energy supply and demand in Canada and of the policy actions being taken by the federal government is made at a time of unprecedented change in the country's energy economy.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the hon. minister permit a question at this point?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I have only a few minutes.


John George Diefenbaker: Just one short question. What is the estimated cost, the amount that will be in the supplementary estimate to cover the particular expenditure to which the minister has referred?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I must say to the right hon. gentleman that this will depend on the actual tax cost imposed by the various sources, but we are talking of a sum that will not be lower than $240 million for the two-month period. Depending, as I say, on what the tax cost from the exporting countries will be, it may be as high as $300 million, perhaps even more.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) noted in his opening statement on January 22 at the first ministers conference on energy that not since the world collapse of 1929 has an economic event struck so quickly and on such a scale, or produced so potentially dramatic a difference in the lives and fortunes of Canadians in different parts of the country. The more than fourfold increase in the world price of oil in such a short period of time has had even greater impact on most other countries of the world. An event of such magnitude, above all, highlights the federal responsibility to act fairly in the interest of the national economy

March 1, 1974
The Address-Mr. D. S. Macdonald
and to ensure a just distribution of opportunity throughout Canada.
In meeting this responsibility, the federal government must not let so much of the gigantic new revenues associated with greatly increased oil prices accrue in one region that equality of opportunity and reduction of disparity become impossible in Canada. It is for this reason that a portion of the new revenues is being used to cushion the impact in eastern Canada of the huge increases in oil import costs, thereby assisting eastern Canadian consumers. This is in keeping with the objective of our Canadian community of sharing the benefits and the burdens of any such price or supply change so sudden and so great that it could seriously disrupt the national economy. The task is a major one, requiring the full co-operation of all provincial governments, but at the same time recognizing the federal government's mandate to develop and co-ordinate policies that directly affect the lives and welfare of all Canadians.
Taking this problem from the national context and putting it into the broader world context, I should like to refer to certain consultation that I have had during the past months with governments of oil consuming countries, particularly the United States and the United Kingdom, and with the two largest Middle East producers, Saudi Arabia and Iran.
As for the Middle East, my conversations there had two main purposes: first, to explore at first hand the factors which could affect the future price and security of supply of OPEC oil; and, second, to explore the interest of Middle East nations in nuclear energy and, in particular, the CANDU nuclear system. On the surface it may appear odd that oil rich nations would show an active interest in energy created out of nuclear power, but it represents a recognition on their part of the finite nature of hydrocarbon resources, a recognition which makes it attractive for them to move now to develop an electrical supply system that is not dependent on petroleum.
With regard to these conversations I can report briefly as follows. Regarding security of supply, I have received assurances that Canada is not on an embargo list and that the Arab nations do indeed recognize the different character of our oil supply and oil dependency situation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The price trend for oil, however, is not at all clear. Some nations, notably Saudi Arabia, appear sympathetic to the need to move back somewhat from the present price levels at the international level, but others maintain that there is a need for further increases before the true market value of this commodity is reached.
At this point in time it is rather difficult to predict what will be the outcome of the discussions on the international price of oil. The OPEC members will be meeting around the middle of March, both for the purpose of discussing the price level that they will observe after April 1 and also for the purpose of concerting their position in relation to the meetings of the United Nations General Assembly and possibly discussions with the oil consuming nations.
The dramatic increase in international oil prices has, of course, been of serious consequences for every importing

nation, but most serious of all for those developing countries which are not themselves oil producers and which run the risk of seeing at one stroke the progress they have made through development assistance lost because of an increase in the price of oil. The Shah of Iran has recognized these difficulties.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I regret having to interrupt the hon. member-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: -but pursuant to a special order made earlier this day, it is my duty at this time to interrupt the proceedings and put the question on the amendment to the amendment. All those in favour of the subamendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


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


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr.		Speaker, immedi
before the decision just taken, I was discussing the		
tion on an international basis to certain discussions we had with regard to the oil price and supply question. I had referred to the difficulties that the developing countries, which are not themselves oil producers, have in meeting the drastically increased cost of oil and had started to make reference to proposals which the Shah of Iran has put forward. His first proposal was for a bilateral credit to assist India in the difficulties it will have from the balance of payments standpoint in meeting its obligations for oil. The second proposal was put to the managing director of the International Monetary Fund and to the President of the World Bank. It was to set up a special fund for the purpose of defraying the expenditures, and thereby helping the developing countries with their balance of payments problems.
In general terms, the producing countries that I visited looked with some hostility on the meeting which took place among certain members of OECD and Washington-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Could the minister indicate whether this would be a loan to the developing countries-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Would this be a loan to the developing countries or a grant or what?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. Before we hear the minister, I think I should say that we ought to proceed in good order. I do not intend to refer to anybody in particular; however, if any member wishes to ask a question he should always address the Chair.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I am obliged to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) for the question. The assistance to India will be a long-term soft loan, a credit, in effect, which in due course would be repayable. The proposal with regard to the fund would be, in essence, on a grant basis. The shah's proposal is that the 12 OPEC countries, the 12 developed countries plus 12 to be selected from among the recipient developing nations, would form the board and that the first two groups, that is the OPEC countries and the consumer countries, should be responsible for annual contributions to the fund, contributions which could aggregate about $3 billion. These could be used on a grant basis for assisting developing countries with specific projects. Of course, there would be certain balance of payment benefits associated with these as well. We understand that we shall be hearing further from the Iranian government and from the officials of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank on this question.
Rather than reducing the international oil price, the Iranian government would propose to use some of the benefits derived from the higher prices for the purposes of providing this kind of assistance. In this respect there is a difference of opinion between the producing nations. The view of the government of Saudi Arabia, as expressed by the minister of petroleum in that country, is that the price should be reduced. At this point it is difficult to say what the outcome will be, except that there will be a meeting of

March 1, 1974
The Address-Mr. D. S. Macdonald the OPEC nations about the middle of this month. We may then obtain a better indication as to whether there is any prospect of the price being brought down, a move which in general terms this government would favour.
My visit to the oil producing countries came at a time when there was an announcement by several of the developed countries of bilateral barter deals with the oil producing countries. Canada has supported the viewpoint that in the long run, barter deals favour the strong against the weak, that is to say, favour the developed, industrial countries which have the means to secure oil, against the weaker, developing countries which do not have the same advantages. It is for this reason that I did not seek any kind of barter arrangement with the governments to whom I spoke, whether with respect to exchange of nuclear technology or any other technology.
The CANDU nuclear technology which we have developed is receiving very widespread interest among countries planning nuclear development. Recently, the British government decided to examine the possibility of purchasing nuclear power systems from foreign sources in the light of less than satisfactory results from several varieties of reactors developed in the United Kingdom. It was on that basis, and with the support of the Ontario minister of energy and officials of AECL and Ontario Hydro, that we took the opportunity of the House being in recess to press the case of the CANDU reactor on British ministers and officials.
A decision on this question has, of course, been postponed as a result of yesterday's election, and perhaps postponed for longer than we thought at the time, but we anticipate that within a matter of months a decision will be taken whether the British will proceed by way of the light water, essentially American reactor, the steamgenerated heavy water reactor which has been developed by the British themselves, or possibly the CANDU system.
We stressed with the British officials the industrial opportunity which CANDU offers, not only in British and Canadian markets but in third world markets where it has an industrial potential. The low operating costs and independence of natural uranium supply are distinct pluses in favour of the Canadian system. We presented the same argument to the shah and officials of the government of Iran. That country is planning the development of no less than 20,000 megawatts of nuclear power, a development which would seem to give Canada a first-class opportunity to penetrate that market in years to come.
Turning to the international scene, hon. members will also be aware of our recent and ongoing meetings with energy officials of the United States on both a bilateral and multilateral basis. As a result of these exchanges, I feel that the views and particular problems of the respective countries are better understood and appreciated than they were before. As we enter a period of scarcity of energy around the world, it is critical that the United States as well as other major energy consuming nations recognize that the Canadian resource base is not the panacea that some tend to think it is. We must not confuse resource potential with proven and economic reserves of energy in this country.
We must also take into account the tremendous challenges that would be posed to the Canadian economy by

financial, labour and materiel needs in developing our resources. I think this is generally recognized in the United States. I think, at the same time, that we have indicated our willingness to assist in so far as these limitations will permit us to do so.
I should note here that the upcoming United Nations special debate on primary commodities will present an opportunity for member nations to put forward their views on the size of the world resource of such materials and also how they should be husbanded in the face of rapidly escalating demand. I hope the debate will focus on the present wastage of these resources and the extent to which conservation measures will soften the future shock which we face.
May I now say a few words on the subject of the national petroleum corporation. As the House knows, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) announced last December 6 this government's intention to establish such a corporation. We feel that events since that announcement have strengthened the argument for such action, and enabling legislation will be introduced as soon as possible in this session. While the major thrust of this corporation will be in the form of exploration in the frontier areas, we are of the view that it should also contribute to the development of the large petroleum resource existing in the Athabasca oil sands both through mining techniques and through in situ extraction methods. Developments on the world oil scene over the past few months have also highlighted the potential role of such a corporation in future if government to government dealing becomes the customary manner of securing oil supplies from overseas.
I should like to clear up some misunderstanding which may have occurred following the Prime Minister's announcement regarding the $40 million which will be provided for research and development of the oil sands. The suggestion has been made that the $40 million represents the government's maximum financial commitment to the corporation. But that is for the oil sands research only. It is anticipated that as the corporation develops, the investment of hundreds of millions of dollars will be required over the early years of its operation. The government looks to this corporation to increase the Canadian presence in the petroleum exploration business and, subsequently, in petroleum production.
The corporation will, in addition to its own exploration activities, seek to participate by way of joint venture with smaller, Canadian-controlled firms which currently find it difficult to sustain the costly and lengthy exploration effort that is required, particularly in frontier areas. It may also, if appropriate, acquire firms currently active in the oil industry in Canada. Foreign investors have not been, and will not be discouraged from making investments in this industry, either alone or in co-operation with the new corporation, so long as they are compatible with Canadian interests. Canada does have, however, the financial and other capacities necessary for a more significant role in the exploration and development of its oil and gas resources, and this corporation will advance Canadian involvement in this particular area. The required investment will in due course lead to the development of more wealth in the hands of Canadians.
March 1, 1974

A final word of caution is this: the development of oil resources, particularly in the frontier areas, is an operation not free from risk. The government has enjoyed some success from its investment in Panarctic, but it should be understood as well that there will be some losses from exploration. Results cannot be expected overnight, but we expect that over the longer period of time a substantial contribution can be made both to Canadian incomes and security of energy supplies for Canada by the establishment of such a national petroleum corporation.
I express my appreciation to the House, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to complete my remarks after the vote.


Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, just slightly more than a year has passed since the government presented its first throne speech of the twenty-ninth parliament of Canada. Being a new member at that time, I found the words of wisdom reassuring and positive and for a while had indeed thought that a minority government would truly be an effective one. At that time I listened with great interest, and even a bit of hidden enthusiasm, to the promises made but never delivered. It seems that the government probably borrowed the advertising gimmick so cleverly stated by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees) last year, "Promise her anything, but give her Arpege," and used poetic licence and changed it to, "Promise them everything, but give them inflation". Therefore, I have absolutely no reason to believe that any of the promises, though they are not nearly as far reaching, made in this week's throne speech by the same government will ever be initiated, let alone carried out.
As we all know, inflation is a very serious problem. As a matter of fact, it is the number one priority as far as this party is concerned. To have inflation rise at an astounding rate of more than 9 per cent in the last year proves that either the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his government do not consider inflation to be their top priority, or they are obviously unable to cope with the problem, or both. Inflation affects every Canadian from coast to coast. When the government continually fails in any manner to effectively attempt to control this cancer, and when this same government continues to govern in its all too obvious arrogant manner by not even considering valid suggestions made by the opposition, one gets the feeling of corruption and immediate change is necessary.
In the meantime, however, Canadians continue to see prices rise astronomically, meat becomes a luxury, housing almost put beyond reach of the ordinary person, while income taxes take a bigger and bigger slice of their pay. Government staff is increasing daily. Empire-building is rampant. Budgets are being prepared as if there is no end to the tax money available and every consumer in this country is being forced to pay for the short-sighted policies that have become all too commonplace in the Liberal government.
As I have pointed out, the inflation problem is of top priority within this party and as well is of grave concern to every citizen of this country. I could continue on this subject at length, but I would only be repeating what our leader so eloquently stated in this House yesterday, and
The Address-Mr. Jelinek
the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies) earlier this afternoon.
This government not only promises legislation which it seldom delivers, but even more, they are known for their grandiose announcements, creating as much fanfare as possible. There could be no better example than the most impressive ceremony on April 15, 1972, at which the Prime Minister and the President of the United States signed the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement here in Ottawa. It was designed to restore and protect water quality in the Great Lakes and the rivers which flow into them.
Let me point out that because of the fact my own riding of High Park-Humber Valley lies on the shores of Lake Ontario, and because the once clean Humber River flows majestically through it, bringing waste, filth, as well as poison into the garbage dump which was once beautiful Lake Ontario, I can state very emphatically that the agreement signed by the heads of these two great nations seems to have become a joke which falls into the same category as most of the other Liberal promises.
This agreement, among other things, was to have programs in place by 1975 designed to achieve its objectives. It was to have achieved completion by 1975, in all municipalities, of effective waste treatment facilities, including phosphorus removal, strengthening of regulations to control discharge of sewage, garbage and other waste. We are all aware this has not been the case, unfortunately, and the individual who knows this better than anyone else is the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis) who himself took part in that great flag-waving ceremony in the spring of 1972.
Somehow, due to inflationary problems of this country, pollution has taken a back seat in importance and it seems that all attempts for improvement have failed to materialize. I have tried on numerous occasions to bring this serious problem to the attention of this House on behalf of my constituents as well as millions of concerned Canadians who find it harder and harder to live by our waters. For example, on October 17, 1973, I asked the Minister of the Environment if adequate staffing and funding would immediately be provided for the proposed clean-up, as the IJC had admitted the lack of same, and if he was prepared to accelerate steps to prevent the continual discharge of water pollutants into the Great Lakes before it was too late. The minister's answer was typical; he said:
Yes, I am glad to give the hon. member that assurance.
That was more than four months ago, and to this date we have had no improvements whatsoever. Rather, we are witnessing a continual deterioration of the whole situation, not only on the American side but, unfortunately, here in Canada as well. Immediate steps must be taken in order to curb the deplorable infection of our Great Lakes and rivers by adequately staffing and funding organizations established for the proposed clean-up; and the government must, along with the United States, step up its originally scheduled program.
Over a year ago during the election campaign I, along with every other Conservative candidate, stressed the displeasure of the majority of Canadians at the very high and unacceptable unemployment insurance deficit. As recently as last week I sent out a questionnaire to my riding with

March 1, 1974
The Address-Mr. Jelinek
two questions regarding the Unemployment Insurance Commission. They read as follows:
1.	Do you believe that the Unemployment Insurance Commission is functioning satisfactorily?
2.	Do you believe that there should be a full investigation of the Unemployment Insurance Commission operations?
The answer was an overwhelming 99 per cent against the Unemployment Insurance Commission functioning satisfactorily, and 99 per cent favouring a full investigation into other operations of the Unemployment Insurance Commission. I have received over 1,500 replies to date, Mr. Speaker-1,500 Canadians from every walk of life and every political party from my riding, alone. I am satisfied that this statistic speaks for itself.
Again, as our leader has already made public, an inquiry into this whole matter is needed, one which really gets to the grass-root problems. Like most Canadians, I am sick and tired of the fact that the government continues to allow individuals to take advantage of the plan at the expense of the workingman and that it is virtually handing out unemployment and welfare money on a silver platter. I am sick and tired of the fact that a $500 million deficit or more is now estimated, up from $174 million at the end of 1972. The need for improved legislation in this field is of prime concern to virtually every Canadian who is fed up with the free-loaders and welfare grafters who continue to sponge off the honest toils of honest men.
During the past year our party has continually attacked the government on this matter, hoping that promised legislation would finally be enacted. In fact, legislation dealing with this very matter was prepared, with the promise of a tighter and tougher Unemployment Insurance Act. However, at the request of the NDP and because of the Liberal need to bow to their every wish, those plans were withdrawn and shelved indefinitely. This was only because of the fear the government has of offending the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) and his pack of followers and losing their support.
These are but a few of the priorities facing us today, with inflation heading the list. I could touch on numerous other important matters that are of great concern to Canadians, such as the energy crisis, the abortion issue, drugs, alcohol, housing, and so on. However, as the spokesman for this party on matters relating to physical fitness and sport, I would be remiss in this obligation if I did not dwell on a matter of vital importance concerning the 1976 summer Olympics to be staged in the city of Montreal, specifically the obvious discrepancies surrounding the awarding of the American television rights by COJO.
Let me preface this statement by once again reiterating this party's support for the games. We believe now, as we did when the Olympic financing bill was finally passed, that there is a great opportunity for Canada and Canadians to benefit by hosting this prestigious international event. We must remember that the Olympics belong to Canada. They can reflect Canada to the world and they can bring to Canada a sense of pride and unity.
There can be no question that the initial stage of the lottery and coins sales are showing signs of success. I would like to take this opportunity to compliment those involved for their efforts and wish them continued success, in particular Mayor Drapeau without whose initia-

tive the whole new Olympic concept could not have been initiated.
As I have pointed out on numerous occasions, it is not the intention of this party to wash its hands of financial responsibility and to sit idly by and permit federal funds to be in any way wasted or mishandled in the staging of this event. It is our firm and absolute intention to remain as watchdogs for the taxpayer. It was for this reason that on January 11 of this year I moved in the House a motion having to do with statements that the contract for television coverage involves an alleged gain by the Quebec Liberal Party.
On the same day I asked the Prime Minister to initiate an investigation into the many discrepancies and allegations surrounding the contract. The Prime Minister's reply was that it was not his government's responsibility. I hear members of the NDP yelling from my left that we voted in favour of the Olympics bill. Obviously they did not listen to that part of my speech in which I asserted earlier that this party supports the Olympic idea and believes in it, as it did when the financing bill was passed.
In fact, we support the Olympics taking place in Montreal. Personally, I believe Montreal to be the city best able to cope with the multitude of circumstances which arise during the staging of games. However, I want to remind the government and the NDP that more than a year ago I suggested decentralizing some of the events so that we could utilize existing centres, thus saving millions of the taxpayers' dollars while at the same time giving thousands more Canadians an opportunity to participate.
As I was saying, when I asked the Prime Minister to initiate an investigation he replied that it was not his government's responsibility. Mr. Speaker, it is inconceivable that the Prime Minister would even dare suggest that the federal government has no responsibility in this matter and that it falls under provincial jurisdiction.
Let us consider briefly the history of the awarding of the Olympics to Canada. As far back as May 21, 1969, the Prime Minister wrote a letter of acceptance to the International Olympic Committee welcoming the games on behalf of all Canadians. The position taken by the International Olympic Committee when in receipt of such a letter of government approval is that the signature implies previous knowledge of the financial planning of the games as well as of national financing plan where necessary. From that date until today, everyone connected with the Olympics, including Commission-General Rousseau, has stressed that the 1976 games do not belong solely to Montreal nor, indeed, to the province of Quebec, but that they belong to all Canadians and to all of Canada.
Is the Prime Minister now saying the federal government is absolving itself of all responsibility toward ensuring the success of the 1976 Olympics? What about the federal facilities COJO is utilizing in connection with the games, including the Post Office, the Mint, security personnel and immigration offices, not to mention the financing bill or the host broadcaster, the CBC, which alone has a budget of more than $50 million? These are all federal agencies directly connected with the government and provided for the use of COJO and, therefore, for the Olym-
March 1, 1974

pics. Certainly the use of any one of these branches is sufficient to warrant federal supervision, if not direct control, during the games.
In these circumstances, members of this House as well as taxpayers generally are entitled to a more responsive and accurate reply from the Prime Minister. The fact that the federal government has committed more than $100 million of taxpayers' money to COJO, apart from the financing bill, means beyond doubt that the government must show concern and leadership in any of its dealings with COJO or in any involvement undertaken by it.
Now let us consider specifically the facts surrounding the signing of the television contracts for exclusive rights by the American Broadcasting Corporation to televise the games. Facts suggesting impropriety abound in this whole matter. One of the prime reasons for holding an investigation would simply be the manner in which the entire contract was negotiated by COJO. Were any other department or agency involved in a similar matter, the people responsible would immediately be discharged. The fact that no tenders were called should be sufficient ground in itself for holding the federal inquiry. But there is more.
Consider for a moment the chronological events surrounding the final awarding of the rights. The fact that no competitive bidding took place is a matter of record but, ironically, as late as December, 1972, both CBS and NBC were told by Rousseau and Desrocher that there was to be bargaining in good faith for the television rights. Yet the record will show that as far back as late November, 1972, the ABC and COJO had in fact settled on a $25 million agreement with respect to those rights. On December 14, 1972, almost one month later, CBS received an invitation from Desrocher to attend a meeting in Montreal to discuss bidding which would take place on December 20 and 21 of that year. On the same date, NBC was meeting with Mr. Rousseau in Montreal to discuss the same contract negotiations for the 20th and 21st of that month. Both CBS and NBC were not only prepared but eager to bid on the rights for these games. I quote from a letter addressed to me by CBS television network dated February 13, 1974, and signed by the vice-president, Sports, William C. MacPhail:
The CBS television network was very much interested in the U.S. television broadcasting rights to the 1976 summer Olympic games to be held in Montreal. We had numerous contacts with the Olympic Committee-written and oral-notifying them of our interest in the acquisition of these rights.
I will come back to that letter in a minute or so. Up to this point there had been no agent on the scene and negotiations had been conducted directly between ABC and COJO. However, one Marvin Josephson of International Famous Agency of New York city came on the scene, and the American Broadcasting Corporation found it was no longer dealing with COJO directly, as in the initial stage, but was dealing with an intermediary in the person of Mr. Josephson. So let us consider these facts. First, an agreement had already been signed in secrecy between ABC and COJO without an agent.


An hon. Member:: Secrecy?


Otto John Jelinek: Yes, secrecy. It was not announced. As a matter of fact, it was even denied by agents of COJO. Now
The Address-Mr. Jelinek
an additional fee of $375,000 is paid to Josephson, an American, to negotiate a contract which has to all intents and purposes already been negotiated.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Otto John Jelinek: Later, Mr. A1 Eagleson, a well known lawyer from Toronto who had just successfully sold the television package covering the Canada-Russia hockey series, as well as other sports events, protested the fact that an American agent had been given the right to negotiate on behalf of COJO, adding that he as a Canadian would have done it at no cost to COJO. It is ironic that at no time did COJO or ABC or any of the networks seek the services of Mr. Josephson in their negotiations or, for that matter, of any other agent to act on their behalf.
It is imperative that the federal government investigate the connection between the entrance of Mr. Josephson on the scene and the fact that the chief negotiator for the TV rights was one Mr. Paul Desrocher, a well known financial agent for the Quebec Liberal provincial party. Mr. Desrocher, chairman of COJO's subcommittee on television is also, coincidentally, chief organizer for the Quebec Liberal Party and Premier Bourassa's senior adviser. Add to this the fact that it was imperative for Josephson, as a matter of prestige, to secure this coup on behalf of his company, if it was to break into the sports field-something it had never done before-and that the making of money was secondary to the actual gaining of the contracts. This is what he told me face to face in an interview I had with him recently.
In light of this development and my suspicions regarding Josephson based on further comments by numerous sources in Quebec, I took the liberty to write a letter to ABC dated January 30, reading in part as follows:
I believe that at no time were the negotiations conducted by ABC in obtaining the exclusive television rights ever shady or illegal or in any way improper. I do, however, want to reiterate my belief that somewhere along the line, funds did in fact find their way into the Quebec provincial Liberal coffers as a result of the completion of this contract.
Prior to the meeting which was to have been held in Montreal on December 20 and 21, CBS was informed that ABC had signed a contract and that it was pointless for them to show up in Montreal. I have a letter here from the CBS television network signed by the vice-president, Sports, William MacPhail. It reads in part as follows:
In December of 1972 we were informed that a meeting would be held in Montreal with COJO for the purpose of negotiating. Later we were informed that COJO had set dates of December 20 and 21 for these meetings. On December 19 we were informed that a contract had been negotiated and signed between COJO and ABC. In view of this, we deemed it inadvisable to attend the meeting and so informed COJO.
I want to stress the point that Mr. MacPhail makes here in respect of this contract that had been negotiated and signed between ABC and COJO before December 19. Three days previous to this, on December 16, NBC was notified by COJO and ABC had indeed received the rights that all three major U.S. corporations had originally been invited to bid on, yet COJO, weeks after the agreement was finalized, had the audacity to pretend to stage a charade, open-bid meeting knowing as a fact that an agreement had been finalized with ABC. As a result of

March 1, 1974
The Address-Mr. Jelinek
this, NBC sent a long telegram to Lord Killanin, president of IOC, on December 19 outlining their position and their concern regarding the mishandling, in their opinion, of this entire matter. Lord Killanin eventually stated:
Future television negotiations will be conducted jointly by the organizing committee and the IOC board.
We must keep in mind that up to this time the organizing committee has done all the negotiating on its own throughout the history of the Olympics. Then we have the public statement by the vice president of ABC of last Friday, as follows:
If I am to criticize the Montreal organizing committee on any part of it, it would be over not immediately announcing the contract when we reached first agreement almost a month before the announcement.
Much earlier the NBC made the following public statement:
NBC continues to believe that the procedures used to award American television rights to the 1976 Olympic games are contrary to the best interests of the people of Canada, and the American television audience and the games themselves. The organizing committee's unwillingness to follow the procedure of open bidding raises serious questions which are still unanswered.
Finally, on January 3, after all these contradictory statements, a joint announcement was made by COJO and ABC announcing that officially ABC had been awarded the television rights to the 1976 Olympics, notwithstanding the fact that the ABC board of directors in November, 1972, had approved the $25 million fee for Olympic coverage, which also was approved by COJO, subject to certain conditions that had not yet been completely finalized.
In an article published in the Montreal Star in the latter part of January, 1974, serious allegations were made concerning a request of direct payment of money to the Quebec Liberal Party for the rights to negotiate the television contract, as well as an NBC internal decision to bid considerably higher than $25 million. Most assuredly, statements with such serious implications are not made without regard to factual sources and to this end I quote an affidavit by the author of the Montreal Star article. It is as follows:
I, John Robertson, am willing to testify to the accuracy of all statements, including those attributed to others, carried under my byline in the Montreal Star in columns and news stories involving the sale of the North American TV rights to the 1976 Olympic games to the American Broadcasting Company.
Beyond this, Mr. Robertson in his own investigation over the past year has documented evidence to support most of the allegations I have brought forward. His documentation on its own proves beyond doubt that serious irregularities did indeed take place. Statements that moneys did in fact find their way into the Quebec Liberal coffers have been made by more than one source, including numerous statements made to me; but no documented proof regarding this matter has been made available.
To those critics who insist that total proof be brought forward before an inquiry is conducted, let me answer by saying that if we had all the proof, the inquiry in order to get to the full truth would not be necessary. There is just so much that any private individual can do without a public investigation. Quite obviously, I do not have the power to subpoena records and I do not have the power to call witnesses to testify under oath. Without these powers we cannot have definite proof, and a shroud of suspicion

will remain over this entire affair. I have proof, however, that not only did COJO sell the rights to ABC without open bidding; they also gave them a separate agreement guaranteeing that they would be able to match any competitive bid within 30 days in the event bidding did take place.
By far the most serious piece of documented evidence I can provide is the fact that two top officials of COJO as late as December 14, 1972, some weeks after ABC had secretly acquired the rights, personally invited both NBC and CBS to come to Montreal to bid for the rights when indeed they had in fact already been sold. I repeat, the fact that they had planned to conduct this charade is proof enough that COJO tried to cover up after selling the rights secretly in order to create an illusion of open bidding.
The facts here are obvious and speak for themselves. I have made very clear the federal government's responsibility in this matter, particularly as it relates directly to several federal ministries. The contract itself paves the way for an alternate in case of an investigation and the resulting voiding of this contract by either the provincial or the federal government or by COJO itself. The entire matter in which the contract between COJO and ABC was drawn up is more than a little suspect in its make-up.
I have presented this House with documented statements involving serious conflict in times and dates, and I have presented further evidence of statements from the major U.S. television networks. With these documented facts and their surrounding discrepancies, I personally once again call upon the Prime Minister to initiate an immediate investigation, without hindering any progress to the eventual staging of the Olympic games, to once and for all clear up a situation which if left unsolved can only leave each Canadian suspicious of the entire Olympic ideal.


Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, for the second time since I was elected I have been exposed to a Speech from the Throne, and when I use the word "exposed" I think I allude correctly to the state of affairs in the Liberal Party and the Liberal government. I have the distinct impression that the government has run up to the public, flashed open its trenchcoat to reveal its new clothes but, much like the emperor of the Hans Anderson fairy-tale, there is nothing to show-indeed, not even the bare essentials.
The crisis of the cost of living in this country requires more substance than has been offered. For instance, it is not adequate that the government promises "reasonable food prices" when prices have been steadily rising without government intervention. The people in my riding are suffering now, never mind tomorrow. I shall read some letters which I have received from constituents over the past two weeks, to give hon. members an idea what people are up against in a real way at this time. These are the real problems, not the problems of the ivory tower where unresponsive, indecisive, banal cliches are rolled out like so much confederate money. I should like to take this opportunity during the debate on the Speech from the Throne to give real voice to the feelings of the people of my constituency.
March 1, 1974

Mrs. Valerie Barry of Nickel Centre wrote to me as follows:
I have never before this year regarded myself or my family as being poor as we have found this year. I have two children and there are thousands of people who have considerably larger families. My husband quite often works 14-16 hour days and yet I cannot afford to buy the proper kinds of food for my family. At one time if you wanted fancy foods, you expected to pay high prices for them. Now we cannot afford staples. Speaking for my own family, I have not purchased any beef for three months at least. The reason being by the time we buy bread, milk, potatoes and other groceries there is not any money left for steak or pork chops or things that I feel every Canadian has a right to. We live in the richest country in the world and yet we are deprived of eating proper diet due to ridiculous prices. As our representative, I hope that perhaps you can help us by at least working to give Mrs. Plumptre's committee some authority to get us some changes.
Mr. McCaughey, from Garson, writes to say:
Dear Sir:
Re the high cost of living, here is one who is very concerned with it. The Prime Minister doesn't seem to care what becomes of the voters. They will be too weak from malnutrition to get out and vote if this continues.
Instead of bread going up, why not hard liquor, cigars and cigarettes. Children eat bread, not liquor. I am on a fixed income, but I did get a raise on the Canada pension. I can get along, but it's one raise after another on staples that worries me. Why not bring the cost of living down, and then they wouldn't need to hand out these raises and everyone would benefit.
Here is a letter from someone who signs himself, or herself, "A plea for help":
Dear Sir:
Just took a few moments to sit down and write you this letter about trying to raise and feed a family of six children plus two adults. To feed and clothe, upkeep of a home is almost impossible. Sure they say that prices are according to your take home pay. Well, I say baloney to that.
Just for one instance, let's take food, which everyone needs to survive, and I don't mean steak, just a simple pot of home-made beans for a family of eight. My husband paid for 12 packages of 14 oz. (less than a pound each) $6.33 December 27, 1973, less than two months ago. And I can assure you that is used up in no time at all. Weston split-peas, one package, 16 oz., 51 cents, which was 36 cents less than a month ago. Also rice, white sugar just to name a few; also potatoes which are the main vegetable on the table.
As you have a family of your own to raise, I am sure that you will agree with me that it is a hardship to manoeuvre with no relief in sight. Even people with no children have difficulty in making ends meet where food is concerned. Clothes can be made out of hand-me-downs, or purchased at the Salvation Army, but there is no substitute for food.
Either eat or starve. We have a choice. In closing, I hope that this letter will be joined with many more in this same situation that we are in trying to raise and feed a family.
This is a letter from Mrs. Katherine Thomas of Val Caron:
This price increase is completely ridiculous. We all have heard it is caused by world food supplies. I am sorry, but I am worried about my family. It is getting harder and harder to feed my children healthy, nutritious meals when my husband's wages don't keep up with the rise in the costs of food and clothing for children. If it is hard on us with a comparatively good wage, what are the senior citizens and people classified as "poor" eating?
Please help and do something about it. Your party out of all can, with the balance of power, even if it brings an election. Maybe if an election is going to be called, a lot of things will come more clearer.
Mrs. Plumptre can't do anything and unfortunately is taking a lot of criticism which should be against the politicians who could do something but apparently don't care.
The Address-Mr. Rodriguez
Sugar has gone up terribly, white beans, spaghetti and eggs. Good heavens, I am sure all these don't depend on anchovies off the Peruvian coast.
Take action now or I am positive the next election will prove that this is the major point in the voters' minds.
Mrs. Jennie Williamson, of Naughton, Ontario, writes as follows:
Dear Sir:
I am writing in regard to the high cost of living. My husband is a pensioner; he is 67, I am 60. We also have a 16-year old boy attending Lively high school.
As I'm sure you must know, groceries have gone "sky high". White sugar has risen from $1.43 for ten pounds to $2.54 since last fall. Honey has gone from 89 cents to $2.09. Now, how much more does it cost to keep bees today than it did three or four years ago?
I believe Dominion Stores showed a profit of 90 per cent, the highest of any chain store. Why is there not more investigating in this regard.
I would like to know what Mrs. Plumptre is doing. How could anyone on $40,000 know anything about the needs of a family on less than $5,000? What a waste of $40,000. Why can the tax not be eliminated on all clothing? Also essentials like toilet paper, soaps, cleaners, etc. My husband (Earl) worked hard all his life, and never drew unemployment insurance in his life and was never unemployed and had to retire at 62 because he has trouble with his back and legs.
Please try to do something to try to raise pensions and bring down the cost of living.
Yours truly,
Again, Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. Is the hon. member rising for the purpose of asking a question?


Mr. Alkenbrack:: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Does the hon. member agree to accept a question?


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, at the end of my address I will entertain questions. I might point out to the House that this is the people of Canada speaking, and when the people of Canada are speaking I think it important they be on the record of the House of Commons.
Then, from Mrs. Sylvia Cheviette of Sudbury I have this letter which is addressed to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau):
Dear Mr. Trudeau:
As the head of our country you must get plenty of complaints, but I must add one more. Isn't there anything you can do to stop the increases in all prices? All companies and stores seem to have great profits when they give out their figures. The feeds are going up for animals, fertilizers also. This means the farmer can't afford to keep a farm, and with many of them going out of business we will in a few years time have a lot less food. We have potatoes in the Valley and other areas, and when they go into our stores they charge the same that they charge for P.E.I. or N.B. potatoes. How can the prices be the same? I've spoken to some farmers and they say they don't get the difference, so where does it go?
Milk went up from 22 cents a can to 26 cents. Sugar has gone up from $1.59 to $2.69 for ten pounds, bread also. These are just a few and it's getting worse all the time. Soon we won't be able to eat because we will be getting a stub with no amount on the cheque as the deductions are getting bigger, and then the money you do get can't be stretched all that far because the prices are getting impossible.
Please take some kind of action before we are unable to eat at all.
This is a letter from the Waters women's institute in Waters township.

March 1, 1974
The Address-Mr. Rodriguez
Dear Sir:
We are very concerned about the abrupt rise in prices for the following food items: sugar, white beans, soda biscuits, rice. We would like to have the Food Prices Review Board investigate why the prices have risen on items mentioned and if possible an answer in the news media of what they discover.
Next is a letter from Mrs. Joan Callack, of Whitefish in my riding:
Dear Sir:
It's been on my mind for a long time, I thought it's about time I did something about it, or perhaps you can do something about the problem of high prices on food, clothing, etc., etc.
My husband works every day, has a steady job, yet all we get out of his wages is our roof over our heads and groceries that last from one payday to the next, and barely at that.
We have four children, one of which attends secondary school in the next community. Also, he turned 18 years of age one month ago. We are not able to clothe this student decently. Youth allowance did help, kept him in jeans, but $20 does not buy a very good pair of shoes, though. We are doing our best but it's just not doing very good.
The next letter is from Mrs. Harrison of Chelmsford:
Dear Sir:
I would like to know when is it going to end, the price of food going up. Every time we're going to the store, it's gone up. Something must be done. All we hear is talk, but nothing being done.
Here is a letter from Mrs. G. F. Maxam of Garson:
Dear Mr. Rodriguez:
... I wish to say how disturbed I am at the rising cost of living, especially food. No doubt you will be inundated with mail concerning this state of affairs.
My husband will be retiring this spring, and although some but not all provisions are made for our welfare, I and many others wonder when it will all end. Granted, there will be only two of us, but there are those with four to six children who will find it very difficult.
Here is a letter from Mrs. Rowland of Val Caron in my riding:
Dear Mr. Rodriguez:
... We are very concerned about the rising prices on everything. I am sending you a copy of the letter I am sending Mrs. Plumptre in Ottawa, and how about going down there and trying to check things up and get an investigation going or something to bring those prices down so we can live a decent life?
Here is a letter from Ray Lagare of Val Therese, Ontario:
I would like to write a few lines to you concerning the high cost of living. In a country as wealthy as ours there is no food shortage as emphasized by the government. Some items in the large chain stores are up as much as 300 per cent in a short while, but our wages will go up a small 3V2 per cent on the 10th of July. How can we manage with a family when the cost of living is increasing steadily at such a fast rate?
I think that you should stand in the House with your colleagues and tell Mr. Lewis that he has given the Liberals enough time to look at the situation through their famous Mrs. B. Plumptre and her prices review board.
I am sure the Canadian people are fed up with this kind of beating around the bush while the prices are skyrocketing.
And so the letters come from individuals and from organizations. On the other hand, all these people are aware that while they struggle to buy food and survive on their income, the food companies and other corporations in this country are not forced to engage in the same struggle. The Weston company, with its finger in the Loblaw "By gosh, the price is right" pie shows an increase in profit of

more than 80 per cent. Profits for the Canada Packers and Schneider's companies are up 36 per cent and 45 per cent respectively. Dominion Stores' profits were up 30 per cent over the nine months period ending December 15.
Even Mrs. Plumptre is starting to tell the consumer some disturbing things, as in the case of the unjustified increases in the price of bread. But I need not enumerate all these, for the profits increases situation in this country has reached the point where it has become a personal affront to every Canadian who is living on a fixed income, a low wage, a middle-level income or those who are unemployed.
This is where the term "free enterprise" becomes a rather interesting description of the system under which we are living. Free enterprise for whom? No one but the companies. While the Conservatives pay homage to free enterprise on the one hand, they propose on the other hand to institute wage and price freezes. They do not propose a profit freeze but, rather, would simply freeze the prices at their inflated levels and freeze the already inadequate wages of the working people who cannot cope with prices as they are-and this despite the experience in Britain and the United States.
Not only have the companies of this country benefited from the corporate welfare lumped on them by the Liberal government, and the Conservative government before them, but they have now wrapped up the free enterprise corner in such a way as to trap the Canadian people. Where is the free enterprise in having no control over the wages coming into your pocket for a hard day of work? Where is the free enterprise in having no control over the expenditure of that money? Where is the free enterprise in paying out every cent to keep food in the body and a roof over a family?
In return for having to pay to exist, can we look around and say that this level of existence is for a good cause? Can we assure ourselves that the poor are being helped, that our aged and our disadvantaged are living decent lives, that our children will be free to pursue their own goals because of the planning that is being done today? Can we look around and find just one group of people who are benefiting from this crisis other than the directors who sit on the boards of the companies whose profits are skyrocketing?
What is this story that nothing can be done? Surely, while a part of inflation is imported, the elected representatives on this country have the brains collectively to resolve a major portion of the country's current problems. Surely, it is not enough to admit that the government is capable of administering during the booms but incapable of governing through the lower periods or the busts. The capability to govern does not exist unless it exists and works in times of crisis such as now.
Now I would like to turn my attention to my own area, generally speaking. What about the issue which the Prime Minister said in 1968 he would strive to eliminate, namely, regional disparity? Here we are, six years later and umpteen throne speeches later-the latest one on Wednesday of this week-and what is said about regional development? The throne speech contains only one line on the matter which is as follows: "The government attaches great importance to regional development".
March 1, 1974

I live in and represent a regionally underdeveloped area in northern Ontario, Nickel Belt. Indeed, all of northern Ontario is considered a regionally underdeveloped area. This area has 12 representatives in the House. In 1968, 11 of the 12 were Liberals. Today, nine of the 12 are members of the governing party with specific and responsible positions. One is a cabinet minister, one is chairman of the Liberal caucus, one is deputy whip, and several are chairmen of standing committees or parliamentary secretaries.
We who live in northern Ontario are well aware of the regional disparity between our part of the province and other parts of this country, and indeed the southern part of Ontario. It is a fair comment to make that northern Ontario exists as a colony subject to a centralist administration in Toronto and a monstrously unresponsive government in Ottawa. I have often heard it said that northern Ontario has been the backbone of federal Liberal support in Ontario. Why then do you continue to treat us in northern Ontario as the backside of Canada?
Neither is the Ontario government exempt from the responsibility of developing northern Ontario. After all, out of the 16 provincial seats in northern Ontario, the Tories hold eight, with several cabinet ministers among them. But in case you think I overstate the problem, I draw the attention of the House to the Toronto centred region plan prepared for the provincial government and accepted by the Tories as official government policy. The Toronto centred region plan states:
There are certain reasons for the centre of development being in the Toronto centred region. They are primarily
(i)	the primacy of Toronto in social, economic and cultural life,
(ii)	the relation with other major cities in Canada, especially
Montreal,
(iii)	the relation to the major markets in the United States,
(iv)	the manufacturing of the resources from northern Ontario and
distribution to United States markets ...
The Toronto centred region population will reach eight million by 2000 A.D.
The Toronto centred region will remain the financial, manufacturing, cultural and communications centre of Ontario and Canada, and will relate primarily to the United States.
There it is, the official view of northern Ontario as seen by the Tories who rule us from Toronto. We who live here know that northern Ontario is the repository of the mineral wealth of Ontario and indeed of Canada, yet the share of the work force in secondary manufacturing is well below the provincial and national levels. We do not have oil, but we have uranium owned by that great Tory who ran for the Conservative Party federally and was defeated. He spent $92,000.
About 30 per cent of the northern Ontario work force is employed in forestry or mining. The remaining 70 per cent is involved in the service industry. This is below the accepted ratio for service employment to other employment. Even the growth prospects under present circumstances are appalling. In the period 1966 to 1970, according to the provincial department of natural resources, mineral wealth increased approximately 70 per cent, while employment in that field increased by 5.3 per cent. This is corroborated by the Economic Council of Canada, which states that the projected growth of mining employment has been estimated to be marginally less than the growth of mining production. Indeed, Mr. J. Edward Grubb, presi-
The Address-Mr. Rodriguez
dent of INCO, speaking a few months ago in New York, stated that last year, 1973, production at INCO's operation will be accomplished by mining the highest quality ore now; in other words, high-grading ore.
Inco did it, going from a work force of 18,000 in January, 1972, to a work force of 13,000 by the end of 1973, and with its profits up 100 per cent to a whopping $227 million. Falconbridge, the other "godfather" in the Sudbury basin, had a 770 per cent increase in 1973. Indeed, when one reads what the resource industries have made in northern Ontario one is left breathless when considering the underdevelopment in that part of the country. The Abitibi company had an increase of 260 per cent, and Noranda Mines 75 per cent.
What about the federal government's view of northern Ontario? Look at the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. It was set up in 1968 and was headed by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) at a time when the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson) was minister of transport. They have been playing a game of musical chairs. The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion said the following to the Standing Committee on Regional Development, on April 10, 1973, four years after DREE had been established and northern Ontario had been designated as a special area:
Northern Ontario has experienced a growth rate in population of less than 1 per cent per year throughout the decade of the 1960s, slightly below the average for the Atlantic region. It tends to be characterized by a dual economy comprising urban centres such as Thunder Bay, Sault Ste. Marie, Sudbury, North Bay and Timmins, where incomes are at or above national averages, and rural and remote areas and resource towns, where incomes tend to be substantially below the Canadian average and where economic growth depends almost entirely upon primary resource production.
The general social and economic climate in northern Ontario suggests that special efforts will be required if there is to be a significant increase in the employment and value of production derived from the extensive natural resource base and an increase in the viability of some of the urban centres.
As recently as this week the minister announced the signing of a general development agreement with the province of Ontario in which it is stated-and this is what we have to look forward to in northern Ontario:
Other subsidiary agreements involving regions within northern Ontario are under discussion. The first of these is for northwestern Ontario and is a regional economic package which might include resource development roads, an industrial complex feasibility study and infrastructure in selected growth centres. A second will pertain to northeastern Ontario.
We have had the study route, Mr. Speaker. Thousands upon thousands of studies have been done on how we can diversify secondary industry and undertake development in northern Ontario. That is all I have heard since coming to this place. The problem has been studied to death. The time has come for action.
One of the themes we got from DREE last year was on decentralization. But what have we found since? We have found that DREE is not decentralized into northern Ontario. As a matter of fact, it is recentralized into Toronto. Anybody who has lived in northern Ontario knows the bias displayed by northern Ontarians toward southern Ontarians. To centralize an office of DREE in
94

March 1, 1974
The Address-Mr. Rodriguez
Toronto, supposedly to help develop northern Ontario, shows crass treatment of the situation. Indeed, the government's concluding observation in its interdepartmental report regarding DREE's performance in northern Ontario specifically states at page 10:
In light of these circumstances special efforts may be required to strengthen existing resource industries, encourage diversification where viable opportunities exist, and assist in the social adjustment process for those who choose to leave the communities.
The federal government ought to be looking at policies which would develop northern Ontario industrially. In this light a minerals policy which would provide for the establishment of a national minerals corporation, that would take into its portfolio the resources of Ontario, particularly northern Ontario, so that their development could take place for the benefit of our people, would be a great help. There are many reasons why our resources should be owned by the people. These include the creation of employment, the provision of revenue so that the quality of life can be improved for the people who live in the region where the resource is located and who help to mine and produce it and, thirdly, through public ownership of our resources we can maintain our economic independence.
In 1972 the Science Council of Canada released a number of reports dealing with innovations and the structure of Canadian industry. I quote from Study No. 23, which was one of the background studies for the council, as follows:
Canada's great area of strength lies in its natural resources. With competition as keen as it is in the world today, each country must seek to take maximum advantage of those areas in which it has some comparative advantage. This, however, must not be interpreted to mean that we should further accelerate our already precipitous rate of resource extraction. Unquestionably this latter approach, coupled with massive infusions of foreign capital, could keep our GNP rising for a number of years; but before the children of today could reach middle age most of the resources would be gone, leaving Canada with a resource-based economy and no resources.
Our resources must be used as a lever in the industrial development of the province and to add more value to mined resources before exporting them. There is no coincidence in the fact that our resources, by and large, are controlled by foreign corporations and that there is little product development in the province or indeed in the country. I quote further from the same Science Council report:
Alcan does a large part of its product development in the U.K., Inco does most of its product development in the U.S., Johns Manville ... all of its asbestos development in the U.S., Andy and Harmon ... silver product development in the U.S., and Engelhart... all research on platinum is performed in the U.S.
The Science Council continues:
Therefore, in order to succeed in building on our resources, it will be necessary to correct this very fundamental weakness. It will be essential for Canada to develop and exercise product engineering and design capability, and this at all levels, from end product to resource.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired under our Standing Orders. However, if there is unanimous consent he may continue.
Some hort. Members: Agreed.


John R. Rodriguez: The private sector has failed to do what is necessary, that which not only I but the Science Council of Canada believe is critical if we are to create employment in manufacturing industries in parts of the country like my own. As long as the corporations are allowed to exploit our resources with the goal of maximizing their profits, they will never voluntarily create a viable secondary industry in this province or in this country.
Secondly, I think the government ought to consider. developing northern Ontario as one special area, providing infrastructure in all municipalities where development is needed. Thirdly, often when incentives are considered, we think of incentives to corporations and business. We never think of incentives to individuals except when we want them to move from one part of the country to another. I think incentives should be given to individuals living in northern Ontario, for example, through a graduated taxation system. Such graduated tax scales could include sales taxes, personal income tax, OHIP premiums, etc. In some areas of northern Ontario there should be no gasoline tax.
Combined with incentives to individuals there should be disincentives to the wealthier parts of the province and the country, for example, southern Ontario. Those disincentives could take the form of taxation on primary resource exports, higher freight rates on shipping raw material out of the north and very cheap rates on shipping the finished product to some market.
The idea of transportation, Mr. Speaker, leads me to my fourth point. There is no reason in the world why my part of the country, northern Ontario, should be the highest freight rate area in the country. Between Levis, Quebec, and Armstrong, northern Ontario, freight rates on the CNR are the highest in the country. On the provincial government's railway, the ONR, freight rates were cut by 18 per cent. This government ought to instruct the CNR that they should cut the freight rates on that line, and ship the finished products out of northern Ontario, by the same percentage. It is interesting to note that it is much cheaper to ship raw materials out of northern Ontario than it is to ship finished products. One example is iron ore pellets. It costs $8.60 to ship a ton of iron ore pellets from Copper Cliff to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; but if you were to ship a ton of fertilizer to Toronto from Sudbury it would cost $90.80 per ton. These discrepancies can only serve to lock us into being hewers of wood and drawers of water for time immemorial.
Mr. Speaker, I make a fifth proposal to the government of an over-all industrial strategy for northern Ontario. There is no over-all industrial strategy. It seems to be always on an ad hoc basis, with the north condemned forever to being the receptacle of the raw resources. My sixth proposal is that we need a comprehensive and cohesive transportation policy in northern Ontario. We cannot have Air Canada dropping out of service from Sudbury to Timmins, or Sudbury to North Bay, without replacing that service with some kind of comprehensive program where transportation for moving people around my part of the country would be enhanced and facilitated.
Mr. Speaker, lastly I propose to the government a permanent secretariat for development in northern Ontario.
March 1, 1974

This secretariat would be resident in northern Ontario and it would comprise provincial and federal personnel from the area. There ought to be an ongoing body which would oversee development in northern Ontario and to which the people of northern Ontario could apply for redress or improvement in their living conditions.
These are only some of the proposals I make to the government with respect to development in northern Ontario which has been sadly neglected over the past 100 years. I remind the government benches that the Prime Minister was very concerned about eradicating regional disparities. We have very serious problems with respect to regional disparity, and I think it is time they were looked at. It is obvious that members on the government side who represent this area have not been raising the issues.
With regard to the pipeline, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) recently came to northern Ontario with some minions from the area and suggested a review of the route of the pipeline from Sarnia to Montreal. That is just a palliative to the people of northern Ontario. The decision was made by the cabinet. Mr. Speaker, I call on them to reconsider that decision in light of the kind of development that can take place in northern Ontario. We have been ignored too long. I call on the government to pay attention to the present situation and to take action now to correct some of these discrepancies.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Frontenac-Lennox and Addington (Mr. Alkenbrack) wishes to ask a question, but the only extension of time can be for the hon. member to complete his speech. Is it agreed that the hon. member should have the right to ask a question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Mr. Speaker, during his speech the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) read letters from constituents complaining about and protesting the spiralling cost of living under this government. I now ask the hon. member why he voted against the subamendment only one hour ago which indicated lack of confidence in this government in the words " . .. because it has not taken effective and immediate measures to stop the increase in the cost of living".


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. There is a very simple rule that one does not reflect upon a vote that has already taken place in the chamber.


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I should like at the outset to congratulate His Excellency the Governor General and thank him for having accepted his new responsibilities in that public service spirit that he has shown throughout his extraordinary career. As for Her Excellency Mrs. Leger, who always admirably supported her husband, we already see the stamp of her extraordinary readiness of wit and of the great warmth of personality in everything she has undertaken during the short time she has discharged her duties.
The Address-Mrs. Sauve
I hope I may also express the great satisfaction I find in seeing again Mr. Speaker in the Chair to preside over our debates. He shows great ability and tactfulness in the fulfilment of his duty. He succeeds in moderating our debates. He even manages to curb the eagerness for criticism which is of course the essential part of this House, provided those criticisms do not in their overzealousness, go beyond their purpose, which is to serve the people. The Speaker helps a great deal to bring our debates to the level required by the high responsibility of this House. I am also delighted to find around him the team that supports him and contributed so much to the success of the last session, which is of good omen for the session we shall now go through.
It is in accordance with the usual practice to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. I must say that I am doing so today most sincerely and not only to comply with a practice of this House.
They demonstrated with exceptional eloquence their concern for the welfare of all those we are here to serve, and behaved in the best of parliamentary traditions.
While'listening to them, I could not refrain from thinking that the backbenchers on this side of the House are filled with talents and, like the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), I find this very encouraging and feel that, as long as the Canadian people is willing to assure us of its trust, this party in the House has the necessary personnel to come up to its expectations.
The extraordinary contributions of our members to the proceedings of the committees of the House is ample proof of this. I have been told that 77 hon. members took part in 626 meetings of the parliamentary committees which were created and in operation during the last session. Mr. Speaker, that means exceptional regularity of attendance made necessary, of course, by the existence of a minority government. The parliamentarians from this side of the House met that great challenge with honour and deserve to be lauded for their sense of service and fellowship.
They have decided to serve their constituents here although, as many of us, they would have liked to be with them more often. All of us in Parliament have suffered from not being able to communicate with our constituents as much as we would have liked.
As far as I am concerned, during the session, I had to cancel four or five meetings that had been organized in my riding in order to fulfil my parliamentary obligations. Of course I did so most regretfully, but parliamentary duty came first. You will tell me that Parliament is in minority for everybody and that my remarks are irrelevant but I would like to remind you that absences do not have the same effect for the opposition as for Cabinet members, who are vested with the initiative right of government and with the responsibility of parliamentary stability.
Our duty was undoubtedly to be here, in the House, I admit it. But is parliamentarism better served by the attitude of the opposition which takes advantage of circumstances, with many members being absent one day and reappearing the next day in number in order to force,
27398-7J

March 1, 1974
The Address-Mrs. Sauve
through mean calculations, Cabinet members to be isolated from their constituents?
For if our duty lies clearly within this Chamber, it is also very important as far as the people are concerned, since we have the responsibility of maintaining contacts with the people who have elected us, of consulting them on the way they would like us to conduct the affairs of state and since we have the duty to inform them of what is happening in the House of Commons, because we are not working here for us but for them.
The Member of Parliament, the parliamentarian is so much more efficient in the House of Commons as he has the opportunity from time to time to go back to those who have elected him in order to try to understand what their aspirations are.
As a new parliamentarian, I must admit that every time I have had the opportunity of meeting the people, when I accepted to speak before a few groups, I was always enhanced and renewed by these experiences, for it is obvious that a politician is renewing only at the source of his mandate. Voters are the source of his mandate. He has the duty and the responsibility of maintaining contacts with voters.
The situation of the minority government, mainly the situation created by the opposition party, certainly prevented us from discharging this portion of our responsibilities. Because it is not as some like to say that it is by sitting on the opposition benches that one renovates oneself politically speaking. This is obvious after a session such as this one, when one sees that the opposition parties did not succeed since it is said that they are in the best possible situation to renew themselves. They did not succeed in suggesting coherent measures to deal with the problems we are facing.
But it is because, in spite of difficulties, we have kept government initiative that we still have the right, during this second session, to keep on governing.
I would like to deal very briefly with another aspect of opposition and namely that of parliamentary holidays. I do not know of any Parliament in the world sitting as long as ours. Under conditions which we all know, the opposition took advantage of our minority situation to make our task even more difficult. For example, by ignoring the school vacations, they have pursued sterile debates to try and break the morale of hon. members who saw the days passing by without being able to take turns as the opposition members did and spend some time with their families.
Particularly in Canada, the size of which is such a geographical challenge, an agreement should allow those of us from both ends of the country to meet our family obligations. The children of those hon. members have the same rights as other children and I am convinced that Parliament could meet this reality if it were not for the prejudicial game of the opposition members.
Some hon. members made the sacrifice of their holidays which they had scheduled with their family and I still remember one of them saying during a meeting:

It means a lot to me, but I would give it up because I know that this government has maintained its will to govern.


However, Mr. Speaker, these are situations about which we should agree so that it may be possible at least to practice this profession, which is a great one, in somewhat better conditions. I hope that the opposition has come to the end of this hide-and-seek strategy and that during this second session it will consider the House as a place of work rather than a trap to grasp power.
In this House, we discuss bills, but we can do it well only if we refer to what the people are thinking. To be able to do so, we must go among the people from time to time.
My main objective, Mr. Speaker, is of course to tell my colleagues about the part of the Speech from the Throne which deals with my department and, with your permission, I shall now talk about the business of the Ministry of State for Science and Technology and, more specifically, about the intention expressed in the Speech from the Throne to reinforce the mandate of this department.
The foundation of liberalism has always been to remain within the path of history and to favour a concentration, based upon circumstances, on the natural forces of society for the advance of humanity. From that point of view, scientific activity played a leading part and was one of the major forces in the changes since the last war.
Over the past decade, the awareness of the impact of science and technology on evolution has led us, and ours is not the only country, to re-examine that area of government expenditures. Even here, in Canada, numerous studies have been initiated on this problem. Among others, there was the Glassco Commission whose terms of reference did not include this but however it did consider that problem, the Mackenzie report, the Gendron report and, more recently, the Senate investigation on scientific policy presided by hon. Senator Maurice Lamontagne. The OECD has also initiated studies on the impact of science and technology on changes. It is perhaps the results or impact of major scientific research programs of the major industrial countries which have drawn attention on this area of government expenditures.
Arising from the success of those scientific programs which were called "Big Science", many countries have set up, as we did, a department whose function is to coordinate the research endeavours within the country and to make those endeavours contribute to the national objectives. In this respect, we ought to congratulate Senator Lamontagne for having conducted his inquiry with such strength, in spite of many criticisms at times, for in some circles what he was trying to do was very little understood, and for having wanted to make the whole country understand with this inquiry how important was the scientific activity. Senator Lamontagne's report represents six years of hearings during which groups interested in this area of activity have submitted briefs and made their opinions known. The hon. senator has published many works in which he has given us an exhaustive analysis of the state of science and technology in Canada and by which he has made us able to make comparisons with some other countries, since it was somewhat difficult to assess objectively, without any point of comparison, whether what we are doing is consistent with what is
March 1, 1974

going on in other countries. He gave us the opportunity to compare with other countries. Moreover, because of his familiarity with the Canadian situation, he pointed out the weaknesses of our research network, whether inside government, in the universities or the industry, as well as the mechanisms linking this research network. The interest given by Senator Lamontagne to this question has surely contributed to the establishment of the ministry, and even today, through his studies, he has thrown much light on the ways and means to fulfill our mandate of Minister of State for Science and Technology.
Naturally, this study was a comprehensive revision of all government spending activities and this reviewing process has, in certain circumstances, troubled somewhat the scientific community. It is understandable that it should fear changes-everyone does-that it should question its necessity, that it should be afraid that new directions will disturb its projects. But in my opinion, the scientific community is in a better position to accept revision, because it is for scientists a professional fact-of-life in a way. It is the essence of scientific activity, and for this reason we have carried on this re-evaluation at a sufficiently slow pace and with great confidence, because we are certain of being understood by the scientific community. Of course, during that reassessment, we have held many consultations and I had the opportunity on several occasions to appear before groups of researchers to explain specifically what the government intends to do under the mandate granted to the Ministry of State for Science and Technology.
In the Speech from the Throne, the government is reasserting its intention of carrying out some recommendations of Senator Lamontagne and taking the necessary steps for the development of a scientific policy in Canada.

In the 1960s the world witnessed a dramatic growth of scientific activity. The international scientific race had begun, and with it realization that any concerted effort in scientific research must be tied to national goals. It was a new philosophy that was injected into the scientific activity whereby scientists were allowed to go about doing their own little thing. It became apparent that governments had to look to scientists to help solve problems of modern society. Good ideas to solve problems are not sufficient, or even useful, by themselves. Their impact has to be researched and their course prolonged into the future so we will know exactly to what that good idea will lead us. In that process, of course, new ideas will emerge in many cases which are related to the kinds of solutions for which we are looking.
Governments face the responsibility of studying the different options available to them. We now know that several options arise in the solutions to certain problems which face modern society. We can choose which options suit us best. Governments now have the responsibility to set up a mechanism by which they will be in a better position to make those choices. We now choose our futures because we have many futures ahead of us. However, we must set up the machinery to make those choices adequately. It is in order to be in a better position that the government is now suggesting the mandate of MOSST be
The Address-Mrs. Sauve
reinforced. I quote a portion of the Speech from the Throne:
The development and use of technology is also essential to the government's approach to increasing national economic production. Steps will be taken to obtain greater returns from industrial research and development as well as technological innovation in Canada.
Scientific knowledge and its application is a keystone to meeting the challenges facing Canada, including those in the areas of food, energy or industrial development. The objective of the government's science policy is the rational generation and acquisition of scientific knowledge and the planned use of science and technology in support of national goals. The Ministry of State for Science and Technology will be developing national science objectives as a basis for exercising enhanced advisory and co-ordinating authority within the government. Two new granting councils will be formed, one for social sciences and humanities and the other for natural sciences.
Certain profound and important changes in public attitude toward science and technology have taken place since the 1960s. For a long time science and technology were fields which the taxpaying public supported without asking too many questions. The relationship between the taxpayer and the scientist was similar to that of a patient toward his doctor. If that relationship has changed, so has the relationship of the public toward the scientist. Taxpayers and politicians alike are no longer as prepared to finance increased scientific expenditures without the opportunity of closer public scrutiny of their activities and of participating in the decisions related to this activity. In some areas this is often perceived as a threat to science; it is perceived as a possible intention of brigading science into meeting government or political objectives.
I reiterate that the whole mandate of the ministry does not mean there is a denial of financial assistance nor of the importance of curiosity-oriented research. Nor is it a repudiation of the basic freedom of the scientist to choose his own field of research. It is a recognition of the high level of government involvement in financing research and development programs.
The people of Canada expect, and rightly so, that scientific resources should be used to solve problems of national concern. The concerns of the people and their representatives must increasingly become the concerns of the scientific community. Subjects such as environmental protection and alternate sources of energy are fields that can have a profound effect on the quality of life and are thus examples of areas where increased attention by the scientific community is indicated.
The science policy cannot be confined to specialists, be they scientists or legislators. The whole population must enter the debate. They must participate in the different choices we will want to make. In proposing these measures, we are attempting to reinforce the mandate of the ministry. We are attempting to balance the needs of the public with needs to maintain and enhance a viable and productive research and development sector within Canada.
Science policy has been described in the throne speech as "the rational generation and acquisition of scientific knowledge and the planned use of science and technology in support of national goals." This is at the base of the mandate of the ministry. As the throne speech indicates, my ministry is to have a strengthened role. Its advice will increasingly be taken into account by cabinet in relation to policies dealing with scientific and technical concerns,

March 1, 1974
The Address-Mrs. Sauve
many of which will originate from operating departments while others will obviously be initiated within the ministry. Its impact will also be markedly increased in relation to the assessment of scientific programs and associated expenditures.
An arrangement has been worked out between the ministry and treasury board so that the ministry will be provided in advance with full information of scientific expenditures of the various departments. It will have a chance to review and assess these expenditures and it will have the responsibility of giving its advice to treasury board. Just as important, this process will lead me to publish a report on scientific expenditures at the same time as the main estimates, so that the public at large may have an opportunity to discuss those expenditures. This will afford an opportunity for all those interested in doing so to enter into discussion as to the direction expenditures in connection with science should be taking. We will develop guidelines concerning these expenditures and advise individual departments as well as treasury board in connection with specific programs. Publication of this report will offer one of the primary means of analysis.
I should like to say something about the co-ordinating mandate given to the ministry under the terms of which, when a specific area of research does not fall clearly under one department, the Minister of State for Science and Technology is called upon to act as a co-ordinating mechanism so that the departments concerned can get-together in a multi-disciplinary fashion. Our purpose is to ensure that federal scientific resources are used in the best possible way for the betterment of the quality of life in Canada. Basically, what the Speech from the Throne is saying is that the role of the ministry is being reinforced by the review assessment arrangements which have been made between ourselves and treasury board. As applied to research being carried out inside government, the objective is to ensure more cohesion and avoid overlapping.
The government also subsidizes outside research, and this comes under the same general mandate. The ministry will be asked to suggest means of improving funding structures. It will be asked to provide a definition of the roles of the National Science Council, the Science Council of Canada and the Defence Research Board. We have suggested the creation of new granting councils so as to correct imbalances between various disciplines.
Since time is running out, I think I should address myself to an area of scientific research which a number of studies have categorized as the weakest inside government. I am speaking of research and development grants in the field of applied research. Canada does grant more money for fundamental research than it does for applied research, and the imbalance will have to be corrected. This does not mean we shall deprive one sector for the sake of the other. If we do have something good going for us, that is to say an outstanding capability in fundamental research, my firm belief is that we should maintain it. Certainly, though, special attention will need to be paid to the field of applied research. Studies have shown that industrial research and development is weakest relative to other areas of endeavour, and this weakness has probably led to our poor performance in the area of high technology.

I think the hon. member who spoke before me made reference to this point, and a question on precisely this subject was directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) yesterday.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the minister, but the time allotted to her has expired. Is there unanimous consent that she be allowed to complete her speech?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Yewchuk:: No.


Jeanne Sauvé: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was about-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Again I must ask the minister to excuse me. I believe the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) has a point of order.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, when you asked whether the minister should continue her speech, I said no.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I will put the question again. Is there unanimous consent for the minister to complete her speech?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Paul Yewchuk: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is not unanimity.


Thomas Miller Bell: May I ask Your Honour to try once again? There has been latitude given to members on both sides of the House. Next week, perhaps, we should follow the rules strictly; but today, certainly, I am sure our members will agree to the minister being given an extra minute or two. We ourselves, yesterday, were given considerable latitude.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I again present the request to the House. Is the minister given unanimous consent to extend her remarks?


Paul Yewchuk: No.


Jeanne Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, I shall try to be brief.


Paul Yewchuk: I said no.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The minister apparently did not hear the "no" which I heard. She has not been granted extra time.


Thomas Miller Bell: That's women's lib. for you!


Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I would offer the congratulations of all my constituents to His Excellency Governor General Jules Leger and to Madame Leger. I trust good health will be afforded them so they will be able to devote their lives to enhancing the spirit of good will among all Canadians.
Experience has taught me that I should never enter into a debate with those of the opposite sex.


Jeanne Sauvé: Why not?


Thomas Gordon Towers: I should like to congratulate the minister on the latter portion of her speech, but I take exception to the earlier portion in which she referred to debates in this House as being sterile. The only reason for debates in this House being sterile is the government's failure to act or to take the initiative on the basis of the advice offered during those debates.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), while he is a fine gentleman, stated on February 28 that more was accomplished in the first session of this parliament than would normally be accomplished in five or six years. My response to that observation is to express disappointment that the previous session produced so little, due to lack of leadership and good management by the the government. If parliament did such a good job in 1973 to the extent that it exceeded five or six years' work, it is not surprising that Canada is in its present state of distress and hardship. We must remember that 60 per cent of our current inflation of over 9 per cent has been induced by this government-in other words, over half-and all the mumbling and jumbling of words by government members to try to say otherwise cannot alter that fact.
Canadians are entitled to, and expect, efficient administration, but their hopes are fading fast, particularly when the cost of government itself continues to multiply without any attempt to cut expenditure or to consider the sacrifices many taxpayers are forced to make to meet tax demands. Let the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) remember that it was the taxation policy of government which divided and destroyed the 12 tribes of Israel and has destroyed empires since.
Let me give a few examples to illustrate the lack of planning, and mismanagement during the first session of the twenty-ninth parliament. When the crop insurance bill, Bill C-129, was presented to the House the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre wanted it pushed through without debate. Apparently he does not have any idea of the requirements of an appropriate crop insurance scheme. It would be more sensible and just to leave that type of legislation to people who do know what is necessary to provide an adequate system of protection for farmers. Even the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) travelled across this country condemning members of the official opposition for questioning the bill, suggesting we were holding up its passage because we were asking the minister to consider our proposals which were sound and proper. Evidently he never intended to use any of our suggestions in spite of the fact that he knew they would have been of benefit to the Canadian producer.
The bill was passed in its original form, with the result that producers within the province of Ontario do not receive any extra protection for their crops, and those in other provinces gain very little. Bill C-129 certainly does not give the minister much on which to hang his hat, if through it he is supposed to improve production and protect the agricultural industry. It is to be hoped that legislation to be introduced during this session will be of a wider range and more in line with what is required.
The Address-Mr. Towers
In addition to the weaknesses of Bill C-129, the government failed to provide adequate policies on energy, agriculture, expansionism in industry and manufacturing, an efficient unemployment insurance program, transportation, and numerous other matters. If the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is of the opinion that the legislation introduced in the previous session reflects good government, he does not know what is required of government or of parliament and his feelings are very different from mine.
Government is probably the biggest business in Canada today. If any other business was administered on the basis on which this government is administered, its life would be very short indeed. I agree with the government member who said he would not stand for election in the next campaign because, he said, "I still happen to believe that no one, including government, should spend more than they take in". He said that his views were not fresh in this modern world. However, like the hon. member, I would rather be termed old-fashioned than disinterested, arrogant and unaware of the problems and wishes of the people I represent and of Canadians in general.
At the western economic opportunities conference, representatives of the federal government did not have anything to offer. All the western premiers knew the needs and desires of their provinces, but this government again failed to present any suggestions or ideas to meet their demands. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) did manage later on to set up a confrontation between his government and the province of Alberta on the energy issue by his irresponsible conduct and attitude. If the Prime Minister had been at all concerned about the interests of the provinces in this country and their retention of natural resources, he would have removed that minister from his portfolio.
During the national energy conference, the maritime provinces were justifiably disturbed by the discrepancy in the cost of energy to their provinces compared to that in the central, manufacturing area of Canada. The producing provinces were worried lest they would not receive value for their natural resources. I ask the Prime Minister whether he considers it just to take a natural resource-I am thinking primarily of oil-away from a province and then, before it is used, allow the provincial and federal governments to levy a tax on that product. It would seem to me reasonable that the producing areas should receive maximum value for their product and the federal government could find its revenue elsewhere.
The minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board promised to bring in legislation which would provide an equitable selling price for feed grain across Canada, and at the same time correct the inconsistencies in freight rates. He did introduce a policy on grain, but he did not present any regulations to correct the freight rates situation. So until the next crop year the western producer of red meat is being placed at a severe disadvantage. Feed grains move east at Crowsnest rates, plus feed freight assistance; western meat goes east at regular domestic rates, leaving the western producer with a loss of approximately $5 per hog compared to his eastern counterpart. On an annual prairie production of four million hogs, this alone means a disparity of $20 million in the western provinces.

The Address-Mr. Towers
In the 1973 budget the federal government started to meddle with the beef industry by removing the import surcharge. Last August, without any warning and while parliament was not in session, this government created a chaotic situation for all beef producing provinces by imposing a surcharge on beef exported to the United States. This is another example of an inept government causing hardship through inconsiderate interference.
On that particular day I was having lunch with the manager of a western Canada packing plant. We knew that the cabinet was meeting to make a decision. When the manager asked me if I thought the federal government would impose controls, I said that I hoped not because there had already been too many government controls put into effect. My feeling was that such action would not achieve anything but would disrupt the industry, and that surely the Minister of Agriculture would be wise enough and would have sufficient influence on cabinet to prevent this move. I naturally thought that, should the government decide to place a tax on beef going to the United States, this would not come into effect in the middle of a week. However, as everyone knows, that is exactly what the government decided to do. It announced controls on beef exports late on Monday evening. That asinine move at an inopportune time cost producers of beef thousands and thousands of dollars. One man lost $5,000 on just one shipment. Had he not been deprived of that $5,000, it would have counteracted to a degree the losses he is experiencing today.
The Minister of Agriculture must know very well that there are many feed lots in western and eastern Canada which are only partially in use. Let me impress upon this government that there will be fewer animals in feed lots this coming year than there have been for a long time. People do not forget, nor can they overlook the careless handling of their very livelihood by a mismanaged government which panics and reaches decisions without regard for the implications and hardships which follow.
I would urge the government, for the benefit of all Canadians, to recognize the seriousness of the situation faced by the red meat industry. The inequity the government has created in the hog industry as between east and west has resulted in hog producers cutting down production. In the hog industry, apparently the proper ratio is the slaughter of one full grown sow to 20 market hogs. In the past several months the ratio has been one sow slaughtered to 13 market hogs-quite a cutback-which means that we will be short of pork in this country. The cattle industry is in the same position. People are fed up with the meddling and unnecessary interference, plus the lack of consideration and sound policy on the part of the federal government which would encourage production, at a time when the world is hungry and there is a 5 per cent shortfall in the production of grain.
Canada imported over 70 million pounds of beef last year. In 1974 the amount will no doubt be greater. In 1972 this country imported under 30 million pounds of butter. For 1973 the estimated figure is in the neighbourhood of 50 million pounds. Milk production dropped by 5 per cent last year also. Where does this government think it is leading the Canadian people, or where is it pushing them, when

we cannot even supply our own requirements, with all the potential and the ability that we possess to produce?
Problems within agriculture are mounting. Farm labour is in short supply and producers are becoming discouraged because the government does not care enough to provide an atmosphere in which the industry can survive. All we can do right now is to await with anticipation the legislation that the Minister of Agriculture is supposed to be bringing forth. But we in the official opposition wish to warn him now to take note that we will continue to scrutinize his proposals to see whether this time there is anything that can benefit the producer and consumer. When production decreases, the producer suffers and every consumer suffers. Vast numbers of Canadian consumers are now suffering and can only look to additional hardship as a result of the inefficiency of this leaderless, "don't care" government.
Why is this government not doing something now to alleviate the bottleneck in the grain industry? What does it need to see the light? Twelve ships are waiting at the west coast to load grain. The grain is not there. There will be ten more ships docking next week. Demurrage charges are mounting. Elevators are plugged. Farmers are anxious to move their grain before spring break-up and seeding commences. This government sits on its hands in Ottawa while the Wheat Board asks farms to deliver their grain. Anyone in the know realizes why there is frustration within the agricultural industry.
When the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) announced the current local initiatives program, he asked members of parliament to co-operate so that the program could fill the need in the most deserving areas. He requested advice on projects which would be most suitable. I know that some members would not have anything to do with this controversial program due to previous examples of poor judgment and abuse which they could not stop no matter how hard they tried. But I believed it to be my responsibility to try to offer some advice, to help my constituency and to help the minister. His request was complied with: a constituency advisory group was set up and there were several projects to submit. In November of 1973 I informed the minister, through his staff, of three projects that I considered to be worth while to the communities concerned, and I Informed him by letter directed to his office. These were projects from which there would be continuing benefit; in other words, the money would not have gone down the drain.
In order to try to get these three projects approved-and they do not go beyond the total allotted to my riding-I made numerous telephone calls and finally contacted a member of his staff. But I ran up against a stone wall and the three projects have not yet been accepted. On countless occasions calls were placed to the minister directly and the promise given that he would return my call. I am still waiting for that call. Four months have passed and I have not received an answer for my constituents. They are waiting and so am I. No other business could function or remain solvent under such sloppy management; and I do not conduct my constituency business in that manner either.
March 1, 1974

Add this frustration to that faced by producers, manufacturers, small businesses, the construction industry, the legitimately unemployed and you have a vague idea how a power-hungry, couldn't-care-less government carries out its duties and responsibilities.
The hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies) gave sound advice to the government, but apparently they do not intend to follow his advice. What about inflation, anyway? Obviously, the government members do not have any proposals of their own to curb the rising cost of production. As an example, last winter we saw a rise of from 100 per cent to 150 per cent in the price of anti-freeze alone. We have seen a fearful rise in the cost of food. Sugar alone is up 50 per cent. What will this do to beekeepers who require vast quantities of sugar to provide for hives until the productive season commences? This perhaps will answer the question of the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), who raised the same point this afternoon. I received a call from a constituent who will need 15 tons of sugar. What will this 50 per cent hike do to the price of honey?
A contractor asked me for information on the continually spiralling cost of construction material. He was considering a contract to extend over 18 months and involving $500,000, but was afraid to enter into a binding agreement without any control being placed on the skyrocketing rise in price for the material required.
Let me give you an example, Mr. Speaker, of the prices of different types of material. In December, 1973, the price of two-inch pipe per 100 feet was $112.50 in February of 1974 it was $211.20, a 90 per cent increase in price. Three-inch pipe in December was $150 per 100 feet; in February it had risen to $251.20. Four-inch pipe was $159 per 100 feet; in February it was $310. As I said, Mr. Speaker, that is a 90 per cent increase in four months. How can this contractor submit a contract and feel financially safe?
On top of that, there is a shortage of material. He normally orders 100 tons of sheet steel one year and 200 tons the next year. Normally he uses 150 tons of steel. In January, February and March he ordered 100 tons of steel; he received no allotment. For April, May and June he ordered another 100 tons of steel; he was allotted 40 tons. How can these people survive in conditions such as this and with a government that stands idly by and allows this sort of thing to take place? What can such soaring costs do but hamper home construction, industry, in fact any type of business, not to mention the wage earner who finds
The Address-Mr. Towers
himself with less to spare for food and other necessities of life as each month goes by?
We all know how important it is for a young couple to be able to acquire their own home. At today's prices, most newly married couples cannot even save the down payment. And if they are fortunate enough to squeeze out the down payment after much scrimping and sacrifice, they cannot meet the monthly payments. When they look ahead and realize that they will be paying three or four times the contract price for their home due to high interest charges, life immediately becomes less interesting and they have a feeling that they will be plodding to pay for most of their lives. If homes were available at decent or reasonable amounts there would be fewer social problems. Young families should not be compelled to live under circumstances that place pressures on marriages and where children enter the world with unhappy, disillusioned parents.
Surveys conducted on crime have revealed that the majority of offenders come from environments of uncertainty, and in some cases have parents who were burdened beyond their ability to meet the demands that society had placed upon them. Those of us who have never had to stop to think about purchasing a home, or who have never felt insecure in our family life, perhaps cannot visualize what the day to day scrimping, worrying, never-ending anxieties can do to a person's general outlook. I do not think it would be unfair to say that the federal government could cut some of the many millions of dollars it now proposes to spend on government structures, which are certainly not needed. Renovations, expensive trappings for offices, multiplication of staff, uncalled for trips by government officials and public servants could total several million dollars.
Almost daily we have new reports of fantastic plans for growth in buildings and other government expenditures. I do not believe this is at all necessary at a time when so many taxpayers are finding it impossible to even purchase food and other daily requirements. A cutback in unnecessary government spending would be a step in the right direction. This is a step this government has never been prepared to take, but I hope that it will be taken during this second session of the twenty-ninth parliament. There must be a start some time-and it should be now during this serious time of inflation in the year 1974.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, may I call it five o'clock?
At 5:12 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, March 4, 1974