1974-10-04

PRIVILEGE


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege, one that I raised on the opening day of this session and which, by agreement, was deferred for presentation to this House for determination by Your Honour as to whether there is a prima facie case of privilege. I have a motion which, on that determination by Your Honour, I hope to present to this House. I may say that I have had consultations and my presentation this morning is by agreement with the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) as to its timing. I hope that the question I raise and the way that it will be presented in the motion will commend itself to members of the House.
I am speaking to the interpretation of section 16 of the House of Commons Act, principally subsection (1), dealing with the composition or the nomination of the commissioners of internal economy. As you know, the commissioners are appointed to assist and advise Mr. Speaker in determining the questions dealing with the administration of this House. There are financial questions, questions of administration, and so forth, as laid down in sections 16, 17 and 18 of the House of Commons Act. In so doing, and in calling into question the practice that has existed of naming the four commissioners to assist Mr. Speaker exclusively from the cabinet, I am putting to the House that this interpretation is too restrictive and that it affects thereby the privileges of all members of the House. This House is its own master; the cabinet is not master of this House. This House stands on its own.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: In raising the point may I hasten to add that I am not challenging the nomination of the present four members of the Privy Council who were named on September 30. That to me is clearly correct under the act. However, my point is that section 16, subsection (1) reads as follows:
The Governor in Council shall appoint four members of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada who are also members of the House of Commons, who, with the Speaker of the House of Commons, shall be commissioners for the purpose of this section and sections 17 and 18.
I find the method of appointment and the reporting to the House perfectly correct. However, I have raised this point on previous occasions in various Committees and also with the Prime Minister, and I may say that in the reply I received from the right hon. Prime Minister, he raised certain points to substantiate the present practice which were wrong in law, and I want to touch on those briefly.
First of all, the point is made that the presence of cabinet ministers is necessary to supervise the provision and the payment of funds voted to this House as required. This argument falls to the ground immediately because in the other place, which is an integral part of the parliament of Canada, there are no commissioners. There is a committee of internal economy composed of hon. senators from all parts of that chamber who advise Mr. Speaker of the Senate, and they have the same function as have the commissioners in this House. Therefore, there is no requirement, in so far as parliament is concerned, to have cabinet ministers only supervising the distribution of funds as required under sections 17 and 18 of the House of Commons Act.
Second, it is said in justification that in 1868, when the House of Commons Act was passed, it was the practice that members of the Privy Council on leaving office resigned from the Privy Council. That is wrong in law and in history, because in 1867 there were cases of members of the Privy Council who, on vacating their position as cabinet ministers, attempted to resign. The Governor General of the day refused their resignations. In 1868 the predecessor to the House of Commons Act, the Titles Act, was passed along with the first table of precedents. It was made clear that members of the Privy Council, who then were not of the cabinet, still remained members of the Privy Council. It is a well known fact that a member of the Privy Council cannot resign without the consent of the Queen. He cannot resign unilaterally, nor can he be forced to vacate his position except at his specific request and with the consent of the Queen.
[DOT] (mo)
A further point is made that there is some sort of constitutional convention governing this interpretation of the words "Privy Council". Mr. Speaker, constitutional convention never established law. I am looking at the interpretation of a statute. A further point was made that one must look to the events surrounding the passage of the legislation and the intent of the legislation as evidenced by what was said in the House at the time of passing the law. Of course, that is a totally erroneous premise in so far as the interpretation of the statutes in Canada is concerned. In support of that contention we have the opinion of no less an august body than the whole membership of the Supreme Court of Canada, to cite the latest case of 1961, the Reader's Digest versus the Minister of National Revenue. The court said there is no way, in our jurisprudence, of introducing evidence of intention of strictures by citing speeches in the House of Commons, or elsewhere in the parliament of Canada, in order to arrive at an interpretation of the statute. The statute speaks for itself.
I trust other hon. members may express themselves with regard to this point of the privileges of hon. members, Mr. Speaker. On this narrow basis I submit to you, and to the

October 4, 1974
Privilege-Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West)
House through you, Mr. Speaker, that the interpretation of section 16(1) has been and still is far too narrow and that it could encompass the appointment of privy councillors not of the cabinet, for purposes of the statute, that is to assist you in the administration of this House. I hope my suggestion commends itself to hon. members and to members of the government. As in so many other legislatures all around the world, this question should be in the hands of a small committee of senior members from all parts of the House. Such small committee could, of course, include one or two cabinet ministers, though no more.
In summary of my submission I submit that there is a prima facie case for your consideration, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately, I have not the text of my motion at the present time because of a problem with translation and transportation from the Confederation Building, but it will be forthcoming. In effect my motion will be:
That section 16 of the Senate and House of Commons Act shall be referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections for examination as to its interpretation, its suitability, and report to this House.
I hope that other hon. members will be prepared to comment on my motion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member did raise this point on Monday last, which was the first occasion upon which it could have been raised. At that time he indicated that rather than take the time of the House then, his argument would be deferred to another occasion. I am not sure that wording was enshrined in an agreement, but as a result, the matter is being raised this morning.
At this point I may say that I did not on Monday, I have not now nor do I propose at this time, to rule on whether there is in fact a question of privilege involved. I have some doubt about that as it involves the interpretation of a statute, an interpretation which may have been made on a wider basis. I am troubled as to whether there is any indication of privilege and that it must have been or ought to have been raised as such.
In any case, the hon. member has given an indication that, after some consultation, there might be unanimous consent and that his motion would carry this morning with the subject referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections. I am prepared to seek that unanimous consent now. If it is forthcoming then the motion will be put and carried. If it is not, I would propose to reserve on the basic question of whether it is a question of privilege, hear argument and deliver reasons for my decision at some later date. Is there unanimous consent for the hon. member's motion, as he has outlined it, to be put at this time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion and about the difficulty of tabling it physically. Shall the motion carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, as hon. members are aware, there stands on notice, in the name of the Minister of Labour, a bill respecting the grain handlers' work stoppage. This bill will be introduced on Monday.
In order to expedite this matter perhaps we could make it an order now that, when orders of the day are reached on Monday, we will proceed with the motion for second reading of this bill.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion. Is this agreed?


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I think we can agree. May I make a further suggestion. I am aware of the difficulty the government faces with regard to this legislation and I appreciate having been made aware of the physical contents of the bill by the President of the Privy Council. This will enable me to advise our people. Because of the difficulty in which the government finds itself I want to co-operate. I am bound to say that the position of the Minister of Labour, and of the government, is very much like that of a client of mine with whom I dealt with some years ago. When his wife was already in labour he applied for hospital and medical insurance. When challenged, he could only reply weakly that the situation was one of sudden and urgent necessity. He had forgotten about it in the last nine months.
Nevertheless, we are prepared to co-operate. May I make this additional suggestion. Because of the need to facilitate passage of the legislation which the House in its wisdom may decide to enact, and also because many members will want an opportunity to intervene in that debate, could we not add to the order already suggested this: that we suspend the usual rules as to adjournment on Monday, deal with the bill on second reading-I am talking of second reading only-and then, after all members who wish to make a contribution have done so, refer the bill to the appropriate standing committee.

This would give an opportunity for hon. members to voice their opinions and at the same time advance the legislation so that it can receive examination in committee. If necessary, the committee will consider the question of witnesses as well and proceed with the bill expeditiously, having in mind all the circumstances.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, we are anxious to expedite dealing with this bill, but we think a better way of doing it would be to agree to a limitation on the time of speeches, perhaps not for the introducers and main reply from the opposition, but generally reduce the length of speeches to try to get it through in one day without prolonging the session of the House. In addition, we would much prefer that it be dealt with by committee

of the whole rather than referred to another committee of this House. It is a matter of great importance to Canadians generally and we think the whole House should deal with it in committee.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, as a result of the discussions we had with the hon. President of the Privy Council, we still agree to support his motion and further agree with the suggestion the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) of the New Democratic Party has just made that, when the time comes, instead of referring the bill to the standing committee, perhaps we should rather discuss it in committee of the whole, so that considering the importance of the bill, we can pass it as speedily as possible.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I suppose we can hardly anticipate now what the House will decide on Monday with regard to where the bill goes. It may be a question for argument, but I feel it would be most improper not to have the opportunity of examining the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) at least with regard to what has happened and with relation to the details of the bill. That cannot be done effectively in the House. The bill would come back to the House for third reading and there would be an opportunity then for members to make further decisions. We will facilitate the committee proceedings. For our part, there cannot be any agreement to dispense with the normal course which is that the bill go to a standing committee, unless the House should make ah order otherwise. We are not prepared to consent to that order.
There is one other point. With regard to the proposal made by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), we are willing to suggest that after the original speeches there be a limitation of 20 minutes.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no motion before the House at this time; simply a statement on motions by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp). However, this is a matter which will be dealt with on Monday. If there are further consultations and an agreement that an order of the House be made later this day, so be it. In any case we have no proposal for an order, simply an announcement. In any event, that will be the business of the day on Monday. Have I misunderstood the nature of the remarks?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be desirable that an order of the House do issue today so that preparation can be made for the debate on Monday. Like the spokesmen for the NDP and the Social Credit party, the government would prefer that the bill be referred to the committee of the whole. However, the Progressive Conservative party House leader will not give consent to that procedure. It would expedite consideration of this very important measure if, notwithstanding our particular reservations about the committee to which it might be referred, we could agree today to an order that it follow the ordinary rules of the House.
As hon. members know, it is part of our rules that bills of this kind are referred to a standing committee and that
Business of the House
consent is required for them to be referred to a Committee of the Whole. I would hope that later this day an order might be made which would be acceptable to all members.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the President of the Privy Council seeking an order now that the bill should be dealt with on Monday in any case, with an order later as to how and when, or does he consider it better to leave it until a full order is put forward later in the day?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any question about the importance of dealing with this bill immediately-


Mr. Diefenbaker:: After five weeks of delay!


Mitchell William Sharp: I think an order should be made now. I would prefer it if the House leader for the Official Opposition could frame an order now, and then, perhaps, we could dispose of the matter immediately.


Gerald William Baldwin: If the hon. members speaking for the New Democratic Party and the Creditiste Party, despite their very reasonable reservations, would agree at this time to the course I have mentioned, we could dispose of the matter now and make the one order.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I have consulted with the other members of my party and they are agreeable.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, this proposal is also agreeable to us.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall it be ordered, then, that the bill be introduced and stand for second reading on Monday?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gerald William Baldwin: And could we not add the items with which I believe we have already agreed in principle-that the ordinary rule as to adjournment be suspended and that the-


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: Well, I gathered this was the understanding on the basis of which I made my suggestion.


Mr. Speaker:: I would respectfully suggest we have gone as far as we can go at this moment. If there are other consultations which might result in an order later in the day, so be it. But, for the moment, enough is enough.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I should like to take this occasion to remind hon. members that since this arrangement varies the order of business for Monday we shall not be debating the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne on Monday, with the result that the House will not sit at eleven in the morning but rather at two o'clock in the afternoon.

October 4, 1974
Oral Questions


THE EXPORT DEVELOPMENT ACT
Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-9, to amend the Export Development Act.


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

Mitchell William Sharp: for leave to introduce Bill C-10, to amend the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act.


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

Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-ll intituled "An Act respecting the national anthem of Canada".


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

[Stage Direction]


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In view of the number of air crashes in the north and the grounding of the motor vessel Minna in a break-up of the ice, and since obviously there is no means in the north to prevent or to deal with this kind of situation, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he is prepared to request or instruct his ministers of defence, the environment and transport to get together and produce measures that will permit our government, through the armed forces and other services, to provide an expert presence so necessary in the north to deal with this kind of tragedy?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I will take that suggestion under very serious consideration.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, for the Minister of Transport relating to the inquest into the tragic plane crash that took place near Frobisher Bay last February. May I ask the minister why the report, which is apparently fully prepared, of the investigation conducted by the minister's own department has not been made available to the coroner. I ask the minister why it will not be made available until release is authorized by some very high level in the transport department.


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, there must be a mistake in the way the question has been put, a mistake the hon. Leader of the Opposition made when he said the report is "fully reported or ready" ...

It is not complete because there are some technical things that have to be added. I am just waiting for that before making the report public.


REPORT ON PLANE CRASH NEAR FROBISHER BAY-REASON FOR DELAY
Robert Lorne Stanfield: further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since this kind of investigation involves the department's investigating itself, and since presumably this is one of the matters the minister has in mind overcoming or dealing with in the commitment in the Speech from the Throne, is it not open to suspicion, to put it very bluntly, that the report has not been released because officials or others in the department wish to edit the report, since it involves an investigation of the department itself and may mean some finding of default or defalcation on the part of the department?


Jean Marchand: If this is so, Mr. Speaker, then I think I have the same interest as the Leader of the Opposition. I am going to look into it. I asked the question myself in the department and was told the report had not been published because the department was still waiting for the complete report. If the hon. gentleman thinks somebody has something to hide, then I will try and get it revealed.


Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief supplementary question for the Minister of Transport. Since his department promised me that the report would be ready in June, why has it taken so much longer to produce this report? After all, the truth cannot be changed after the accident in February.


Jean Marchand: No, Mr. Speaker, the truth cannot be changed, but sometimes it takes time to reveal the truth.
October 4, 1974


POLLUTION
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of the Environment which relates to the question of the Leader of the Opposition regarding the oil spill from the motor vessel Minna under charter to the oceanographic service and which ran aground in Brewer Bay off Resolution Island on August 18. In view of the fact that the crew and scientific equipment were removed on August 21 and the vessel declared abandoned at that time, why was the supply of light diesel fuel not also removed then, or in the intervening six weeks, so that the present damaging oil spill could have been avoided?


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, there were attempts to empty the ship's fuel oil but they were unsuccessful. This is quite understandable and is one of the reasons for which the ship went aground. The sea in that region is very active. It was impossible to remove the oil, which of course was the responsibility of the owners of the ship. At that time DOE was not responsible for the ship but felt it had a moral responsibility to insist that attempts be made to remove the oil. That has not been possible.
Our assessment is that damage to the environment will be minimal because the sea is active and the oil will be flushed out to sea. Since it is light fuel oil it will be rapidly emulsified and evaporated.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Prince George-Peace River may ask a final supplementary.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, if the responsibility lies with the owners of the ship, has the government taken any action to ask the owners to provide for cleaning up? I cannot agree with the minister that because of the lightness of the oil there is no damage.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It would be preferable if we simply confine ourselves to questions, especially when we are well down the line in supplementaries. I thought the question was clearly put; perhaps the minister would answer.


Jeanne Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, we did try to take measures to avoid damage, but the damage is minimal. We knew that the only thing to do in a case like this was to hope the oil would be washed out to sea, and this is what will happen. It will evaporate in a matter of weeks, and this is the best way to deal with that particular situation.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister. In view of the request of the National Indian Brotherhood representing some 300,000 registered Indians for a meeting with the
Oral Questions
cabinet and the Prime Minister to deal with the urgent problems facing the native peoples of Canada in a co-operative atmosphere, will the Prime Minister arrange to meet this request and agree to the interview proposed?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will consider the matter very seriously, and if a meeting is arranged I will let the House know.


ALLEGED DETERIORATION OF CANADAS' TRADE BALANCE-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO RECTIFY
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Since Statistics Canada stated on September 27 that during the first eight months of the year real exports from Canada had decreased by 5 per cent compared with the same eight month period the year before, and that during the first eight months real imports to Canada had increased by 4 per cent, would the minister take the first opportunity on motions to outline to the House what steps he and his department plan to take to overcome this serious and continuing deterioration of our trade balance?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member is well aware, the strength of Canadian exports depends very much on the health of foreign economies and the willingness and ability of our foreign customers to buy. Unfortunately, foreign economies have not been as strong as the Canadian economy. Our exports have not increased as fast as our imports, and that is the reason for the figures the hon. member has just given the House. At the same time, I should like to assure the House that Canadian exports are very strong, and are up 26 per cent this year.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Alastair William Gillespie: Also, Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I should like to make this further comment. We will be seeking in all manner of ways to liberalize world trade, and it is particularly significant that in the Speaker's gallery today is the director general of GATT-the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade-who is visiting Ottawa, Mr. Olivier Long. We welcome him to Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister not aware that the real figures I have indicated, as expressed by Statistics Canada, show what the true picture is? They take the exports and imports in dollar value and subtract the inflation figure from them, which leaves the real picture. The picture that I have given is that given by Statistics Canada, showing that exports have been decreasing and imports increasing.


Alastair William Gillespie: I should like to reassure the hon. member that Canada is continuing to run a favourable trade balance.

October 4, 1974
Oral Questions


INDIAN AFFAIRS
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development whether he has been meeting with representatives of the Indian caravan group. Have there been any communications and what has been the nature of any discussions which may have taken place.


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, to date I have not met with representatives of this group. We had a tentative meeting set for two p.m. on Monday. They were otherwise occupied. Since that time there have been, I think, three communications between representatives of this group and my office. I have indicated I am prepared to meet with them but there apparently has not been willingness on their part to take advantage of this opportunity.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, apparently the minister is now willing to meet with these people. Has there been any suggestion they have demanded terms before they will meet with the minister? Has there been anything of that kind to delay a meeting which should take place? Otherwise, the situation will be exacerbated the longer they remain here.


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, the only condition I imposed is that I am not prepared to go down to the Indian embassy at Carbide Mills.


John George Diefenbaker: That means you closed the door.


PARLIAMENT HILL
Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister also accept the suggestion made by the National Indian Brotherhood that there should be an independent investigation of the violence of Monday on Parliament Hill?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am not
aware of that suggestion, Mr. Speaker. I will discuss that with the minister. I do not know what is deemed to be an independent investigation. We believe the facts are well known to the public. The government has hidden nothing.


TRANSPORT
Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister or

possibly the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that the B.C. ferry system is the only ferry system that is part of the trans-Canada highway and not subsidized by the federal government, could the Prime Minister or the Minister of Transport tell us why the government refuses to subsidize the B.C. ferry system?


Jean Marchand: I think, Mr. Speaker, we subsidize only ferries which service two provinces. I do not think there is a borderline between Victoria and Vancouver. This ferry system is within the same province. This is the reason we do not give any subsidy.


John Douglas Reynolds: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. That answer might make some sense if there were not a ferry service on Lake Huron totally subsidized by the federal government. I would still like to know why the government refuses to subsidize the B.C. ferry service when it subsidizes a service within one province.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, we have to take one or the other decision, that is either to subsidize the first one or subsidize the second one.


HOUSING
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. Does he intend to take action on the recommendations made in the report of the Economic Council of Canada on the problem of housing construction, particularly concerning the removal of the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Concerning this particular suggestion, Mr. Speaker, the answer is no. As to the general recommendations in the report, many of them are quite interesting and the government intends to take action on them.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. In light of the fact that there is circulating in the egg industry, as well as branches of his department, weekly statistics with regard to not only egg production but also hatching of chicks which eventually become pullets, and in light of the fact that over a long period earlier this year these statistics clearly showed not only an over-production of eggs but also chicks, would the minister tell us what action he or his department took either personally, through CEMA or through the council to avert what is obviously an over-production of both eggs and chicks.
October 4, 1974


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the hatchery people run their business and CEMA runs its business. The total over-production of eggs which caused the problem amounted to one-half of one per cent. If the hon. member has any way to solve that problem I think CEMA, the provincial marketing boards and the hatchery people would be most interested in receiving his advice.


William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the minister. In view of the fact that statistics of April this year, for example, showed an obvious over-hatching of chicks which would eventually find their way into the pullet market, was the minister's department not prepared at that time to avert the possibility of those chicks finding their way into the laying market which would obviously create an over-production some months later.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I think it should be made very plain that there is no control over the hatchery people of this nation in respect of how many eggs they can set in their incubators or how many chickens they can hatch. We do not have that kind of control. The provincial marketing board does not have total control and therefore does not have authority in that area. It is asking for changes so that more control can be established in order to properly stabilize the market and so on. This will all be brought out at the hearing. They will tell us what they have asked for, what they suggested and so on. But I make it very clear that the Department of Agriculture does not run their business. It can advise people in respect of over-production. The publications issued by the department have shown what the department thinks about overproduction and so on, but I repeat that if you can show me any industry that can come any closer in estimating the production of such a perishable, fragile product as eggs, that is, not be out more than one-half per cent of total production, I would like to know it.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will be recognized for a final supplementary.


William Herbert Jarvis: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your indulgence. Would the minister then simply tell the House whether it is his position now that production at the hatchery level should be controlled be it through CEMA, the council or whatever. Is that the position he now takes in respect of hatchery production in the poultry industry.


Eugene Whelan: I said yesterday in my speech that you could not have stability in any market, let alone that involving a perishable product, unless you have some control. That is up to the producers or those who organize this program. This government said it does not intend to run their business. In any country where the government runs the agricultural business there is not over-production but rather under-production most of the time. The problem here is over-production. If we had that problem in other parts of society we would not have the problems we have today.


George Harris Hees: That is the gospel according to St. Eugene.
Oral Questions TRANSPORT


FREIGHT RATES-GOVERNMENT POSITION ON EXPIRATION OF FREEZE-SUGGESTED RECONSIDERATION OF PROFIT POSITION OF CANADIAN PACIFIC
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the statement made by the President of the CPR, which had the appearance of a decision already made, that there would be heavy freight rate increases when the freeze expires on December 3 which will be made in two or three large bites, may I ask the minister whether the government has any intention of extending the freeze or calling upon the Canadian Transport Commission to severely restrict any proposed freight rates increases of Mr. Sinclair.


Jean Marchand: I think we read the same newspapers but I am not sure to which newspaper the hon. member referred. I said yesterday or the day before that I was meeting with the western ministers on October 20 or 21. I want to discuss this problem because, as the hon. member knows, the freeze applies only to about 22 per cent of the rates. So we have to see really whether this is something we should maintain or whether we should do something else. But I would like to discuss it with the interested ministers, not only the western ministers because the others are interested also. So at this moment we have no decision but we are considering the matter.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I wish to ask the minister whether, in view of the profits of CP Ltd. of $122 million last year compared with $170 million in 1974 and $200 million in 1975, and in the light of the fact that the railways have large investments in real estate and other such operations which have nothing to do with transportation, as well as in the light of the very healthy position, to put it mildly, of CPR, he would require the railroad to direct a larger proportion of its profits and capital into railway plant and equipment than into other enterprises.


Jean Marchand: I think the only comment I can make at this stage is to say I am very happy to see that CPR recognizes that, while it is a very profitable business to move goods in Canada, we will have to take that into account in any future move we will make.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. Given the fact that there will be problems resulting from the fact that the government does not have any inflationary policy in particular and noting that last month in Vancouver the minister called for an intensive examination of the collective bargaining process which could involve a tripartite

October 4, 1974
Oral Questions
body of labour, management and government, could the minister give us any advice as to what steps were taken to date in order to bring about the establishment of such an important and much needed body?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have held informal meetings with some principals involved in the labour and business communities but, more important, some of them dealt with the over-all inflationary situation. The Prime Minister has also taken part in such meetings. We hope that at meetings of this kind some suggestions will be made to deal with the problem.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: In view of the importance of the adoption of the principle of public interest, which he discounted yesterday, I should like to ask the minister whether he would give further particulars regarding the terms of reference that he discussed with the parties involved and give us some indication as to their reaction or any other particulars.


John Carr Munro: I think that the hon. member might agree that it is not particularly helpful, when you are discussing these matters, to come up with specific proposals before you have even had a chance to meet with the parties and obtain their views regarding how they wish to proceed. We have been criticized before, not only by some of the interested parties, but by the opposition, for totally undermining any meaningful consultations by coming to conclusions prior to consultations with the parties.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: My question is for the Minister of National Defence. On October 10 last year he announced a new budgeting scheme for the armed forces which would "allow for substantial increases in capital expenditures for badly needed new equipment". Could the minister advise the House as to the success of his announced program?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will realize that in the intervening period there have been vast increases in costs. Our main expenditures in national defence are in the categories of personnel, maintenance and operations, and new equipment. We have found it necessary to reduce the expenditures, or try to, in all three of these categories in order to stay within the budget.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Could the minister inform the House whether his budget is now in such disarray that he has ordered commanders in the field to cut their operational and maintenance budgets by 30 per cent or, alternatively, does he contemplate a further reduction in the strength of the forces?


James Armstrong Richardson: I have indicated that we have found it necessary to reduce expenditures in all categories. We are by no means in disarray. We are operating in an orderly way under difficult high cost conditions.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Bob Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, could the Minister of Agriculture please tell the House and the people of British Columbia who are currently paying not 84 cents but 94 cents a dozen for eggs, whether or not many of the supposedly rotten eggs shipped all the way from Newfoundland to British Columbia for final destruction were not actually rotten but rather many were in a whole and usable form and declared rotten or cracked in order to justify their destruction. Furthermore, in view of the fact that major plants processing raw eggs to powdered eggs were and continue to operate at less than 50 per cent capacity, is the minister prepared to purchase or subsidize the processing of current or future surpluses to ensure that this despicable waste does not continue to occur?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member is not aware of all the details regarding the shipment of those eggs. Some of the things he said would not have been said by him if he had been aware. The eggs shipped from Newfoundland were commercial eggs. They were transferred from 40 foot cars to 50 foot cars without government inspection. Then they were shipped for processing because I was told there were no eggs available for processing at the plants in western Canada. Why in the world did it take three weeks to ship eggs to British Columbia? In spite of this, some people are suggesting we should have shipped them to Austria. If it takes that long to reach western Canada, I do not know how in the world we could have shipped them overseas. I am sure the hon. member would not blame CEMA which does not set the price of eggs in British Columbia. It is the British Columbia egg marketing board which sets the price of their own eggs, as do the other provinces. CEMA has the obligation of taking surplus eggs from the provincial marketing boards. If the hon. member thinks that they are happy about the waste or that anyone else is happy about it, he is wrong. He should check the history of egg production and see how eggs were destroyed by farmers feeding them to their livestock. He should go back to 1971 and see what people did with eggs then.



REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE GRAIN IS MOVING FROM THE LAKEHEAD-AMOUNT OF DEMURRAGE CHARGES

Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: I should like to direct my question either to the Minister of Labour or the Minister of Transport. A report in the October 5 issue
October 4, 1974

Oral Questions HOUSING
of the Financial Post shows that 145 ships have waited for more than six weeks to be loaded with wheat, 75 million bushels of which are piled up at Thunder Bay contained in 4,000 railway cars. Can we be sure that at least grain from that port is moving at this time?


Jean Marchand: I think the hon. gentleman knows that there has been a strike in the great lakes area. I should like to know if he has a solution to that, other than getting the parties together and settling it.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Perhaps I misunderstood one of the ministers who spoke yesterday-that is quite easy sometimes-but is the strike at Thunder Bay and in the St. Lawrence area over and is the grain moving? One minister says it is not moving and he cannot do anything about it, he is paralysed, and the other minister says he is not paralysed and things are going ahead. Surely, we can get an answer.
Hor.. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour): Grain is moving out of Port Arthur.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I should like to ask one more question. When the bill is introduced on Monday, will the Minister of Labour presenting the bill be prepared to tell us how much the demurrage charges to the western farmers amount to because of the strikes which were allowed to drag on as a result of the paralysis of this government.


John Carr Munro: Without indicating any agreement with the excessive comment of the hon. member with respect to this matter, it seems that he wishes to discuss the bill next Monday. Perhaps he has come to a conclusion before the start of the discussions. I can certainly advise the hon. member that we are trying to get this whole grain matter resolved as quickly as possible.



MANPOWER


Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the unemployment in the lumber industry, particularly in British Columbia and Quebec with 11,000 workers laid off in British Columbia and 9,000 in Quebec, and in view of the depressed state of that market, will the Prime Minister advise if his government is considering increasing the allocation for the winter works capital fund this winter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, any announcement we make in that regard will be made to the House.



REQUEST FOR REDUCTION OF MORTGAGE INTEREST RATE TO STIMULATE CONSTRUCTION AND INCREASE EMPLOYMENT

Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs but I do not see him. Is the parliamentary secretary for the minister present? Anybody present? I will direct my question to the parliamentary secretary. In view of the fact that this depression in the lumber industry has been exacerbated by the state of the housing market where most of the domestic consumption of lumber takes place, will the parliamentary secretary advise if the interest rates being charged by Central Mortgage and Housing will now come down so that we can increase construction of houses in this country and get some of those people who have been laid off, back to work?


Mr. Pierre De Bane (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I will take the question of the hon. member as notice.



PUBLIC WORKS


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works.
I have no doubt that he feels concern over the problems of the riparian dwellers of the St. Lawrence River who see their properties worn away by erosion. Will the minister soon introduce amendments to modernize the eligibility standards thus allowing his department to intervene financially with a view to protecting properties on both shores of the St. Lawrence, building retaining walls and modernizing present wharves?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be pleased to consider the suggestion and act accordingly.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the hon. Minister of Labour. According to recent reports the assistant deputy minister of labour, Mr. William Kelley, in a speech to the Canadian Chamber of Commerce is supposed to have suggested that wage contract settlements should be concluded without final ratification by union membership. May I ask the minister if this is now government policy or is it going to be government policy and if not, would he take steps to have these nonsensical statements cease immediately?

October 4, 1974
Oral Questions
Hon John C. Munro (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member's conclusion would indicate that he did not read the speech in detail. If he would like to read it I will send it to him.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question for the minister and I wish to thank him for his reply. I will be glad to have a copy of the speech; however, all the newspapers cannot be wrong. May I ask if the assistant minister of labour was being used by the minister or the government to fly a kite?


John Carr Munro: No, Mr. Speaker.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. J. R. Holmes (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and is prompted by the recent report of the Food Prices Review Board from which I should like to quote one short statement: "The sugar situation is anything but encouraging." That is in the September report, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister, first, if he is in a position to present to this House his national sugar policy and second, what progress has he made on fulfilling his commitment to re-establish the sugar beet industry in southwestern Ontario?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, if the sugar beet industry had been re-established a year ago or even two years ago, I am sure the hon. member would agree that it would probably have paid for itself several times in view of the over 300 per cent increase in sugar price to which the consumers of Canada have been subjected to. We only supply 10 per cent or 11 per cent of our normal consumption of sugar from our own production. We are continually working on advancing a sugar policy and I am sure the hon. member realizes that this has international complications which have to be worked out. However, we are still working on it and as soon as possible I will be submitting a paper to my colleagues.



NATIONAL DEFENCE

[Stage Direction]
BASE FOR OVERHAUL AND REPAIR OF BOEING 707's AT WINNIPEG-DATE OF OPENING-SOURCE OF FUNDS FOR ESTABLISHMENT
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. Can the minister inform the House when the first of the military Boeing 707's is to receive the 10,000 hour overhaul at the Winnipeg air base?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, the commitment to have the 707's repaired in Winnipeg is being implemented and the per-

sonnel are being trained. I cannot give the date, but it will be early in 1975.


A. Daniel McKenzie: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Are funds from the DND budget to be used to establish and tool a Boeing overhaul base for CAE, and is there difficulty at the present time in securing the necessary funds?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, funds will be provided by the federal government, probably through the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. There may also be some assistance from National Defence because this is an undertaking of the government to help build a Boeing overhaul facility in Winnipeg.



HARBOURS


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I have had some difficulty deciding to whom I should address my question and perhaps you can help me. The Minister of State (Fisheries) or the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development might be able to answer because the question involves a marina on Saa-nichton Bay on an island near an Indian reserve. I believe the Minister of Fisheries is responsible for the marina policy. I should like to know from either minister if they would be prepared to tell the House what action either department took in having development of the marina suspended?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries)):: Mr. Speaker, I confess I have been cramming on every possible subject in expectation of a question, but that one escaped me. I will take this as notice and give the hon. gentleman an answer.



MONTREAL OLYMPICS, 1976-GOVERNMENT SUPPORT FOR FINANCING IN VIEW OF FAILURE TO CALL PUBLIC TENDERS

Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the city of Montreal voted itself the unprecedented right to spend Olympic funds without public tenders, could the Prime Minister advise this House if the government is going to continue to support the financing program for the Olympic games as authorized by Bill C-196 without first demanding public tenders on all Olympic expenditures as has been the case in all other Olympics and if so, could the Prime Minister justify that support?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the bill to which the hon. member refers was adopted with the support of all parties in the House. The bill is being applied. As to the particular jurisdiction of
October 4, 1974

the city of Montreal, that city does not operate under federal jurisdiction, Mr. Speaker.


Otto John Jelinek: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I was asking about the public tender part of the spending since the federal government is responsible for the whole financial program. May I ask if the Prime Minister intends to demand that public tenders be sought by the city of Montreal if this House is going to continue to support the program.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is misinformed. The federal government is not responsible for the overall financing of the games.



FISHERIES


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State (Fisheries). Following yesterday's exchange on Canada's position of extending its fishing limits, would the minister indicate if he supports the position of his predecessor, the Hon. Jack Davis, who repeatedly stated that if Canada did not succeed in getting acceptance of the continental shelf limit at the Law of the Sea Conference he would recommend unilateral action on Canada's part? Would the minister report if he has recommended to cabinet that Canada take such action?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, of course I share my predecessor's view on this. This is a very serious matter.
I do not share the hon. member's view that the conference failed. I believe there is still some important and difficult work to be done, and I am very hopeful about the extension of our fisheries jurisdiction. There has been extraordinary progress. Over 100 nations seem to have accepted this view. I remind hon. members that even unilateral action will not protect an important source of wealth in this country, salmon. We must be very careful when we assume that unilateral action would solve all our problems.


Jack Marshall: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I also hope that the conference will eventually succeed. In the meantime, while our fishing industry is deteriorating to the point of obliteration, is the minister consulting with the Minister of National Defence, to step up our capability for intercepting and observing foreign vessels which still come within our 12-mile limit, let alone our 3-mile limit.


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, we are engaged in constant talks with the Department of National Defence. I wish to underline the extraordinary useful role which it plays. I am thinking of the sort of case which was mentioned yesterday regarding the destruction of lobster gear on the east coast. I think that the defence
Oral Questions
department, considering the funds available, has been extremely helpful. We are working closely with it and will continue to do so.



MANPOWER


Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the allegations made respecting the Montreal Canada Manpower office, allegations which centre on the issuing of bogus work permits, will the minister make full disclosure of this matter which is presently under investigation in the same way as the Minister of Transport said he would make disclosure some time ago. As the minister's department is investigating its own affairs, in order to remove any doubt, will he undertake to make full disclosure once the probe has been completed?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, from time to time allegations of this nature arise and are made, and the only responsible course, before making a decision, is to see whether they are based on fact. Right now a preliminary investigation is being conducted by people in whose objectivity I have total faith. There will not be any cover up in that probe. If there is a prima facie case indicating irregularities, we shall proceed to a more formal investigation. The result flowing from that will be this: we shall want to make sure that this is not done again. I would tend to be prepared to disclose totally what this investigation will bring forward, but I want the opportunity of seeing it myself. I do not want to see people maligned. I hope hon. members will share that view. I do not want them maligned, for obvious reasons, namely, that some of these allegations may not be based on any foundation.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I thank the minister for his answer. Can the minister say whether any employees of the Montreal office have been either dismissed or suspended because of the probe now taking place?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the preliminary investigation is underway. I think that speaking in detail about the investigation before I have received a report on it would be premature.



POSSIBLE CHANGE IN REGULATIONS COVERING ISSUANCE OF WORK PERMITS

Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister intend to change the regulations with regard to the issuance of work permits so that they may be issued in the country of origin rather than in Canada?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge
126

October 4, 1974
The Address-Mr. MacKay
that matter is not, in those precise terms, under consideration.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, October 3, consideration of the motion of Mr. Louis Duclos for an address to His Excellency the Administrator of the Government of Canada in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Stanfield (P- 42).
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my first words are directed to you. I thank you for the consideration you have shown us so far, express my personal confidence in your ability, integrity and fairness, and look forward, as I am sure other hon. members do, to your presiding over this thirtieth parliament. May I also say, for the record, that it is always pleasant to see former colleagues returned to this chamber and to meet new members. I note particularly that all those who came to this chamber after the by-elections of 1971 have been returned. Perhaps now that we have been involved in three elections in a little over three years, we can settle down and concentrate on our parliamentary duties, secure in our new and longer tenure of office.
Before dealing with transportation, may I congratulate the Minister of State (Mr. LeBlanc) responsible for fisheries on his new appointment. We in Atlantic Canada recognize the importance of his portfolio, which will place great strain upon him. If he does not produce results, if conditions do not improve for the fishing industry in Atlantic Canada, he will run into difficulty in four years or whenever the next election is called. As time goes by, I hope his ministry will gain more status. It should not be subordinate to or associated with any other ministry. At present it is connected closely with the Department of the Environment. In some ways that may be desirable. Still, let us keep in mind the importance of our marine resources. This is why I suggest that the status of the minister's portfolio should be upgraded and I hope it will be.
May I say a word about regional economic development, a subject which has interested me since I was first elected. I hope the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson) will initiate programs, perhaps in conjunction with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) or the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie), for developing further the coal industry of eastern Canada. Such development is necessary, keeping in mind the increased price of fuels, including fossil fuel, in this country. The minister might consider what has happened to Devco. Let him take advantage of the expertise of this Crown corporation, learn from its mistakes and apply his knowledge to other parts of eastern Canada.
This country is blessed with great resources and a variety of talent. We have our folk heroes, entertainers and other performers. Sometimes I think we could include the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) in their number. Recently, I understand, he saw himself portrayed in a play

which depicted many of the things which happened to him before he was elected to this House. When I think of the minister I think of another great Canadian performer, Gordon Lightfoot, who sings a popular song which may have been dedicated to the minister. It is entitled "The Canadian Railroad Trilogy" and begins something like this, "There was a time in this great land when the railroads did not run." In recent times it has been my impression that history is repeating itself. The Minister of Transport spoke extensively in this debate about the railways. I am glad that for the moment he does not want to create a corporation which will take over rail passenger transportation in this country. He wants to give the railways a chance to co-operate with the government and address themselves to the difficult problem of passenger transportation. I commend the minister on that position and wish him well.
It is incumbent upon the minister, in working out any new policy affecting transportation, to establish guidelines which will affect the Canadian Transport Commission and its influence on the minister in the discharge of his responsibilities. The minister has said he will be bringing forward new legislation in this field. I welcome this, but I think it is worth reminding hon. members of the House that this is not the first time a minister of transport has made a specific commitment to change the legislative intent and effect of transportation in this country. I refer to page 808 of Hansard for March 14, 1972, when the then minister of transport said:
I agree with the claim that a reorganized structure is necessary in order that member and the country generally can obtain more information, and obtain it more easily, about all aspects of transportation.
That passage has a familiar ring.
With this objective in mind, I propose to bring before the House in the next session three important pieces of legislation on which work is proceeding at the present time. The first of those is a bill designed to reconstitute Air Canada as a separate Crown corporation, thus divorcing it, as it were, from the CNR. I will also introduce a Canadian National Railways revision act and a companion piece of legislation covering amendments to the Railway Act. Hon. members will know how involved and far reaching these changes are; they have been asking for them for the last two or three years.
When one considers the record in this respect it tends to make one a little cynical. I hope the present Minister of Transport will now address himself to the need which has been expressed in this chamber so many times by so many members.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I also hope-this is very timely in view of questions asked this morning-that the minister will do something else that has been urged by many members, particularly by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall), that is, set up a truly independent accident investigation body which will clear the air for all time of the well-founded suspicion that sometimes the Department of Transport is investigating itself. This type of thinking should be done away with and such a commission of investigation established.
Yesterday the Minister of Transport was so well informed and clairvoyant that he was able to say, even
October 4, 1974

before I put a question to him about STOL, that Mr. Sinclair was wrong. The minister stated unequivocally that Mr. Sinclair was wrong, but left it at that. Despite his statement that he would disclose information, he would not indicate in what respects or by how much Mr. Sinclair was wrong. The fact is that there appears to be a discrepancy in the calculations on the cost of the STOL program, a discrepancy of approximately $130 million between the calculations of the government and certain private interests.
Considering the magnitude of this discrepancy, the government ought to clarify these matters immediately and specifically, particularly when the passenger train subsidy for the whole of Canada in a fiscal year is approximately $140 million. It also appears that the past president of Canadian National Railways, Mr. MacMillan, had very serious doubts about the cost efficiency of this STOL program and whether it was in fact the best way to move passengers between large cities. Mr. Sinclair of CP stated that his calculations were based on, among other things, the cost of construction of airports, pilot training facilities, six Twin Otter Aircraft purchased, the construction of access routes to the airports, and navigational systems installed, all of which appear to be a reasonable basis for his calculations.
As a last word on this subject, I did a little checking. It appears the cost of one-way flight by STOL from Ottawa to Montreal is $20. When travelling by Air Canada, our large modern air carrier, or CP air-that bastion of private enterprise-it costs $13 on Saturdays and Sundays, and $18 on week days. So STOL is expensive. I have reason to believe a great deal of the passenger traffic flying between the STOL ports in Ottawa and Montreal is made up of cabinet ministers, colleagues and civil servants. It appears that the STOL program is being used extensively by government employees, at government expense. It is being subsidized with civil servants. I wonder if that is the purpose for which STOL was established. I leave that point for hon. members to consider.
I wish now to say a few words on a topic respecting which I recently addressed a question to the minister. I will not touch upon it in any great detail because it is to some extent sub judice. It involves an inquiry presided over by Mr. Bruno Desjardins, a Montreal barrister whom I understand has some nautical experience. The inquiry concerns the action of the Laurentian Pilotage Authority which, pursuant to subsection 14(3) of the Pilotage Act, decided to make an amendment to the Laurentian Pilotage Authority's regulations. Pursuant to this course of action, notice of which was published in the May 18 issue of the Canada Gazette, the Minister of Transport very properly commissioned an inquiry under Mr. Desjardins.
Although I do not want to prejudge the situation in any way, I wish to put on record some reservations about the terms of reference of this inquiry. They seem to be a little unusual, at least according to the traditional concepts of natural justice. Some of the conditions are as follows:
The investigation shall be conducted in as thorough and complete a manner as the circumstances of the case require.
That is good. The next one reads:
The investigation shall not be subject to the customary rules of evidence nor need evidence be taken under oath.
The Address-Mr. MacKay
I object to that very strongly.
The investigation shall not be conducted by means of public hearings but, on the contrary, through the investigation and examination of those persons whom the said investigator deems possessed of evidence relevant to the subject matter and whose evidence should be examined in the public interest.
This provision prevents one party knowing what the other's position is and having the right of rebuttal. As far as I am concerned, the only issue in the Laurentian Pilotage matter is whether this change, which disrupts long standing procedure, is in the interests of safety and effec-iency and whether it is good for shipping in that particular region of the country. I do not think it is helpful to bring in questions involving language or other social consideration. Because I have noticed in the French press words which indicate that I may be against bilingualism, I want to put on record the fact that I am very concerned that any unilingual Canadian may be deprived of earning his livelihood by reason of language qualifications, unless there are very unusual circumstances which can be justified as being of national importance such as our transportation system being improved, safety reasons, or things of that nature. Any other considerations which are regressive and counterproductive of this very worth while bilingualism program may be interpreted as being in the selfish interests of a particular group.
In his speech yesterday the minister said there will be more disclosure. I think he was referring specifically to the railways when he said that. If he is serious-and I hope he is-he should begin by permitting the Auditor General, or some other independent person of his stature, to look at some of the Crown corporations and public utilities generally whose accounts are not examined. For example, there is Air Canada, the Bank of Canada, Canadian National Railways, Canadian National Railways Securities Trust, the Canadian Wheat Board, the Cape Breton Development Corporation, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and the Industrial Development Bank. It would be very useful if someone of the stature of the Auditor General took an independent look at the internal financial procedures of these Crown corporations.
Also, as we discovered in the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, it is not permitted to ask, as I did when checking on the qualifications of some of the directors of Air Canada and the CN, questions relating to their tenure of office, their salaries, by whom they were appointed, their specific responsibilities, and so on. Questions of this kind are not permitted and need not be answered. However, I believe there is no reason the public of Canada should not be told a little more about the executives who run their Crown corporations.
There is another matter which concerns me-an issue which has to some extent been neglected or perhaps even forgotten. It concerns the well-being of thousands of people in this country. What is the real status of insurance policies covering air passengers in Canada? Are these passengers as well protected as they believe themselves to be when they board aircraft operated by one of our national carriers? When one looks into the details of some of these insurance cases, one cannot avoid speculating on the trouble and difficulty to which bereaved people have been
28305-O1/)

October 4, 1974
The Address-Mr. MacKay
put when they have tried to collect the benefits which they believed would be paid to them as a matter of course.
Again, in the standing committee I tried to learn a little more about the particulars of this type of insurance, but I did not make much progress in my questioning of Mr. Pratte on this subject; and I do not blame him because I realize he was not prepared to give me this type of information. However, I asked him the following question specifically:
From the point of view of the travelling public and for their information, is it fair to say that the amount of insurance, whatever it is, is not necessarily theirs, or their estate's, as a matter of right, and each individual case must be looked at? In other words, if a person's status is such that he has no dependants, or that he is no great loss in the eyes of the law because he has no young children, or no widow, or he is an old man, a young person, or what have you, it does not necessarily follow that they get that courage. And they have to prove it in each case.
I have the view that the airlines have introduced a class or type of coverage which places the onus of proof on the bereaved family. The legal expenses and other complications involved in this procedure involving burden of proof make the insurance coverage of far less benefit than is generally believed by those covered by these policies. Mr. Pratte said to me at the time:
I am sorry. I should know the answer but I do not. I will provide you with the information.
Again, I do not wish to be unfair to Mr. Pratte, for whom I have great regard, but I have not yet received that information. When I asked him a little later about the insurance payment which Air Canada was due to receive after an incident in Toronto in which one of the planes was burnt because of a fuel spillage, Mr. Pratte informed me that the corporation had already been paid. He mentioned that payment had been made within 48 hours, or something like that, and another Air Canada witness, Mr. Cochrane I think it was, said, "Yes, 24 hours."
I commend Air Canada for having taken out coverage of that type for their aircraft, but I should like the Minister of Transport to find out whether he can obtain similar protection for the people who use Air Canada aircraft and for those who use aircraft generally in this country. I do not wish to leave the impression that I am questioning everything the Minister of Transport proposes to bring before us. That is not the case. I do not know the Minister of Transport especially well, but I have great respect for his ability and I think he definitely has the capacity to do great things for Canadian transportation. However, this remains to be proved, just as the Speech from the Throne remains to be proved. It reads well. It is full of platitudes and good wishes, and it is difficult to criticize good wishes.
-Those less kind than I might describe the Speech from the Throne as a manifestation of one of the greatest political con jobs in this country, but I do not think that type of comment is necessary at this time. As the session progresses, though, if we are not presented with a solid legislative program and a definite commitment on the part of the government to implement some of its policies, no one will be able to criticize members on this side for making that type of comment. By the same token, without wishing to exaggerate the importance of the matter, and in the interest of harmony in this place, I should like to say a few words about a remark made yesterday by the hon.

member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) concerning my right hon. friend from Prince Albert.
I do not have Hansard before me, and I do not wish to misquote the hon. member, but it seems to me he said yesterday that my right hon. friend, our former prime minister, did not say very much in the course of his speech. That may, of course, be his opinion, but it is not shared by many. What bothered me was the fact that he went on to say something like this, "When he leaves this place we shall probably save about four days every session." I hope the hon. member for Vaudreuil will not be insulted if I say that when members like he and I leave this place, it is probable that not many people will take account of our going, or perhaps notice, but when the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) leaves this place it will be an occasion for mourning and great sadness across the nation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I shall be very surprised if in the next generation Canada is fortunate enough to have a parliamentarian of his ability, his spirit and his devotion to Canada. I urge the hon. member for Vaudreuil to clarify his remarks, because I thought they were unkind, uncouth and uncalled for.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Cheap.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: While we are talking about possible reforms in this place in the context of the Speech from the Throne I would urge the government, the Commissioners of Internal Economy and all those who have anything to do with providing facilities for members of parliament and for others, to take a look at the type of benefits and facilities which are made available to former prime ministers. Former prime ministers are a rare breed and they have usually devoted the whole of their lives to the service of their country. It seems to me, therefore, it is time we determined whether they have received sufficient recognition when eventually they cease their work in parliament.
The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) just mentioned the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). I would remind hon. members opposite that some day they may be in a similar position to the one in which I find myself today, making a request for some increased respect and recognition in the case of a man who presumably-


Mr. MacFarlane:: You must expect him to live as long as Diefenbaker.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Well, I would not want to go on record as saying he should live any shorter life than the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert. It seems to me that if the government were really sincere about making parliament a better place in which to serve Canada, they should not be too quick to bring forward ill-conceived reforms. Those which have been brought in since the present Prime Minister took office have not, I think, worked out as well as some had hoped. There was an editorial in the Globe and Mail today suggesting that perhaps the government should start at home, as it were, by instructing ministers of the Crown to be a little more honest and forthright in their
October 4, 1974

answers to questions. I think that would go a long way toward expediting business through this chamber.
I suggest that when the government does make up its mind that it is concerned about matters of practical significance to this country, such as labour-management relations and making productivity as important a factor in labour-management negotiations as it is possible to do so under the circumstances, and makes an earnest effort to deal with the economic problems besetting this country, instead of concerning itself with esoteric affairs like constitutional reform and questions of that type-important though they may be under some circumstances-then the country will be much better off and there will be much less dissatisfaction on the part of the Canadian public with the performance of the government and members of parliament generally.
I urge the government, through you, Mr. Speaker, to devote its main thrust to finding practical solutions to the problems besetting this nation. If the government does this and demonstrates that it is doing it in good faith, it will certainly have no difficulty obtaining support and co-operation from members like myself in the official opposition.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: October 4, 1974
The Address-Mr. Ouellet
member for Saint-Hyacinthe must have a very well-defined position on this matter.
I dare believe that he was thinking about something else when the Prime Minister was talking about what is most important, most basic for any member from Quebec who wants to promote national unity in this country. I was very happy, Mr. Speaker, about several aspects of the Speech from the Throne. First, it gives a significant role to the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs during the next few months, during this session. The Speech from the Throne meets squarely a serious and weighty problem which now faces Canada, the problem of inflation. The Speech from the Throne and the remarks of the Prime Minister show that the government, in cooperation with all members of parliament, clearly intend to amend and improve parliamentary procedure so that bills may be passed more easily, which would enable us to act much more quickly to bring in the legislation required to govern this nation ably. I would be remiss if I did not express first of all what I feel about taking over my new responsibility as Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
I intend to speak not only in the House but also in the public forum with all possible strength, determination and haste in favour of the Canadian consumers.
Some will say that it is practically impossible for a minister to be at the same time the minister responsible for both Consumer Affairs and Corporate Affairs. I should like to correct immediately any misunderstanding about that view.
It is clear that such a statement shows a lack of understanding of the kind and scope of responsibilities coming under the jurisdiction of my department.
In a way, the Bureau of Corporate Affairs is not the spokesman for a client which would be the businessman. It is rather an organization responsible for the orderly conduct of business in Canada in the field of corporations, bankruptcies and investment markets. While seeing that the law is complied with in those fields and while developing projects to update the legislation, the Bureau is acting in the interests of the public, the shareholders, the creditors and debtors. I can see no conflict whatsoever as regards my responsibility towards the consumers.
Needless to say, the same can be said of the competition policy office for the application of the Combines investigation Act, striving for free and effective competition on the marketplace. I see this as the best way of protecting the interests of the consumer. I am convinced that the distribution and redistribution of resources according to the needs and fancies of the consumers can best be achieved by not restricting the dynamics of our current market system.
I think that an effective market based on freedom and common knowledge on the part of both consumers and producers is the best guarantee that the needs of consumers are met.
My department is thought to be the department of consumers, and that is good. But it could also be referred to as the department of the law of economics or of free trade. These are two different ways of describing one desirable reality which we all seek.

I will now take the liberty of drawing a parallel regarding the role of my department on what is justly considered the most serious problem facing this country, I mean inflation.
We are not on the forefront of the fight against inflation. Within the federal government, that responsibility lies with my hon. colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), the main advisor on the effects of handling various areas of macro-economic policy.
The Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs however, often viewed as the ministry of micro-economics, has an important support role. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that my department will actively pursue that role within the government's overall commitment to fight the causes and effects of inflation. And I will see to it, within my responsibilities as Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, that such complementary effort is made in order that within the framework of overall measures taken by the Canadian government, inflation may be more efficiently tackled.
Mr. Speaker, in order to overcome inflation every sector in our society will have to exercise restraint. The government undertakes to establish limits and priorities in its own spending. It invites all the other levels of government to do likewise. It is also imperative that industry as well as unions attempt to co-ordinate their respective requirements in order to insure good balance in salaries, prices and profits.
Consumers can also do their share by shopping wisely and by taking measures to conserve certain commodities such as oil and gas which are in limited supply.
In the fight against inflation, the government has three objectives which I support thoroughly. I shall be able to say more about them at two o'clock, Mr. Speaker.

At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, when I was interrupted at one o'clock, I was saying that in its fight against inflation, the government is aiming at three objectives: to increase the supply of goods and services, to protect those who are badly hit by inflation and finally to take the necessary steps to discourage unreasonable increases in incomes, prices and profits.
It is clear that the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs can do something there. Our main programs that can help to fight inflation are those related to the Competition Act and those designed to assist consumers.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, the government intends to overhaul completely the Combines Investigation Act through a legislative procedure divided in two stages, because it is obvious that the present legislation is not an entirely effective tool in 1974. I tabled Bill C-2 last Wednesday. It is the fourth time that a minister has

introduced such a bill in the House. I think this legislation is long overdue. It is essential that it be given swift consideration and passage by hon. members, for it is greatly needed. Its goals are very simple. What we are trying to achieve by amending this act is firstly to encourage fair competition between companies and, secondly, to give consumers better protection against reprehensible trade practices. In fact, Mr. Speaker, those amendments to the restrictive trade practices legislation have already passed the first and second reading stage in the last session.
Since I have reintroduced this bill without any new amendment last Wednesday, I hope hon. members will co-operate and give this bill second reading as soon as possible so it may be referred to committee.
I have already announced, and I say it again to the House, that it is my intention to introduce as soon as possible at the committee stage important amendments that will further clarify the scope of the bill. I think that several briefs were submitted to the parliamentary committee during the last session. Those were useful briefs that will be considered, but I want to say again and again very clearly that some action is required in this area, for the Canadian public is increasingly suspicious, for good reason perhaps, of the mechanics of competition in this economic world where big corporations sometimes get, in the mind of the public, too big a piece of the cake.
And I think that if nothing is done, we may slowly lose our free enterprise system as we know it, through our own inaction, because the public will expect more direct action from governments. When seen in its true light, the right of competition therefore is not government intervention in the field of industry and business but rather a safeguard against such action.
Mr. Speaker, while I must insist on the importance of bringing the legislation on competition up to date, I would not want to leave the impression that this act is now being administered inefficiently. We know that the director, under the law, must initiate inquiries when he has reason to believe that the law has been broken. Few of these inquiries are known to the public, because their confidential nature must be ensured. In a way, I regret it because the public would be able to see that in the Consumer and Corporate Affairs Department there are people working to protect their interests.
Without giving too many details on these inquiries, I can assure the House that many investigations are now under way and we are doing our best so that the Combines Investigation Act is respected. Some investigations, of course, are a better known to the public because there have been leaks and we are already in court. I am thinking of the investigations concerning oil and sugar. Mr. Speaker, three big sugar refineries were brought to court having been accused of conspiring to fix the price of sugar and to prevent free competition in this area. This case is now before the courts and, therefore, I cannot say much more about it. I regret it as there is much I would like to say. I think it essential that the investigation process, followed by the legal process, follow its course in Canada. If I have a wish, it is this one; that judges be more conscious of the importance, when it is appropriate and necessary, of handing down even stiffer sentences than in the past. I am
The Address-Mr. Ouellet
happy that in many cases the judges have imposed exemplary fines.
In too many cases, however, the fines imposed were unfortunately not those I would have handed down had I been the judge. And I will go even further. In some cases in the United States, the courts did not hesitate to jail the directors or executives of some companies. If there are cases now in Canada which justify such sentences, I trust the authorities will have the courage to send to prison those who deserve it. I should like to deal briefly with some of the measures I intend to introduce to the House in the next few weeks, measures designed to ensure the consumer greater protection and more information. I intend to take several new steps in the field of consumer credit. I shall bring before the House a bill to amend section 6 of the Interest Act with a view to forcing lenders to specify clearly their true rate of interest and imposing a uniform base for the calculation of interest rates.
Secondly, still in the field of consumer credit, I intend to bring forward soon a bill to amend the Small Loans Act. Thirdly, I am contemplating a complete revision of the Interest Act, especially with a view to ensuring a uniform method of disclosure applicable to all lenders for the protection of borrowers.
I think it is essential that Canadians become more and more aware of my department as a useful instrument of protection and information to the consumer. To this end, we have set up regional offices in Halifax, Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg and Vancouver. We also have district offices and we intend to open more in order to better serve the Canadian consumers. We shall also open several consumer storefront offices providing various community services especially to underprivileged consumers, such as low-income families, older people or new immigrants.
I think it is essential that we go ahead in this field to open about twenty of those consumer information services across the country during the present fiscal year. And that work will be done in co-operation with voluntary organizations that already exist in several cities in Canada.
Of course there will be budgetary limitations but as we will try to expand and improve our services as much as possible so they will be available to the consumers in the various areas of Canada.
Finally, non-profitable organizations, community services certainly already play an important role that we want to support. My department will try and give as many grants as possible to encourage them to continue to play their role to provide better protection for the consumer.
Time is running and I will soon have to conclude my remarks. I would also like to talk about an extremely important organization which has made the headlines in recent weeks, the Food Prices Review Board and its role.
However important all the steps I mentioned earlier to protect and inform consumers, as well as the instruments available to me to fulfill adequately my task as minister, I am fully aware that although I am well supported by the Canadian Consumer Council, the Consumer Research Council, voluntary groups, or the many pieces of legislation we intend to introduce in this House, a basic fact remains-Canadians are still greatly concerned about the question of price increases.

October 4, 1974
The Address-Mr. Ouellet
So it is extremely important that we deal efficiently with the rate of inflation. And to do that we need to know better the reasons for price increases, and whether they are warranted. That is why I was happy to see in the Speech from the Throne that the terms of the Food Prices Review Board will be extended until the end of 1975.
I think that board plays a very significant role. I want to pay tribute here to the chairman of that board and its members for the impartial and consistent manner in which they conducted their surveys and for all the recommendations they made.
All we need to do is take a look at an article in this week's Citizen to find to what extent more adequate information given the public will directly influence Canadian firms that otherwise might be led to exaggerate and abuse the situation in this climate of steadily rising inflation, in order to unduly boost their prices. We have found surprising results following the publication of weekly bulletins by the Food Prices Review Board: food prices in the Ottawa area supermarkets have been lowered. Suddenly, people have come to realize this and I quote this article from the Citizen which states:
However, an IGA store on Tache Boulevard in Hull has managed to slash its price index by 9.8 per cent from last week.
This week's index indicates that most stores have again lowered prices marginally, a couple a good deal.


An hon. Member:: For how long?


Mr. McGrath:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


André Ouellet: Yes, Mr. Speaker, at the end of my speech I will be delighted to answer a question.

Mr. Speaker, this proves that such a body can play an efficient and important role. I hope this investigation will not be limited to the Ottawa area only, but that it will be conducted throughout Canada, because I feel that the better informed consumers are and the more business and private enterprise people realize they are being watched, the better market and competition we shall have in Canada.
I wish to complete my remarks by saying that a great many measures remain to be adopted to better protect consumers. The Speech from the Throne dealt with reforms aimed at accelerating parliamentary proceedings. Notwithstanding these reforms, I urge all hon. members to co-operate closely with my department when it introduces measures during the next few months, because the better acts we have, the better protected Canadian consumers will be.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) wishes to ask a question of the minister. The time of the minister has just expired, so the hon. member may ask a question only by unanimous consent. Is it agreed that the question be allowed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, the minister did not refer to the need for consumer representation on marketing boards, notwithstanding the announcement made by his colleague the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) yesterday. He did not refer, either, to the report of Professor Forbes which was commissioned by his department, although it was made to the Consumer Advisory Council. That report has been in his possession since May at the very latest. What recommendations has the minister made to his cabinet colleagues, and what steps has he taken to implement the major recommendations of that study?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, it is merely because I was too pressed for time that I was not able to deal with all the important subjects I wished to deal with today. I can say to the hon. member that I am extremely happy that the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) announced last evening, during his speech in this House, that there would be an important representation of consumers on the National Farm Products Marketing Council.
As a matter of fact, I had asked that consumers be represented. It seems there will be three new representatives of the general public on the marketing boards. I think that is of the utmost importance because one must never forget that it is essential, whatever the responsabili-ty of an organization may be, whether the agency controls the marketing of eggs or any other product, whenever an organization is granted almost absolute powers, it is essential, I repeat, for members of that body to be conscious of the public interest and to be more concerned with the interests of the general public than with those of a particular group, especially when an organization is being given almost absolute powers.
I believe that such a representation of the public, of consumers, of businessmen, of labour in that organization will take care of that situation and enable that body to be more accountable to the public.
As regards the last part of the question of the hon. member, concerning the Forbes report, I must say that I have just received it. I asked the Council that does research in the field of consumer affairs to let me have officially its views on that report. I know that the hon. member seems to have received a copy of it. I am told that he did indeed but that it is not on official copy. I will be pleased to make that report public sometime next week. The document will then be official and I will be in a position to talk about it in due course and at length, which is not the case this afternoon.


John Douglas Reynolds: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate you and to tell you, on behalf of my constituents in the Burnaby-Richmond-Delta riding, how pleased we are to see you and your deputies hold your respective parts.


Some hon. Members:: More.


John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, members across the floor are asking me to speak more French. I am saving it for later. Next week I will begin taking French lessons. In
October 4, 1974

case hon. members opposite do not know this, I lived the first half of my life, the first 16 years, in Quebec. I am proud to say this. When I left that province I was bilingual. However, after living in British Columbia for 16 years I do not remember much of my French. We really do not have a second language in my province; we speak only one language. It will be a privilege to begin taking French lessons next week. I hope that within one year I will be able to stand in this House and deliver a speech in French.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Douglas Reynolds: It is a great attribute for one to speak two languages, be they French and English or, as one sees in Europe, French and German.


Mr. Paproski:: Or Ukrainian.


John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, as you know, our deputy whip comes from Edmonton. My first two children were born in Edmonton, so I can understand why he wants to include Ukrainian. My riding of Burnaby-Richmond-Delta has the largest population of any riding in western Canada. I represent a large number of people of German descent. Ten per cent of the people of British Columbia are of German descent; they make up the largest minority group. The next largest group in my province consists of Dutch people. There are also large numbers of Chinese in Vancouver and in the rest of the province.
Language should not be an issue at election time, but that is one of the first things I shall talk about today because the subject came up more than once in my riding during the last election campaign-and not because I brought it up. This member supported bilingualism when first he was elected to this House in 1972. I think the previous sitting Liberal member was not as strongly in support of bilingualism as I was. In the last election campaign some things happened across the country which bothered me. Why did the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) allow his advertising people to put up, in his own province, billboards which said "Monsieur Trudeau or Mr. Stanfield"? What kind of prime minister would allow that kind of advertisement in his own province when he expects us all in this country to support bilingualism? it should not have been allowed; the Prime Minister himself should not have allowed it to happen.
The Prime Minister came to my riding. As an aside, may I mention that the former parliamentary leader of the New Democratic Party came to my riding. He spoke on behalf of his party and tried to convince the people of my riding not to re-elect me. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) also came to my riding and was made welcome by the people, as was the minister responsible for DREE. The result was interesting. In 1972 I won about 34 per cent of the vote and squeaked in. In the last election I received 58 per cent of the vote and won with the largest majority. I hope the ministers come back to my riding in the next election. If they had visited a few more ridings in Ontario, they might have changed the results of the last election.
I want to talk about the Prime Minister coming to my riding and standing in a shopping centre in front of approximately 2,500 people. He came in his usual manner. I give credit to the Prime Minister. He is one of the
The Address-Mr. Reynolds
greatest debaters Canada has ever had. He has charm, he has charisma. In the last election more people preferred to have him as Prime Minister. I accept that. I accepted his coming to my riding and telling people, "Ask where John Reynolds stands on wage and price controls." I supported my leader on that issue. I still do. I think such controls would be good for this country. Then he said, "Ask John Reynolds where he stands on bilingualism." The inference, according to a press report, was that I was not in favour of bilingualism and that I had not voted for it in this House. That was a low thing to do, a cheap shot for him to take. He should not have done it. I do not know why he would want to bring up that subject in western Canada. Bilingualism was not the issue in western Canada in the last election. The state of our economy was the issue, and leadership.


An hon. Member:: May I ask a question?


John Douglas Reynolds: If the hon. member will ask his question when I have finished, I will be glad to answer it. I was also bothered by the Saskatchewan Liberal Party displaying an advertisement which depicted chickens being burned. The ad said this was being done in the United States because of the price freeze. But the truth was that the chickens shown in the ad had been burned in Canada because they were diseased. I raise this matter because the Prime Minister's actions in the election with regard to the language issue made me mad. People in my riding said to me, "We did not think you had voted against the language bill; we thought you were in favour of bilingualism in Canada." I am. That is one program which we need in this country. If we are ever to solve the problem of bilingualism, the Prime Minister and all members of this House should convince the premiers of this country that we had better teach French in the nine provinces which do not teach French from kindergarten on.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Douglas Reynolds: Otherwise, we will never solve the problem of bilingualism in this country. We will not solve it by doing what we are now trying to do. We are trying to work from the top down, and it is not working. We have Quebec bringing in Bill 22, which has angered the people of British Columbia. We are doing our best in British Columbia to teach our children French. We do not think the people of Quebec should know only French, in a North American society of 250 million English-speaking people. In Quebec, English should be taught in French schools starting at kindergarten. As federal politicians, it is our responsibility to start at the bottom in this respect: let us start teaching French in the schools where such teaching belongs, so that in ten or 15 years the question of bilingualism will never again be raised in the House of Commons.
I have a few more things to say about British Columbia. This morning I asked the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) why the British Columbia ferry system is not being subsidized by the federal government. The British Columbia ferry system is an extension of the Trans-Canada Highway. The Trans-Canada Highway Act says that the federal government will pay its fair share for the setting up of the Trans-Canada Highway and its maintenance. The minister said this was not being done because
134

October 4, 1974
The Address-Mr. Reynolds
such payment is made only where the highway system links two provinces. Mr. Speaker, the province of Ontario runs a ferry service on Lake Huron. The service is subsidized by the federal government.
For years, British Columbia has felt that it has paid more than its fair share to the Canadian economy. We are one of the "have" provinces and we do not mind paying more than our share. Also, we are the fastest-growing province. After arriving in British Columbia many of us do not like to leave, because the weather is better there than it is back east.
The Conservative and New Democratic Party members from the province of British Columbia had a meeting with the Premier of British Columbia a short two weeks ago. The Liberal members said they could not attend the first meeting. I will accept that. I am usually naive about these things. I hope they will come to the next meeting because the first one was very productive.
The premier provided us with figures which showed that Canadian National Railways is receiving great benefit from the federal treasury for its ferries. In 1973, CNR received $44.6 million to operate their ferries on the east coast of this country. British Columbia will lose $20 million in the operation of their ferry service this year. Much of that $20 million loss will be spent on servicing tourists coming into British Columbia. Tourism is our number one resource. The province fills up with tourists in the summer. Anyone who has been there and has tried to cross using the ferry system knows it takes a few hours to get to the island.
I keep raising the subject of the meeting the Conservative and NDP members had with the Premier of British Columbia. We feel the federal government should sit down with British Columbia to work out an agreement whereby the B.C. Trans-Canada Highway will really become part of the Trans-Canada Highway and be paid for by all the people of Canada.
Another topic discussed at that meeting with our premier, and quite an important one, involved the supertankers that will be coming down the west coast. All British Columbians are concerned about this. In the last session, all members of this House were concerned about it, because we passed a motion to tell the United States government we were concerned. The Premier of British Columbia sent a note to this government on March 13, 1973, with regard to a program called The Way Out. Everyone in my party does not necessarily agree with our premier that this is the best way to solve the supertanker problem, but it is certainly a way out over what we will have to put up with. At that meeting we were told the federal government had not replied to the premier's letter, and a follow-up letter was sent.
I think it is shameful that this government did not answer the provincial government on a matter as important as supertankers travelling down the coast of British Columbia. If I replied to letters from my constituents as fast as this government is replying to the province of British Columbia, I do not think I would have been re-elected.

I think these two matters point out one of the problems we face in British Columbia. We are a rich province, a "have" province. We have great lakes, great oceans, great weather and great people who come from all across Canada. It seems the federal government knows it is great there. They feel this is one part of the country they really do not have to bother too much about because it is so well off. However, the people of my province are frustrated by some of the federal programs. This is obvious by the number of people they have returned to this House. Some Liberals feel there has been an increase. I am certainly happy to see these Liberals here, because my philosophy is opposed to socialism. Any time eight Liberals beat eight NDP members, it makes me happy. However, those eight federal Liberals may not have come here had it not been for the fact the NDP are doing so well in British Columbia.
I want to talk a little about the British Columbia penitentiary. This is an area in which I have been quite interested since I became involved in politics. I visited that penitentiary some two weeks ago. We caused quite a stir by saying that we thought 20 pounds of heroin was missing. I would like to explain why we said we thought it was missing. In March of last year I put a question on the order paper of this House asking why a gentleman in British Columbia had charges against him dropped after he had been arrested with 20 pounds of heroin in his car. Where had that 20 pounds of heroin gone?
From March of last year until two weeks ago I could not get an answer from this government, even with repeated phone calls and questions on the order paper. On a regular visit to the penitentiary I talked to some heroin traffickers who had been on the street at the time of the arrest. They are now spending their days confined to the B.C. pen. They told me that quite often some of this evidence worked its way back out of the hold-up or was missing, and it was common practice for the drug squad to use heroin to get information from addicts. I indicated to reporters that possibly this was the reason the charges were stayed but I would not know until I got an answer. The commissioner of the RCMP could not get an answer that evening. The next morning he said, "Yes, we have the heroin." It seemed that the question was answered.
I still want to ask this government why the gentleman arrested was not charged, or the charges against him were dropped, and why they could not answer my question in all that time. Heroin creates a very serious problem in British Columbia. The majority of the inmates of the British Columbia penitentiary are there on drug or drug related charges. During the election I attended a seminar at the British Columbia penitentiary. I was the only member of parliament from British Columbia who took the time to attend. The police, heroin addicts, their friends and many others were there.
The police estimate that in the lower mainland alone there are 6,500 addicts and their habit costs them $325,000 a day. The addicts in the pen tell us that it is more like 15,000 addicts, at a cost of $1 million a day. The police do not deny this figure. They say their figures are accurate. The police know there are 6,500, but they do not deny there are as many as 15,000 addicts in the province of British Columbia.
October 4, 1974

My purpose in visiting the penitentiary was to gain information and to try to point out two things to this government and the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand). First, we must declare an all-out war on heroin traffickers because it is becoming an extremely serious problem in this country. People in the eastern part of the country do not realize this as much as we do in British Columbia, because the fact is that well in excess of 50 per cent of all heroin addicts are in the province of British Columbia and they are growing in number.
In our province 13 and 14-year old girls are prostituting themselves. Mr. Speaker, that is not an exaggeration; it is happening in our province. It is becoming a serious problem. We must declare war on this problem. We used the War Measures Act in the province of Quebec to quell the FLQ. The heroin problem in British Columbia is more serious than that was. It is undermining our whole system and society in that area. I ask that the Solicitor General consider setting up a board of inquiry to ascertain from the RCMP drug squad what weapons they need in their hands, how much money they need in order to stop heroin traffickers operating in this country and filling our jails.
During my trip to the B.C. pen I said that some RCMP officers are dealing in drugs. That is a fact. I was in no way trying to attack the RCMP. That is the fact and we have to live with it. The RCMP is so understaffed in respect of drug squad investigation that some members have become involved with the criminals and have been arrested and charged. They have their own system of security, and we are catching them. We shall not solve this problem until we increase the staff of the RCMP, improve their financial position and make a concerted effort to arrest the heroin traffickers.
Another purpose of the visit to the B.C. penitentiary was to discuss security both inside and outside the institution, since we had heard rumours from people working at the penitentiary, and from inmates out on weekend passes, that things were in bad shape. We found that the security staff of the penitentiary is set at a maximum of 147 men. The Department of the Solicitor General has approved in principle an increase to 170. This number, the warden told us, would be sufficient to ensure good security not only for the inmates but for the public. I then asked the warden how many men were on duty at that moment. He replied that a maximum number of 115 were available for duty at any one time. What is the sense, then, of increasing the maximum number of staff to 170 if you can only get 115 people to work at any one time?
About a year ago, the Solicitor General told the House that he would make sure there were guards in the four towers of the British Columbia penitentiary 24 hours a day to see that people were protected from escapees and to prevent the underworld sneaking up at night, and, among other things, throwing tennis balls over the walls as a means of delivering drugs, as has happened on a number of occasions. What did I find, Mr. Speaker? I found that between midnight and 8 a.m. there were only 12 men on duty for security purposes, in an institution which is overcrowded, with 500 people. I also found that there are no guards in the towers. The hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) was chastising me the other day for
The Address-Mr. Reynolds
giving out that kind of information, suggesting it could incite a riot. But the hon. lady must realize that the inmates already have information about these things. They know what is going on in every penitentiary every day of the week. They have a system which is better than our Post Office.


An hon. Member:: That would not be difficult.


John Douglas Reynolds: I was told that two weeks before my visit a cache of drugs had been left in the garden in front of the penitentiary. This is possible, because people can sneak up at night and leave things where inmates can recover them during the day. Along with this cache which, fortunately, was discovered by the guards was a note saying. "Sorry we did not have time to break this down into caps. Hope we shall do better next time." Not long ago another package was found buried in the garden. This time the drug had been broken down into caps and an accompanying note listed the names of the 12 men to whom it was to be delivered. That is certainly better service than I get from the Post Office.
This is a serious matter. People will ask, "What can we do about it?" One thing we could do would be to increase the salaries paid to guards in the penitentiary service. I ask any hon. member who has the time to do so to check these salaries. The starting salary of a guard in the British Columbia penitentiary is $7,522.89 a year. This represents a take-home pay of $205 every two weeks. In the province of British Columbia, in New Westminster where this prison is situated, a 2-bedroom apartment costs $285 a month to rent. How can we expect proper security inside our institutions if we fail to pay these people properly? It is a very tough job. I do not know anyone in this chamber who would want to do such a job. How can one expect morale to be high when the government is prepared to give grainworkers an increase of 61 per cent but will not give the prison guards 6 or 7 per cent?
The Solicitor General should be taking steps now to increase the salary level of these guards. I will give him credit in some areas but in others the bureaucracy in his department does not realize what it is doing. For example, it was decided to increase recreational facilities for the benefit of the inmates and provide better qualified people to instruct them. Four experts were hired for the B.C. penitentiary, each of them holding a degree in physical education. They are paid between $13,000 and $16,000 a year. These instructors took over from guards who were previously called recreation officers, guards who were making a maximum of $10,000, because that is the maximum salary payable after five years. To be more precise, after five years a guard can be making $10,269.
One can imagine the effect on the morale of these men when I say that the new employees had to keep one of the old guards back on the job because the experts did not know how to treat the inmates or how to get along with them. The thinking of the department was; We cannot increase the salary level of the officers, but we can set up a new classification and bring in new people. Perhaps this explains why, out of a total of 118 people available for duty at one time, 70 per cent have less than one year's service. What kind of help are we giving the men we are
28.305-1 OVi

October 4, 1974
The Address-Mr. Reynolds
supposed to be trying to rehabilitate? I say, none whatsoever.
I know the Solicitor General is a hard working man. He does his best. I have always tried to tell him in advance when I have questions for him, and he has always tried to answer those questions squarely and truthfully. I hope that in the next four years he will do something to improve the standard of pay and conditions for penitentiary staff so that an attempt can truly be made to rehabilitate inmates. I do not think anyone in a job of that type should be expected to live on take-home pay amounting to $205 every two weeks, particularly since staff working in the provincial jails and in the newly-created sheriff's department are paid more than that.
I should also like to say a word about the fishing industry. My riding includes two of the finest fishing areas in British Columbia. The Steveston harbour development has been before the government, and the cabinet has committed itself to go ahead. Then there is the Ladner harbour development. The latter proposal has been put in final form, but it has not yet been approved. I do have an assurance from the minister, however, that the project will go ahead. I wrote to the new minister congratulating him on his appointment, because ever since I came to this House I have been pressing for a separate minister responsible for fisheries. I asked him to visit my riding and tour both the harbours I have mentioned on a totally non-partisan basis, since it is my feeling that though there are Liberals on that side, and Conservatives or New Democrats or Creditistes on this side, we should nevertheless be able to work together for the benefit of our constituents. I hope the minister will accept the invitation to visit the fisheries in our part of Canada, together with myself and representatives of the fisheries unions.
I turn, now, to the subject of air routes. Situated in my riding is Canada's third largest airport, in addition to the headquarters for the second and third largest airlines in Canada-Canadian Pacific and Pacific Western airlines. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the government announced its intention to allocate new routes before parliament dissolved. During the period of dissolution a number of new routes were allocated and certain drastic changes were made. It had always been understood that Air Canada was allocated 80 per cent of the routes and Canadian Pacific 20 per cent. We shall not argue with that. The eastern and western United States are split between Air Canada, which has the east, and CP Air, which has the west. Air Canada serves most of Europe, while CP Air serves Hong Kong, Hawaii, and other routes in South America.
Under the allocation there were 17 routes; Air Canada was allocated 14, CP Air one, Nordair one, and Pacific Western Airlines one. I want to point out to the government what this means to my riding and to western Canada, but before I do so let me say that no member of this House has anything against Air Canada as a body. We support the fact that it is Canada's number one airline. I support it every Friday by going home to Vancouver on it, and I come back on Monday morning via CP Air. They are both fine airlines; both with excellent personnel.

However, in the move the government has made, CP Air is being undercut to quite an extent. I should like to explain why this is the case. Until this allocation, business in the United States went approximately 80 per cent to Air Canada and 20 per cent to CP Air; that is, business in terms of dollar volume. Under the new allocation, by allowing Air Canada to operate routes from Calgary and Edmonton to San Francisco and Los Angeles, in ten years CP Air will be down to 10 per cent of United States business while Air Canada will increase its share to 90 per cent. I think that is unfair to the people of western Canada, the travelling public, and unfair to CP Air.
If CP Air had been allowed to have those routes from Alberta, they would have been able to operate a triangular route. CP Air would fly from Calgary to San Francisco, then to Vancouver and back to Calgary, which is a very economical route. This would not lose Pacific Western Airlines much business because they already fly from Calgary and Edmonton to British Columbia. But instead, this route has been given to Air Canada. CP Air also fly to Los Angeles. Air Canada has always served Los Angeles from Toronto. Yet they still did not get an extension of that route. They can go to Calgary and Edmonton from Los Angeles, but they cannot go to Vancouver.
I suggest to the Minister of Transport that he should very seriously consider allowing Air Canada to fly from Los Angeles to Vancouver so they can fly a circular route from Toronto to the west. He should also give the other routes back to CP Air so they can fly a triangular route from Alberta. This would mean 1,200 jobs to western Canada which Air Canada cannot offer at the moment, and we could use those jobs in British Columbia. This problem concerns the people of my riding as well as all people in western Canada, so I ask the Minister of Transport to consider the matter very seriously.
Has my time expired yet, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member may proceed.


John Douglas Reynolds: I have one more issue I should like to raise, Mr. Speaker. It is one we talked about a great deal in the last session and involves the residents of Sea Island. I understand that some of the members of the Liberal Party from British Columbia had a meeting with the residents of Sea Island, in the municipality of Richmond, a few weeks ago when they held their B.C. caucus. The newspapers published an account of how they were going to solve the problem, that these residents had been badly done by, but they now had eight men and women in B.C. who were going to solve their problem.
The issue is a very simple one to solve. In Pickering there have been 2,000 individual expropriations. In Ste. Scholastique there have been 3,180 individual expropriations. In Sea Island there have been only 53. The people of that area are asking for $1.5 million more than the government has offered them, a figure that most private appraisers think fair. The government has already increased expenditure in Ste. Scholastique by $16 million, and have increased their expenditure in Pickering by $7 million. As I say, there are only 53 expropriations on Sea Island, and according to any private appraiser I have talked to, these people are not asking too much. I ask the government to give them this $1.5 million, which will allow them to buy
October 4, 1974

homes of comparable value to the ones expropriated. That is all that is needed to solve this problem, Mr. Speaker, not all the talk we have had for the last eight years. I hope Liberal members will live up to their commitment to solve this problem for the people of Sea Island.


Mr. Leonard C. Jones (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, I too wish to congratulate you on your elevation to the respected position that you hold. I am sure you will carry out your duties uprightly and impartially, with a sense of justice, equity and fair play.
As the only duly elected independent member of this session of parliament, I stand in a very unique position from other members of this House. As an independent member of parliament, elected as an independent, I will always have a free vote, not bound by party ties or party policies but bound by my conscience and the conscience of the public I represent, namely, my constituents in particular and the country generally.
I represent one of the most diversified constituencies in the nation. It is made up of the city of Moncton, humbly called the city at the centre, with a population of approximately 60,000 people; the town of Riverview, with a population of about 12,000 or 13,000 people; the town of Dieppe, with a population of about 6,500 people; the villages of Salisbury and Petitcodiac, and a vast rural area.
Moncton city itself is really the city at the centre. It is a centre in itself. For example, Moncton is a geographically and strategically located centre of the maritime provinces, a distribution centre, a transportation centre, a communications and telecommunications centre, an education centre, an industrial and economic centre, a financial centre and a tourist and convention centre. It is the hospitality centre of the maritime provinces, the home of the magnetic hill, of hard working, conscientious, energetic and industrious people, of fine schools and churches and of friendly and hospitable people.
Growth in the Moncton constituency is phenomenal. Traffic between my constituency and that of the city of Saint John is increasing steadily. I trust that the indication in the throne speech regarding transportation will mean, in co-operation with the province of New Brunswick, construction of a four-lane highway between these two growth centres, as well as improvement of urban transportation and other forms of transportation, so that national and regional transportation policies can and will be defined and implemented. Airline schedules and services in and out of my constituency are deplorable and must be improved.
The Department of Regional Economic Expansion recently assisted municipalities in the Moncton area in the preparation of the greater Moncton metropolitan plan, which affects every phase of the life of greater Monctoni-ans. Among other things, this plan provides for additional roadways, sewers, water, schools, rail line relocation, and so on. I trust that the appropriate departments of the federal government will continue to render and make available the necessary financial assistance required to implement this plan.
DREE assistance by way of infrastructure and incentive grants to industry has provided thousands of jobs in the greater Moncton area and is one program that should be
The Address-Mr. Jones
increased substantially in that area. The Department of Urban Affairs has already approved a study for the development of a downtown area in the city. It is hoped that this study will be completed soon and that all the appropriate departments of government will co-operate in every way, including offering financial assistance, in order to bring this and other plans to fruition as Moncton continues to grow and expand. There is need in the Moncton area for greater input of financial assistance for the acquisition of homes, whether they be new or old, whether they be for young or old, adults or senior citizens.
The rules, regulations and policies change so quickly that citizens have difficulty in making a decision in between changes. The policies and housing programs of CMHC must be limited to urban areas. Rural and suburban areas must be given the same opportunity.
Moncton is truly a growth centre and has proved itself beyond all doubt. In an endeavour to combat and beat inflation there is, inter alia, a need to increase production of goods and services including food, housing and other necessities. In doing so, however, there must be an effort to increase production of all human resources as well as natural resources. These include farming, fishing, forestry, mining and so on.
Incentives and encouragement should be given to young people to remain in or shift to farming, fishing and other primary resources. We need these young people in the primary as well as the secondary industries. I also suggest the government should make an effort to purchase goods made in Canada. It should encourage good quality production and good quality goods. A second look should be taken at the reduction of tariffs if this should result in unemployment for Canadians.
The history of the Moncton constituency points to ethnic backgrounds of French, German, Welsh, English, Scottish and so on. We cannot claim any distinct racial or so-called cultural origin. We should have become Monc-tonians, and in any event, Canadians. Many citizens in the Moncton constituency are concerned about the present method of implementing bilingualism. It has created a fear among them concerning their future welfare and that of their families. I have noticed the same situation here in Ottawa.
Public servants are just waiting for doomsday, the date of their retirement in the knowledge that their chances of promotion are practically nil. The merit system in fact is no longer in effect. Adult language educational programs in the government services and in Crown corporations just are not effective for the amount of money spent thereon. This is a perfect example of government waste and of an unjust society.
Problems of this kind usually are solved by educational means, not at the adult level but in the public schools throughout the country. It is time we took an example from other countries where barriers have arisen because of segregation. Presently there is a form of segregation or language bias in educational systems across the land. Because of this segregation a barrier automatically is set up.

October 4, 1974
The Address-Mr. Jones
It is my sincere belief that if Canada and Canadians are to be truly bilingual and if we believe in equal rights and opportunities for all, then all youngsters in this country must be educated together. If this country is to be truly bilingual, it is time both English and French were taught in our public schools on an integrated basis. This is not the first time I have said that.
Let all our children be educated together. Let them learn together, play together and work together. Then they will get along together. Then and only then will our children become true Canadians. If the consent of the provincial premiers is required, or if it should be necessary to amend the BNA Act in order to bring this into effect, then a serious attempt to do so must be started forthwith.
I am sometimes confused when people bring up the word culture when referring to language. The word culture is a misnomer in this regard. I think when I was at college we called it a red herring. What is culture? I do not think we can honestly look for a French-Canadian culture, an English-Canadian culture, a Scottish-Canadian culture, a Ukrainian-Canadian culture, a German-Canadian culture, a Welsh-Canadian culture, an Italian-Canadian culture, a Japanese-Canadian culture, a Chinese-Canadian culture, an Indian-Canadian culture or any other kind of hyphenated Canadian culture other than a true Canadian culture. If we think otherwise, we build a false culture, not a truly Canadian culture. Culture is what a person or one's family or friends want to make it.
We should face the facts. Barriers are a problem in Canada. So often I have found young people unable to obtain employment in their chosen field for which they are duly qualified, both in government circles and in private business, because they are not bilingual. The ground rules are being changed and altered. Many of our young people have not been given the opportunity to comply with the rules.
The barriers are set up at a young age. I do not believe this is a proper and honourable manner for a government of any kind to face this problem. This is a case of government leading the way but putting the cart before the horse. This would seem to be a habit of this government. Sure; change the ground rules if need be, but make a proper and fair preparation for such changes.
Bill 22, recently enacted by the legislature of Quebec, will not promote unity or harmony. It is unconstitutional and will result in injustices and inequities for Quebeckers and other Canadians. The onus then is on the federal government to put a halt immediately to this matter by disallowance and/or referral to the Supreme Court of Canada immediately for an order restraining implementation of the act. Bill 22 conflicts with Canada's Official Languages Act and the New Brunswick Official Languages Act because it provides for only one official language in the province of Quebec.
I trust that this Parliament will not be a crisis Parliament but one which will take steps to remedy situations long before they become crises. This country desperately needs economic stability. This country desperately needs moral stability and political stability. Many problems from which we suffer as a nation and as a world, today are the result of an affluent, permissive, socialistic, political

environment not really disciplined but poorly managed and operated in a carefree, nonchalant, reckless and negligent manner. It is true that as a nation and a people we must put our house in order. It is true the government and this House must address themselves to the very serious and difficult situations facing individual Canadians and families.
As a veteran I urge the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) to review immediately the requirements for entitlement to VLA benefits with a view to elimination of the present lot size requirement and the substitution of duly approved municipal lots. This must be done forthwith to enable our veterans who have not been able to benefit from the existing plan to obtain the advantage of the provisions before termination in 1975.
I would also suggest that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) take immediate steps to review the Unemployment Insurance Act and regulations to reduce the effect which the present system is having on business. Likewise there should be more consideration between Canada Manpower offices and unemployment insurance offices in helping people obtain positions when unemployment strikes. It might be revealing to know what percentage of persons actually are employed through Canada Manpower and what percentage of employers use this service.
I trust that the government will take a hard look at all forms of social security such as old age pensions, workmen's compensation, Canada Pension, welfare, social assistance, disability pensions, pensions for the blind, and so on, so that a comprehensive and co-ordinated policy is followed, a sensible and reasonable policy, not a complex sea of confusion.
As a new member of this House I listened intently to the Speech from the Throne in the hope that the government would finally give us an indication that immediate steps will be taken to alleviate our number one enemy, namely, inflation, and all the chaotic problems that arise from it. Quite frankly, there are some items in the throne speech which may be received well and may find acceptance among the people, but this will depend on the legislation, the regulations, and the method of their implementation.
The throne speech is a monstrosity of verbosity, honeyed up with beautiful phrases but with no details as to the quality and quantity of honey. The purpose of government is to provide service efficiently and to avoid waste and duplication. Programs devised by governments and by this House must be devised with this aim in mind. This House and the government must foster traditions of industry, initiative, loyalty, patriotism, enthusiasm, unity not separatism, industry, and so on.
Inflation can be beaten but it \frill take the wholehearted support and determination of this House, the federal government, the provincial and municipal governments, along with management and labour and all the sectors of our society to battle this disease. It has reached epidemic proportions-maybe some of us do not realize this as yet- and we cannot delay. Some of you may not be feeling the effects of it, but I suggest to you that the standard of living of many Canadians is poor. Regional disparity,
October 4, 1974

transportation problems, housing, unemployment, interest rates and inter-governmental relations, as well as several other such matters, should be dealt with by the government. Red tape itself is inflated. It causes inflation as well as financial and mental stress. The Income Tax Act is a deterrent to growth and expansion.
I was surprised and disturbed at the fact that no mention was made in the throne speech of the plight of the Indian population in our country. A group of Indians came to Ottawa on Monday, September 30, for a pow-wow. They wanted to talk. The proper authorities should at least have listened to their difficulties so that action could be taken to help resolve them.
In closing I would like to say that it should be made known to all hon. members that as an independent member I will support what I think is good legislation and certainly oppose poor legislation.


John Douglas Reynolds: We all say that.


Leonard C. Jones: But I will attempt to be constructive. Like many of you, I will become impatient with government inaction, particularly in times of crises. It is not only the confusion, the conflicts and the verbosity in the throne speech that bother me but the fact that it does not deal at all with so many serious and chaotic situations in which this country and its citizens find themselves.
It is my sincere hope that in this session we will see all members in all parties work conscientiously and earnestly in the best interests and for the welfare of all Canadians.


Mr. Raymond Dupont (Sainte-Marie):: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I should like to join with the previous speakers who have asked you to convey to His Excellency our best wishes for a quick recovery. I should also like to join the other members in congratulating you on your appointment as Speaker of this House and to wish you well in your difficult task.
Moreover, I should like to congratulate the movers of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. Their important contribution to this debate reflects the continuous concern of the Liberal party to renew itself by allowing young Canadians to take an active part in the government of our country. I believe it is essential for the government party to represent, as much as circumstances allow, all the groups which make up our Canadian society. I am especially happy to note that young members were elected in the government party.
I am happy to take part in this debate, mainly because of the importance of the subjects mentioned in the Speech from the Throne. It deals with matters which particularly affect the constituents of Sainte-Marie whom I have the privilege of representing in this House. The problems of a constituency represent a great challenge for a member of Parliament. There is much that needs to be done in Sainte-Marie and I begin this session with determination knowing that government measures listed in the Speech from the Throne will benefit the citizens who have shown confidence in me.
During the last election, Canadians had to decide what type of leader is needed in Canada and what the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) can do to solve the prob-
The Address-Mr. Dupont
lems facing Canada. This matter has now been settled. The Prime Minister and his team, to which I am proud to belong, have received a very clear mandate from the Canadian people. In the second phase, the government now makes its intentions known to the House. And I am convinced that Canadians will agree that the contents of the Speech from the Throne is in line with the confidence expressed by them on July 8 last.
The Speech from the Throne contains no magic formula that would have only fooled Canadians on the nature of current problems and solutions to be considered. I think indeed that its contents reflect the climate of confidence that exists between the government and the people. For that climate to continue to exist it is important that the government party spell everything outright and introduce legislation to deal with those problems, rather than concentrating its efforts on increasing its popularity. I feel at ease in a team which can be so concerned about the fairness and the effectiveness of its program.
Mr. Speaker, we have before us a serious program indeed. The Speech from the Throne recognizes the difficulties upsetting our economy. Those difficulties were expressed by all political parties during the last election campaign. Furthermore, the many contacts I had with residents in my riding proved to me how urgent the problem is. In the riding of Sainte-Marie the economy is not a philosophical issue but a matter of survival. When I try to explain the economic situation to my fellow citizens, as I see it, I always refer to the trade position of our country. We are affected by the backlash of price increases on international markets to the extent that inflation remains a world experience, and particularly to the extent that we have very active external trade. However, note should be made of the foresight of the present Minister of Industry and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) and his predecessor in his efforts to diversify our sources of supply and the export markets for our Canadian products. Those efforts make Canada much more independent from certain countries, particularly our southern neighbours, as regard the higher price of our imports and the fair pricing of our exports. This factor has too often been overlooked and I am pleased to take this opportunity to point it out.
I am also pleased to learn that the Canadian government is firmly committed through international conferences to work together with various countries to lessen the detrimental effects of inflation.
Canadian policies generally in that respect have surely been quite successful since our economic performance is one of the best in the western world.
However, the matter of concern to me is much more concrete and affects my fellow-citizens much more directly. I leave to the economists the task of enlarging on the causes and nature of the phenomenon of price increases. I am, however, seriously concerned about the social effect of that economic phenomenon.
Indeed, inflation might have no social implications if it would hit everybody equally. The purchasing power of each citizen would not be altered, but on the contrary, inflation is discriminatory. It does not concern all citizens to the same extent. This fact alone jeopardizes the very

October 4, 1974
The Address-Mr. Dupont
structures of our society. The social balance that up to now had been maintained and fostered social progress becomes increasingly precarious. This phenomenon is directly derived from the price rise which favours some people to the detriment of others, and that in a context where there are already disparities that the government is desperately trying to remove.
This social impact was first perceived in the case of persons on fixed income. The government has been aware of the difficulties derived from inflation and suffered by older people. They failed to get their share of rising incomes but like everyone else felt the burden of price increases. By this very fact, the balance was upset.
Improvement in our social security system was defeated by spiralling prices that absorbed any additional assistance by the government in that sector. The rate of inflation was higher than that of pension adjustments. As a consequence, social measures lost their meaning, not reaching their objective: to remove economic disparities.
The government acted immediately. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) eagerly introduced a bill to index the pensions to the cost of living. That measure neutralized the increasing gap separating the active population from that which had withdrawn from economic life. In addition to that measure, the government raised those pensions to a much more realistic level. I find it indeed most gratifying to read in the present Speech from the Throne that the government intends to amend the Canada Pension Plan to enable more Canadians to benefit from it.
Still, the inflation spiral now produces another effect, creates another problem which until recently was nonexistent. Union workers who, in good faith, had signed collective agreements now find themselves in a squeeze to respect their contractual commitments. Collective agreements covering 12, 24 and even 36 months very explicitly stipulate salary increases. Those agreements aim, once again, at narrowing the gap between the various social strata in Canada. That is one of the objectives of trade-unionism as we know it in Canada. That phenomenon fits perfectly within the dynamics of our society.
Every one agrees that union action has been a blessing ever since the workers' movement became somewhat better organized. Even employers have gained from it. Because of the organized workers phenomenon, and because of the positive action of the government in this area, there are fewer and fewer strikes and employer-employee relations have become more stable.
The various industrial relations acts confirmed the principle of collective bargaining by forcing employers to negotiate the working conditions of their employees. These acts put an end to all the strikes for recognition which were destroying our economy and our society before the advent of unions.
Moreover, employers today admit that, thanks to unions, their relations with their employees have improved. The union is the spokesman for all the employees concerned, so that employers found it a lot easier to deal with their employees to learn of their aspirations, and to compensate for their frustrations and the inequalities which may occur.

In short, the collective agreement as we know it had become for those concerned a guarantee of stability in preventing conflicts and setting procedures for the settlement of disputes. The golden rule was stability of agreement. Whatever the costs for the employer, he could foresee them and, more important, plan the development of his business with this period of rest in industrial relations provided by the agreement.
This is the way things were, Mr. Speaker, before inflation came, but everything has changed since. Papers abound with reports where unions demand the reopening of collective agreement, where employers, in these new circumstances, take a rigid position. Disputes, strikes termed as illegal, breach of agreement result from this, and everyone holds everybody else responsible for all evils. There is no more social balance. This is the situation I would like to consider.
I come from a province that is just painfully coming out of such a conflict and that will no doubt have to face more of the same. When witnessing such incidents, it is too easy to blame workers. It is too easily said that labour unions should simply adhere to their commitments. The real dimensions of the problem are too easily forgotten.
I mentioned the situation of the aged when inflation sneaked in. Workers are in a similar position. The context may be somewhat different, in that many workers are unionized and have spokesmen to cry aloud what they themselves feel. But isn't their plight identical? Don't we have in both cases groups of citizens for which disparity eliminating features no longer function properly? What use is a collective agreement when it no longer reduces the gap between classes?
I firmly believe that in both cases, we have one and a same problem-indexation to the cost of living. What is the significance, in real terms, of 10, 20 or 30 per cent increase when one does not know the rate of inflation that will endure throughout the term of the agreement? Is that acceptable? Nobody knows. Some will nonetheless be outraged with the rate of increase provided for in these negotiations. With inflation there is no longer any standard against which to measure the real worth of pay raises in existing agreements. Workers want that parties negotiate on firm ground, not on the basis of continually changing data. What shame is there in unions bargaining for indexation of their members' salaries? I am convinced that if employers recognized the value of this reasoning, there would ensue a greater measure of economic and social stability.
In the early years of trade unionism, as much as employers then considered as outrageous to have to negotiate with an certified union, as much do they stiffen nowadays at the mere thought of their union calling for the indexation of all wages. Therefore I believe that past employers have been favoured for a long time by the collective bargaining system and that those of today will gain by allowing that indexation.
In order to cope with present circumstances, it is urgent that we should restore the social balance and enable workers to adjust to the effects of inflation in the same way the entrepreneurs can do it by raising their prices. The same

flexibility should apply to everyone. That is my idea of social justice and of the industrial peace flowing from it. Who nowadays can afford to enter into a two or three year business contract without protecting himself against rising prices? Clever businessmen do not make such deals. Why should we ask workers to do so?
Mr. Speaker, I was saying at the outset of my remarks that inflation is endangering the structures of our social order. We have here a perfect example of that. I dare say that the traditional ways of thinking have no value today. That is the great challenge of inflation. Ever rising prices forces our society, which is based on relatively static structures, into motion. We must learn to move, to change our concepts, to adjust, and at a faster rate, otherwise this thrust will get the better of our resistance.
I believe that principle should apply even in cases where a collective agreement is already in force. I am not pleading in favour of those who decide to disregard the commitments they have accepted through a collective agreement. But I will not cast a stone at them either. What does an agreement mean when the terms that led to it are changed? In a strictly legal sense, it is understood that the collective agreement remains valid. But how can one expect the workers, who feel that they were the victims of circumstances, to still be motivated to meet those obligations? Existing contracts that do not include any indexation clauses are a framework within which workers feel more and more cramped.
I believe employers should realize how urgent it is to change those agreements so as to provide for automatic indexation to price movements and that they should allow their employees the same flexibility they enjoy ir- setting prices for their products. Inflation has gone beyond the rate of wage increments provided for in collective agreements. There can be nothing but chaos and troubles if the situation is not corrected. It is therefore quite relevant that the throne speech dealt with labour strife and the cancellation of contracts as a result of inflation. I am pleased that the government considered those factors in outlining its program to counteract inflation.
In conclusion, may I refer to a development which concerns me greatly because it affects a large number of people in the riding I represent. Mr. Speaker, when a labour dispute breaks out, some are quick to blame organized labour for the results of the work stoppage. Allow me, Mr. Speaker, to dispute the validity of such an attitude.
The situation we live in impels me to conclude that, quite to the contrary, some employers jeopardize the social order that prevails in the country by taking an unbelievably provocative and intolerant attitude. Let me refer for instance to the current dispute at the United Aircraft of Canada Limited, of which we were made acutely aware on the government side by the hon. member for Longueuil (Mr. Olivier). Mr. Speaker, that industry is doing business in Canada and for ten months now it has categorically refused to bow to Canadian traditions with regard to industrial relations.
Following this unfortunate incident of violence, we were informed by newspapers that one of the matters preventing the settlement of the conflict was that the
The Address-Mr. Brewin
employer refused to adhere to the union security system, the so-called "Rand formula". That formula, Mr. Speaker, is part of our Canadian customs. It has been developed by a distinguished law officer who gave it his name. It is part of the Canadian reality too, so much so that the federal government thought it wise to make it compulsory for all the undertakings affected by Canada Labour Code.
Now, this firm, under provincial jurisdiction, systematically refuses to admit this reality. And yet we are surprised to see workers getting impatient after striking for ten months. I would like to convey my fullest sympathy to those workers who fight in order to obtain an advantage which is generally recognized throughout Canada. I think that the employer's position not only is unexplainable but that it gets fraught with consequences.
As I conclude, Mr. Speaker, let me mention the case of the grain handlers' strike. Here is another situation that can develop into social chaos due to the mere fact that the employers are refusing to acknowledge the merits of the report of the commissioner-conciliator, Dr. Neil Perry. The employer sticks to his position, although he knows that the government will not be able to indefinitely tolerate this work stoppage and that its legislative intervention will reflect the contents of the Perry Report. The Speech from the Throne did mention that this matter will be brought before the House because of the employers' obstinacy in failing to approve the solution suggested by Dr. Perry.
Earlier in my remarks I said that the present government must face great challenges. I look to the future with great confidence and enthusiasm. However, I am aware of the necessity for Canadian employers to become more flexible in their approach to the social and economic reality. It is in their interest. Our society can afford to develop, while enabling its citizens to progress and have their place under the sun. I am convinced that the steps taken by this government, as mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, will contribute to such an achievement, by minimizing the effect of the rise in prices and by making sure that the economic burden laid upon us will be borne by all in Canada. I am proud to belong to a team that is going in that direction.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to discuss the direction of Canada's foreign policy. As most members of the House know, Mr. Ivan Head, the Prime Minister's special adviser on foreign affairs, is reported to have spoken of a new activist role for Canada on the left wing of international affairs, and of Canada's intention to take a more moralistic approach to international problems, an approach similar, although not necessarily identical, to that of Sweden. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has repudiated this account of his views. I have no difficult whatsoever in accepting Mr. Head's statement that he was misinterpreted.
However, I wish to say that I earnestly hope the Prime Minister and the government, particularly the new Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen), will in fact take an active, humanitarian and enlightened attitude toward international affairs. I do not care whether

The Address-Mr. Brewin
you call it left wing or what label you attach, it is the substance and specifics that are important. I want to discuss some of them.
May I first say that I detect in the Prime Minister's statement to the Canadian Jewish Congress in Toronto On June 16 of this year, and in his address at Duke University on May 12, a substantial and, in my view, very welcome shift in Canadian foreign policy.
In the Toronto address the Prime Minister emphasized that Canada is not an island. He spoke of our dependence on others and their dependence on us. He stated he hopes Canada's presence in the world will be judged by its humanism and pursuit of social justice. He stated that Canada's foreign policy would be meaningless if this were not carried out as it would not reflect the character of Canadians.
The Prime Minister went on to quote John Donne, the Elizabethan poet, who wrote "Every man's death diminishes me". The Prime Minister added that this quotation should guide our foreign policy as it guides our domestic policy. Compassion, the Prime Minister stated, must have no geographic focus nor must our geographic efforts have geographic limitations. With these words I entirely agree. What we need is to put them into practice.
In the Duke University address the Prime Minister spoke of a fairness in the political and economic relations between developed and developing nations. He said fairness must be a reality and not a theoretical concept. He spoke of the developed nations having the knowledge and means to alter the course of human destiny. We have, indeed, a responsibility universal in concept and planetary in scope. Such responsibility, he went on, requires an exhibition of maturity and such maturity requires new values. Once again, I could not agree more. Once again I repeat it remains to put this excellent rhetoric into practice.
It seems the government is prepared to discard the priorities revealed in the white paper on foreign policy a few years ago. However, it may not be willing to admit it is doing so. In the white paper priority is clearly assigned to economic growth. Indeed, this priority was practised.
May I give as an example Canadian trade policy in respect to South Africa where we continue the Commonwealth preference although South Africa, by reason of apartheid, long ago left the Commonwealth. We helped to build up the illegal regime in Namibia and from time to time we gave effective economic help to the then Portuguese colonial regimes. I am glad to note from his speech to the Canadian Jewish Congress that the Prime Minister repeating the various objectives governing Canadian foreign policy, puts economic growth at the end of the list. He said that from time to time pursuit of one or the other of these objectives must be given preference over all others.
We must now have, in practice as well as in theory, priority on peace, on security and on social justice, on the pursuit of humanism and compassion. Economic growth is all very well but it cannot be the guide to foreign policies of Canada at this time. A change in priorities will also require a shift in policies.
The statement attributed to Mr. Head, even if misquoted, represents what is essential if the shift in priorities is

to take place. I quarrel in no way with the Prime Minister's rhetoric. I only ask that it be demonstrated in practice.
A great opportunity for demonstrating the type of leadership which Canada can give lies ahead in the U.N. World Food Conference which is to take place in Rome in November. For generations many people throughout the world have suffered from malnutrition and, indeed, starvation. What are described as conservative estimates, prepared for the Rome Conference by officials of the United Nations, state that 460 million people, one-eighth of the world's population, suffer from chronic hunger and malnutrition. Recently the true proportions of the disaster facing the world have become clear.
Dr. Norman Borlaug, Director of the International Wheat, Maize Improvement Centre and a Nobel Peace Prize winner, said that as late as the spring of 1972 the world felt very complacement about agriculture. There appeared then to be adequate food reserves. But drought and poor monsoons resulted in the disappearance of surplus stocks of grain and in the very substantial increase in food prices throughout the world. With the disappearance of food grain reserves the whole world food situation, he said, has become precarious. If a major drought occurs in the world now or a crop failure in any of the large grain producing areas of the world, tens of millions could die in an international disaster and little could be done to prevent it.
Distinguished scientists recently presented a declaration to the U.N. Secretary General. In reply Mr. Waldheim said, and I quote:
The Declaration addresses itself primarily to the dramatic depletion of available food reserves and the shortfall in world food production. There is no more immediate task than that of rescuing the world from a situation which for many has always been precarious and is now even more hazardous. Short term measures, while essential, must not be allowed to become palliatives, for the coming years will increase our vulnerability ... Virtually in no other area is it more pressing than in the one to which your Declaration addresses itself, the need to assure that the men, women and children of Africa, Asia, Europe and the Americas, whatever their origin, their religion, their political philosophy, their age, their social condition, have the basic food which is the one essential, undebatable precondition of a life of dignity and decency. Without an assured supply, all our aspirations for peace, for social justice, for growth and creativity, both as individuals and as nations, lose their meaning and take on a hollow ring.
In my view in those words the Secretary General has put his finger on the major problem facing the world today, the simple problem of finding enough food to feed the people of the world.
What then must be done? There are two choices, either to increase the land area under cultivation or increase the yield of production per acre of land already under cultivation, particularly in the so-called developing world. What is needed is research, much of which must be done locally. What is needed above all is an increased production of chemical fertilizers which are in dangerously short supply.
The difficult task of increasing food production has been immensely enlarged through the present energy crisis, resulting in higher prices for petroleum products and chemical fertilizers.
We sometimes tend to claim that some of the developing countries are responsible for their own misfortunes. This does not do justice to the facts. Take the case of India, for
October 4, 1974

example. In 1971 India spent $560 million on the importation of crude oil, fertilizer and food grains. If she were to buy the same amount of these products today, which she cannot afford to do, she would find that the price of crude oil and the price of fertilizer had gone up about four or five fold, and the price of food grains had tripled.
Freight rates have increased. In order to obtain the same amount of these products which were purchased in 1971, India would have had to pay approximately $3.1 billion, more than five times as much as in 1971. This is completely impossible as India's foreign exchange earnings from all sources are about $2.4 billion. There is no way in which India can secure adequate fertilizer and adequate crude oil except by importing, and thus India cannot afford to import what is needed. The so-called green revolution which promised so much has gone down the drain and India is forced into increasing dependence upon the rest of the world.
It is necessary not only to increase food production but to stabilize world population. However, stabilization of the world population is not an end to be sought in itself, as the recent conference in Bucharest on world population made abundantly clear. It is a by-product of development.
The sad fact is that the poorer countries have insufficient capital to improve their production. If what we say is true, that mankind is one human family, it is the duty of the richer one-third to help the poorer two-thirds. An attitude of charity is not enough. What is called for is a system which is free of exploitation and injustice.
What are some of the measures which can be taken? There is an urgent need for the creation of an internationally-managed feed reserve system which would provide a measure of price stability in a world food economy. A crash effort is needed to increase world fertilizer production. Aid can, of course, play a positive role, but it is only secondary.
I could never understand why we have not lived up to the U.N. target proposed originally, as I recall it, by the former prime minister, Mr. Lester Pearson, of .7 per cent of the gross national product for development assistance. We should do so. We should take the lead in meeting this target which has long been proclaimed but which has never been accepted in practice.
Aid can only be viable as a complement to trade and economic policies which enhance self-reliant development in the Third World. It is true that in the immediate future we shall probably be called upon to deal with disaster areas and take special emergency steps to prevent starvation, but in the long run it is only by policies of development, and by aid and trade which will assist this development, that world problems can be solved.
Sales of food to less developed countries must be made on concessionary terms. The basic problem, however, is the growing gap between the affluence of the north and the poverty of the Third World. What is required is a restructuring of the world economic system with the interests of the Third World the centre of debate. Too often the voting power in memberships of international organizations such as the IMF, the World Bank and GATT have reflected the views of the developed world and have not
The Address-Mr. Brewin
reflected equitably the interests of the majority of the world's population.
Canada is in a unique position to assume leadership, and the World Food Conference in Rome is a good place to start. I was glad to hear the other day that the Secretary of State for External Affairs himself expects to lead the Canadian delegation. May I once again urge that provision be made for the attendance at the conference of other Members of Parliament from the different parties, as well as representatives of non-governmental organizations.
So far, Mr. Speaker, I have been speaking of the tragic possibilities inherent in the world food situation. I want now to turn to the tragic realities in one part of the world and suggest that if Canada's policy is to be based, as the Prime Minister says, on humanism, a new attitude is required. I refer to the situation in Viet Nam.
As is now well-known, the Paris Peace Agreement, although it brought about the withdrawal of most American military personnel from Viet Nam, has not brought peace to that country. Indeed, the hideous and tragic war has continued and U.S. military aid involvement in South Viet Nam is continuing.
According to an article in the New York Times by David K. Shippler the United States, far from phasing out its military involvement in South Viet Nam has descended from a peak of warfare to a high plateau of substantial support, dispatching not only huge quantities of weapons and ammunition but also large numbers of American citizens who have become integral parts of the South Vietnamese supply, transport and intelligence systems. Indeed, an article in the Globe and Mail by Charles Taylor, a responsible journalist, suggests that Canada has been indirectly involved in the supply of weapons and ammunition to South Viet Nam for the continuation of the war.
It is true that the American people and the American Congress are becoming restive. Recently the Senate, despite the urging of President Ford in the honeymoon era of his administration, voted by a majority of only one to meet a request for increased aid to Saigon. The basic reason for this is that more and more Americans are becoming aware of the situation in regard to political prisoners.
The existence of political prisoners in South Viet Nam is beyond any reasonable dispute. Substantial accounts of mistreatment and torture of such political prisoners have been authoritatively reported by responsible people from different countries. Evidence has been given before the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the U.S. House of Representatives and before the U.S. Senate Sub-Committee on Refugees.
I myself have had an opportunity to interview many witnesses of unquestionable credibility who have seen the evidence of continued terror and torture. The scale is tremendous even if the numbers are sometimes in dispute. The conclusion of Amnesty International, a respected international organization, was that there were 70,000 to 100,000 political prisoners being held. The U.S. Senate Foreign Aid Appropriations Sub-Committee set the figure at between 40,000 and 60,000.
Various other sources estimate the number of political prisoners at 200,000 or more. The Saigon government has

October 4, 1974
The Address-Mr. Brewin
denied the existence of any political prisoners or fixed their number at various times, as between 5,000 and 40,000. But the Saigon government has a simple way of dealing with this subject. It changes the records in respect to the political prisoners in its dossiers, designating them as common criminals. Thus, it is able to say there are no political prisoners.
Who are these prisoners? They are a varied group of students, including Buddhists, labour leaders, lawyers, peasants and opposition politicians. Few of them are communists or supporters of the National Liberation Front. The offence of many of them has been to seek a neutral solution, and pacification and reconciliation in Viet Nam. They constitute the element most able to carry out this pacification in accordance with the solemn terms of the Paris Peace Agreement. We have ourselves seen films from a respected British television company, Granada, showing interviews being conducted with prisoners, the victims of torture, and demonstrating the pitiable condition they were in.
Among the witnesses were a number of Canadians, and I refer in particular to Bishop Belanger of Valleyfield, Quebec; to Mr. Label, a law professor at the University of Quebec; to Mrs. Thelma Baker, a highly-respected member of the United Church, and, indeed, to my former colleague, Mr. Doug Rowland, the former member for Selkirk, whose loss to this House, I must add in parenthesis, I deeply deplore.
The reality of this picture of repression, torture, terror and death cannot be seriously contraverted. It may be overlooked, it may be minimized, but it exists. It seems to me that the words of John Donne, quoted by the Prime Minister as a guide to our foreign policy-"every man's death diminishes me"-are appropriate.
But what has the Canadian government done? I do not doubt for a moment the deep and real humanitarian concern of the Canadian government and its representatives. But I think they have failed to take the necessary steps that might improve the situation.
I must admit that the Canadian government, through the former secretary of state for external affairs, made diplomatic and private representations to the Saigon government, but it does not seem that these representations did any good. What he also did was to decline to accept representations made by a group of members of this House from almost all parties, many of them members of the Standing Committee on External Affairs, urging Canada to take a more active role in seeking a reference of the matter to the Human Rights Commission of the United Nations, or pressing for more effective inspection by the International Red Cross or other international agencies.
We had full discussions with the former minister but he decided that no action should be taken toward an international handling of the problem, and that no overt protest should be made. His basic ground for taking this view he said was that such action would not have effective results or be productive. He even went so far as to say that it might be counter productive.
I for one cannot accept, and I think hon. members of the House will not accept, this particular conclusion. To do so

would undermine the international machinery for the protection of human rights set up through the United Nations. The treatment of political prisoners in Viet Nam disregards principles of international law, the universal declaration of human rights, the spirit of the United Nations charter, the Geneva convention and the Paris agreement.
It is not correct to say that treatment of its own nationals by any particular country is never a matter of international concern. When such treatment amounts to a gross violation of fundamental human rights, it does become an international issue. Apartheid in South Africa is clearly an illustration of this. To bypass the machinery of the United Nations is to ensure its futility. This is in face of the fact that one of the most promising international developments since the end of the last war has been the growth of international humanitarian law. The bypassing of this machinery is a poor service to the international community, to the United Nations, and to the development of the rule of law.
How can it be said that such a reference would be unproductive? This is a question that no one can answer with certainty. The fact remains that the regime in South Viet Nam is absolutely dependent on outside aid to maintain itself in existence, let alone achieve any degree of stability. The United States administration has continued to support the Thieu regime and to ignore its record of terror and torture. But more and more public opinion in the United States and in Congress, both in the Senate and in the House of Representatives, is seeking to limit this aid. The finding of an international tribunal on this matter, I suggest, would be bound to have a substantial effect.
We urge the government to reconsider its views on this matter and to consult again with other sympathetic governments, such as Sweden, The Netherlands and Austria. I have no doubt there are many others, and I can assure the government that there are a great number of people in Canada who are deeply concerned that Canada demonstrate its humanitarian concern for more active steps to rouse world opinion. Abuse of fundamental human rights is all too common in the world today, but by far the largest scale example of this abuse is what is happening to political prisoners in South Viet Nam.
There are other aspects of our attitude toward Viet Nam that require re-examination. I was glad to hear that the government is extending reconstruction aid to North Viet Nam through a non-governmental agency which, if I heard alright, is the World Council of Churches. I hope this policy of treating all parts of Viet Nam, regardless of political philosophy, equally in matters of aid will be continued.
There is another development that requires to be watched. A determined effort is being made to use international organizations such as the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, the International Development Agency, the International Monetary Fund, and internationally subscribed funds, including Canadian funds, to bolster the regime in South Viet'Nam. This attempt has been going on for some time now but has not yet succeeded.
According to an article in Le Monde of September 21, a highly secret meeting under the aegis of the World Bank is
October 4, 1974

to take place in Paris on October 17. It is proposed to request the World Bank organization to extend, through the International Development Agency, a loan of $50 million to the Saigon regime. The proposed Canadian contribution would be of the order of $5 million.
I urge that, before Canada consents to this, conditions be imposed, namely that real progress must be made in the freeing of political prisoners and that adequate international inspection of places of detention by the International Red Cross or some other international body be permitted. Such loans should be made to all areas of war ravaged Viet Nam, not to one area alone, in accordance with the spirit of the Paris peace agreement. It is said that these international organizations like the World Bank do not operate on political considerations, but is it not a political act, while a conflict is going on, to extend aid to one side and not the other?
I should like to hear from the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether Canada is to be represented at this meeting and, if so, what attitude we are going to take. Much the same could be said of the situation in Chile, but I presume my time is coming to an end so I shall not enlarge on that matter. Here again is a regime that has demonstrated a record of terror and suppression of human rights, one that should not be bolstered through economic aid in the form of loans from international consortia or otherwise.
If we are to have a peaceful and stable world in which humanism is to be the touchstone of policy, then we need to give more effective support to the United Nations. I do not blame people for being disillusioned and frustrated over the futility which inevitably flows from a body that is not in itself a sovereign power but can only act after a measure of consensus between its individual members, who are sovereign states, has been reached. However, the importance of the United Nations to world peace cannot be denied.
It is no accident that three most important international gatherings have taken place recently under the aegis of the United Nations. I refer to the Stockholm conference on the environment, the Bucharest conference on world population, and the coming world food conference in Rome. All of these were convened by and through the United Nations, which is helping to build an international order that is absolutely essential for the peaceful development of humanity.
I think I should also say a word about peacekeeping operations. They do not always succeed. Although the political results are not what they might be, I think every Canadian has a right to be proud of the fact that in Cyprus the Canadian Armed Forces played a tremendously vital role in the saving of human life and the development of what is at least a truce that has some chance of becoming a stable settlement in that unhappy island. Nor should we forget the role of the United Nations in the conflict in the Middle East. Suffice it to say that, whether Mr. Head was misquoted or not, the time has come for Canada to heighten its world influence-and I am using his words-by taking a more moralistic approach to international problems and a more active role on a humanist basis in foreign affairs, a basis that puts its emphasis on human problems that affect people wherever they live.
The Address-Mr. Johnston
We wish the Secretary of State for External Affairs the very best in his onerous task, and if the government's policies are directed to the ends that I have described, he can count on our support.


Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: It gives me great pleasure, through you, Madam Speaker, to congratulate the Speaker of the House on his appointment to that high position, as well as to you for filling the role so well through some of these sittings. Those who know me will know that I have long advocated a more important role for women in the politics of this country, and one thing that pleases me about this parliament is the number of ladies who are here as members from a variety of constituencies.
I also congratulate the hon. member for Montmorency (Mr. Duclos) and the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Lee) for their able moving and seconding of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. I appreciate the honour to my province that was extended when the hon. member for Vancouver East was asked to undertake that particular task.
It is good to be back. I sat in this House as the member for Okanagan-Revelstoke some six years ago. It gives me great pleasure now to return as the member for Okanagan-Kootenay, a much larger constituency than that which I represented previously.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Howard Earl Johnston: While I was in Ottawa earlier for one of our party's caucuses I happened to run into the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) as he was leaving the building. He spoke to me in his usual kind, and affable way. He said I was one of the recidivists. I was rather pleased he had not referred to it as returning to the scene of the crime.
At the time I was thinking of it more in the nature of a reincarnation, but I realized because of the background of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that for me to have replied to him using that word would have lead to some theological problems. It seemed to me that he and the members of his party had enough political problems at the present time, and that therefore I should not add to them.
It has given me a great deal of pleasure to meet a number of parliamentary colleagues who were here when I was previously here. I refer to colleagues in all the parties represented in the House. I see that many cabinet ministers are still here from those previous years. They are very much to be remembered, as well as those other people who administer to us in the Parliament of Canada, all those people who conduct small duties. I refer to the waitresses, the messengers and others. It has moved me very deeply to be remembered by so many of them.
I represent, in Okanagan-Kootenay, a very diversified constituency. In some ways for two-thirds of the constituency this is a maiden speech because I am representing those people for the first time.
It is a marvellously beautiful constituency, one that was visited by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield)

October 4, 1974
The Address-Mr. Johnston
during the campaign. He was able to see its beauty at firsthand. I am sure he would remember the morning when we crossed the flooding St. Mary's River to attend a great rally at Cranbrook. At that time things seemed to be looking very bright for this party. I suppose we should have perceived that the water in the river was muddy and that it was a Liberal tide that was swelling, but that observation did not come to us until somewhat later.
This is a constituency which reaches from south of Vernon all the way around through Rogers Pass, that beautiful highway, then south through the Kootenay Valley, on to the United States border, and then back over almost to Creston and on to the Crowsnest.
One delight in campaigning through that constituency is its great physical beauty. I found that no matter how exhausted I might be on reaching the town of Golden and proceeding south, the beauties and wonders of the Kootenay River Valley always provided an amazing lift that buoyed rnle up through the various campaigns.
Yet, in spite of all that beauty there are problems that are with us still in spite of the election. One gathers that they will be with us for a long time. I think principally of the problem of inflation which is at the root of many of the other things that trouble this constituency and this country. There is industrial strife in the constituency. There are people out on strike at the present time. They are on strike because they feel wage settlements have not been keeping up with inflation, and they have not been, Mr. Speaker. This is a severe problem.
There are cities which would like to go ahead with development but find the cost excessive. There are farmers who are very concerned about the falling price of beef and the rising price of everything they must buy for their operations. They know the significance of inflation in this land.
There are mills throughout the constituency and in the province that are closed down or are laying off workers in great numbers because of the falling prices of lumber. Lumber prices are falling because inflation has not allowed the Canadian people to build the houses they would like to build.
There is a crisis in municipal affairs throughout the land. Various spokesmen have urged that the municipalities be given a greater share of the tax resources which, in a sense, would make them a little more independent of the whims of federal or provincial governments. I sympathize entirely with this view. It has been presented most recently by Mayor Fleming of Vernon, who himself was a member of this parliament some years ago.
There are urgent problems such as flood control, for example, which is enormously expensive. Anyone during the campaign who watched part of the town of Golden going under water would realize how close to the hearts of the people is the question of flood control. Yet, projects are delayed and postponed because of the expense. I realize there is not a great federal role in that area until disaster strikes, but it does seem to me it would be significantly important to have intervention prior to a disaster when we know, through studies and reports, what is essential to prevent that sort of flooding.

In the beautiful Okanagan Valley we will have a problem with weed control in the lakes throughout the south central area of British Columbia. In some ways this is a very local affair, important to the regional district. It is also a provincial affair, but I submit that anything as beautiful as that valley is also a national asset. One would feel again that there is, and must be, a role for the federal government in tackling a problem of that kind.
The constituency I represent also contains a variety of national parks. I wish the minister responsible for national parks were here this afternoon. I shall be making representations to him as the weeks go along. One would believe of anything as beautiful as a national park in British Columbia that living there, or nearby, would reflect some of the qualities of living in paradise. But one finds, travelling through those regions, that there are particular problems for the people who are living in or near national parks.
I urge that the federal government, which establishes and controls those parks, should have an open and generous policy to remedy the anomalous situation of people living among marvellous scenery and natural beauty, and who find themselves frustrated and almost in despair because of the slowness of action taken on a variety of problems within the jurisdiction of the federal government.
The question of redistribution was mentioned in the Speech from the Throne. This is a subject which concerns my constituency very much. The name of the constituency derives from different languages. The Okanagan part is interior Salish, a part of the great Salish language group of British Columbia. The Kootenay part comes from the extrusion of the plains people across the Rocky Mountains of British Columbia. The constituency itself today still bears some of that remarkable diversity suggested by its very name.
At the time I appeared before the redistribution committee in respect of its proposal to set up this constituency I referred to this matter, and the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) rose then to ask whether I would explain. At that point I did not take the time to explain, but this was what I meant. It is a difficult constituency to serve and I should like to pay tribute to the previous member, Mr. Douglas Stewart, its representative for six years, who retired.
We have lost, and we continue to lose too many people from British Columbia who have struggled with the problems of representing such vast areas, particularly considering the remuneration they receive compared with what they could receive in other professions or occupations in British Columbia. They struggle with the problem of travelling in winter throughout a very extended constituency. I sympathize with anybody from that province who has a young family and who endeavours to serve in this House, because the problems are very great. One of the things that redistribution could do, and I trust will do, is give to the province of British Columbia a more equitable representation than it has at present.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
October 4, 1974


Howard Earl Johnston: The constituencies are vast. So far as I can see, any new proposals for redistribution do not appear to go to the root of the problem for us, the representatives from British Columbia. I agree with Mr. Stewart who gave as his reason for retiring the strain of the task. The experience of six years should not be abandoned because of those difficulties. However, I sympathize with him wholeheartedly. I trust that redistribution will proceed and that it will accomplish something.
One of the other interesting proposals that have been put forward in the Speech from the Throne is that the debates in this chamber be televised. I find this proposal interesting and amusing because, as long as six years ago, when I was here previously this matter was being raised as something that simply had to be done and that would somehow contribute to democracy in this land. I was interested to hear the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) make some reference to it a week or two ago suggesting that he would recommend the televising of this chamber's proceedings. I would like to warn him against that course which I opposed six years ago, and will continue to oppose now.
I have always been an admirer of the colour of the hair of that hon. member for Eglinton, but I do not think that he will be any match for Betty Kennedy when he appears on "Front Bench Challenge", nor do I believe that the ratings for such a program would surpass the ratings for the existing program of which Canadians have grown so fond through the years. Even if we called such a program "Talky Night in Canada" I do not think that its ratings would be anywhere near those of the programs broadcast by that great Canadian institution which has allowed us to follow the Team Canada series in the past few weeks.
I happen to believe in the representative system of parliamentary democracy. I think it is the best guarantee of freedom that any country in this world can have, and I believe it should stand on its own as something good and worthwhile. I think that the right hon.- Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), in his 1968 campaign in particular, did an enormous amount of harm to democracy in Canada by talking about participatory democracy, which led many people to believe that somehow the television set could link people more closely and provide something in the nature of a direct democracy such as was known in ancient Greece where democracy was born.
I do not believe that, Madam Speaker. I believe that the people of this country elect their representatives to get on with the business of government. Although they may watch the process, they want to get on with the business of living their lives at the same time. I find any suggestion that television will improve the nature of the deliberations of this House strange indeed. Television, as Professor McLuhan says, is entertainment, but our purpose here is to legislate.
The right hon. Prime Minister in his speech on leader's day said that the important task of this House is the debating of legislation. This is our aim, not to entertain. That is not why we are assembled here. I will have more to say on the subject later, particularly on any attempt to change basically the nature of our parliamentary system, because that is what television does to everything that it touches; it changes it. I do not think we should allow that
The Address-Mr. Milne
change to be undertaken lightly, nor do I think we need to allow it to be understaken at all.
I am particularly disappointed that the speech which we heard from the right hon. Prime Minister contained hardly any mention of the problem of inflation. The hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), who preceded me, quoted poetry to the House. I also would like to quote a line of poetry. It comes from Kenneth McRobbie. The poem is very aptly called "Changing the Constitution" and it can be found in the August 1974 issue of the Canadian Forum. The line should answer the question of anybody who listened to the right hon. Prime Minister and asked after the speech: what did he say about inflation? It reads "nothing you could give a name to or glimpse in plain daylight". I would recommend the reading of the poem to the right hon. Prime Minister and indeed to any member of the House.
One of the things that I noted with particular pleasure in the Speech from the Throne was the suggestion that "O Canada" would be made our national anthem in the full legal sense, and it pleases me that the first reading of that bill was given in the House.
I worked on the committee considering the national anthem six years ago. That committee worked long and hard. At one of its earlier sessions I suggested that all we really had to do was to accept the French language version of the anthem and slightly amend the English version. I am afraid the committee was a bit carried away and we ended up having another contest in which Canadians were asked to write another national anthem. We waded through some 600 suggestions that were forwarded to us. In the end, however, we accepted the French language version as it was, and slightly amended the English. I feel that this bill should receive a speedy passage through the House, and I trust that all members of all parties will agree to it.
I thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity of again addressing the House of Commons and serving my country. I am proud and pleased that my constituents have chosen to send me here. I have spoken before on behalf of my constituency and province, and it gives me great joy, Madam Speaker, to have returned to this great institution.


Mr. Ross Milne (Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Madam
Speaker, it is an honour to rise and address this House for the first time, and particularly to do so on behalf of the people of Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe. I am sure each and every one of them would join with me in congratulating the Speaker and his very able assistants on their appointments. I know all three will have the support of members on all sides of the House.
Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe is a very unique constituency. It contains, I suppose, one of the fastest growing urban areas in all North America in the Brampton-Bramalea area. I think Bramalea is a model for some of the new cities that will be built across Canada.
The riding as well has a very rich agricultural industry and the towns of Alliston and Orangeville are dependent upon it. In addition, my riding has a large military base at Camp Borden. So, Madam Speaker, it is a real privilege

October 4, 1974
The Address-Mr. Milne
and honour to have been elected by people with such diverse interests and such diverse endeavours. Through you, I want to thank all those who supported me and elected me. I want to say to the people of Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe that I will represent them as fairly and as energetically as I possibly can.
Perhaps of all the attributes the riding of Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe has, the greatest is its people. I am honoured to have a group of young people in the gallery today who have shown a marked interest in the political process. I hope they will maintain that interest, and my fondest hope is that one of them will have the privilege which I enjoy today of entering this chamber and addressing it for the first time.
I think I was a little bit younger than any of them when I first became interested in politics and made the decision that I would pursue a political career if I had the opportunity. A great influence in my life was a relative of my father's who became the first woman ever to sit in this chamber, Agnes MacPhail. If I can even achieve a percentage of the effect on the social and economic reforms in this country that she did, then my time here will be well spent. I share the feeling she expressed that perhaps the most awesome moment in her life was when she rose to address this chamber for the first time.
I should like to congratulate the cabinet, and particularly the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), on the Speech from the Throne. I think it addresses the key issues as they are seen by the people of Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe.
A good deal of the emphasis was on the economy and the inflationary factors within it. I was particularly glad to see that the Prime Minister indicated an intention to bring forth a budget at the earliest possible time. It is my view that most of the things that can be done about inflation can be done through the budget. I agree with the government's basic approach to inflation, that of applying every means possible to increasing the supply of goods and services to meet demand, and taking steps to lessen the impact of inflation upon those who can least afford it. I hope this parliament will very soon introduce legislation which will allow the government to take steps to stop profiteering.
I am very pleased that in the Speech from the Throne there was no indication of a move that would stall the economy. If we have to suffer anything I think it is better to suffer inflation than to stall the economy and end up with both unemployment and inflation, as has happened in so many other countries.
I was also glad to see in the Speech from the Throne two things that are very important to the people of my riding; the intention to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act and the intention to give continued attention to effective government spending. People are concerned about the Unemployment Insurance Act, particularly those provisions which allow payment of benefits to people who voluntarily leave their employment or leave because of bad conduct. As many people know, I have been critical of the Unemployment Insurance Act and I am glad to see that amendments are proposed.
In the time at my disposal this afternoon, Madam Speaker, I want to speak about two of the key items in the

Speech from the Throne, matters that will face Canada over the next 25 to 30 years. These are the questions of energy and food production. In my view any country that is not essentially self-sufficient in food and self-sufficient in energy does not have a very rosy future.
Any country that is essentially self-sufficient in energy and in food must have a lower level of inflation and a lower level of unemployment than others. It will have very strong industrial base and most certainly will show leadership in the world in the future. If you question that, Madam Speaker, I ask you to compare our economy and its inflation and unemployment with some other countries that are short of either energy or food, and you will find that some of them have inflation far beyond 30 per cent. I think we are very fortunate because there are probably less than half a dozen countries as self-sufficient in food and energy as is Canada.
We heard a lot about the energy situation, last year. It was a common topic in the newspapers and media, and I suppose even in this chamber was spoken of more than any other subject. This great debate on energy is far from over, Madam Speaker. We must remember that by the turn of the century our need for energy will be 2 'A times as great as it is today. Let us pause and reflect on that.
I should like to congratulate the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) on his capable handling of the crisis last year and to wish him well for the future. Many of the decisions that he and the government and this House must take will be more important to the future of the country than any other issues I can visualise.
Only 5V4 years from now, in 1980, the United States will import as much oil as they will produce domestically. In terms of today's dollars it will cost them $25 billion to $30 billion, that is, if they can get it. Just think what that will do to their balance of payments position. In terms of the energy crisis I think one of the greatest threats to Canada is the possibility of importing countries becoming protectionist in order to guard their balance of payments. Ontario exports two-thirds of its energy to the United States, so that is a good market.
Something else that concerns me, Madam Speaker, is the ownership of our uranium resources. I was glad to see the government express an intention in the Speech from the Throne to do something about this problem. I was equally delighted to hear the government announce that there will be guidelines and policy introduced regarding the amount of uranium we should allow to be exported from Canada. The policy will take into account our long term needs. I think all Canadians can stand a little taller because of the tremendous success of CANDU. I think all in this House are proud of its success.
Generally, our use of energy is increasing. Petroleum use has grown by 4 per cent, and the use of electrical energy by 7 per cent. This shows that we are shifting away from the use of petroleum and placing more reliance on electricity. Ontario, which now produces much electrical energy, will use more in the future. It is quite conceivable that by about 1990 half the electrical energy used in Ontario will be derived from uranium. Uranium energy
October 4, 1974

will supply between 20 and 25 per cent of total provincial needs.
Clearly, we should do everything in our power to make sure that the uranium industry remains under Canadian ownership and protection. In any event I am pleased to see the shift away from petroleum to uranium as a source of energy. The use of such clean energy surely will meet most of the objections of the environmentalists and conservationists. More important, energy generated this way is practically inflation proof.
Speaking as a Canadian, I would not be comfortable in thinking that our uranium industry might pass into foreign hands. I know that there is a large element of foreign investment in our uranium industry. I would not willingly accept our uranium industry passing into the hands of multi-national petroleum companies. Such control would challenge the economic independence of Canada. We simply cannot allow it. It seems to me that if those holding an interest in the uranium industry wish to sell their interest, the government should be the buyer. We should buy those facilities. So important is uranium, that it ought to be considered as a public utility. I would be prepared to go even further and have some agency of government, perhaps the Canadian Development Corporation or some similar agency, granted terms of reference which would allow it to engage actively in uranium exploration. The government ought to be involved in that area.
I was pleased to see the government's intention to establish Petro-Canada expressed in the Speech from the Throne. I want the government to proceed with this immediately. It should give this Crown corporation a mandate which will allow it to operate effectively as a significant factor in the energy field. I want the corporation to be involved in the exploration for petroleum, in the proving up, in basic refining, and perhaps involved in the manufacture and selling of petroleum derivitives, although that role may not have been envisaged for Petro-Canada.
When we talk of inflation we naturally talk of items which have increased very greatly in price. I am thinking of fertilizer, clothing and so on. There is always one factor that is common to all such items: they are all petroleum based, or made from petroleum derivitives. It seems to me that if we are concerned about profiteering, we might look at the marketing practices of petroleum companies. Here I am thinking of the marketing of petroleum derivitives. That might be the logical area for Petro-Canada to be involved in. Contrary to what many suggest, I do not see Petro-Canada being involved in the retail end of the business.
The people now retailing petroleum products are among the most efficient operators in our economy and I do not think the government should compete with them. Surely we could give Petro-Canada, or an agency like it, a mandate strong enough to enable it to make its presence felt in the petroleum business, particularly in the Canadian far north where the federal government has jurisdiction under the constitution.
I should like to see Petro-Canada being given another role as well. We should consider allowing Petro-Canada to be involved in marketing. If it is necessary for us, for the sake of eastern Canada, to enter into long term commitments with, say, Venezuela or any of the multinational
The Address-Mr. Milne
petroleum producers, I think Petro-Canada would be the logical agency of government to do so on behalf of all Canadians.
May I introduce another thought about energy, a thought which has not been given as wide a presentation as it deserves. I am talking about the efficient utilization of energy. It seems to me, when we talk of energy use in Canada, that we are talking about a three part equation; the availability of energy, the price of energy and the distribution of energy. I think Canada probably has available more energy per capita than any other country in the world. We are not concerned so much about energy shortages as about using up very low priced energy currently available to us. Traditionally, our energy has been cheap. Probably less than 3 per cent of the cost of production is tied up in energy, and about 5 per cent of disposable income is spent on it. We have never thought very much about how we can use energy most efficiently.
Let me put forward this thesis. Every percentage point by which we increase the efficiency of our use of energy will mean that that much more energy will remain available to us at a lower price. I am not saying that we need to run out of energy. Increasing its efficient use will make available more energy at a lower price for home and industry. Consider all the energy now being used in Canada for transportation and other purposes. At present we are converting to energy only about 40 per cent of the resource we take from the ground. Surely we can use our engineering and design expertise to create equipment which will do a better job than existing equipment. I like to think that we can create equipment which will do the same job but use 25 per cent less energy.
Certain parts of the world, including the United States, have become concerned about energy shortages. Governments have tried to instil what I call a conservation ethic into their people. Governments want people to adopt a fundamentally changed lifestyle and use less energy. So far most of these programs have failed. It seems to me we need, through better engineering and design, to create better equipment. With superior engineering we can still retain our present standard of living, protect the environment, and retain the current productivity of industry, even though we use less energy.
I suggest that there is a definite role for the federal government in this field. The minister, whom I observed last night on television, said that something must be done to conserve petroleum. I submit that the efficiency with which we use it is equally important. It is not so much that industry does not respond to a conservation program; mainly it is a case of good equipment which will save energy not being available.
As I say, we can save a great deal with improved design. Has anyone stopped to think of the tremendous amount of energy which goes through a ventilation system and is expended, and of the energy which is lost through waste water? This heat, which is a form of energy, could be reclaimed.
I think the government should provide leadership and encourage good design. The tax structure should encourage the installation of more efficient equipment. This should be made more attractive.

October 4, 1974
The Address-Mr. Milne
After all, we have done this for the environmentalists. During the past few years there has been concern in Canada about the quality of the environment, and we have directed industry to clean up and, in some cases, to use higher quality fuel. We have made it possible through the tax structure for improved equipment to be installed. Now the argument has swung the other way and we are concerned about energy conservation. I suggest that concern about energy perhaps is equally important, or even more important. Perhaps we could use some of the tax incentives that were used to promote the aims of the environmentalists to promote conservation of energy.
I like to think that the government, through its research activities and programs, will be substantially involved in trying to improve the efficiency by which electricity is generated. Possibly by the year 1990, and definitely by the year 2000, 25 to 30 per cent of all energy used in Canada will be used solely to generate electricity. Just think what a boon a 5 per cent improvement in how we generate electricity would be and how we use our resources
When we talk about heat efficiency it is really the relationship of the amount of energy we use to generate it versus the amount of electrical energy that is generated. There is a lot of room for improvement. Most of this relates to the metallurgical process in terms of the degree of heat that available metals today will stand. I think this is a very useful area in which the government should be involved.
When we talk about concern where there is a large national interest, it may be that some of the leverage the government has should be used. The government should take a very serious look at the Canadian building code. We build acres and acres of large industrial buildings, and we call for very little or minimum insulation in any of them. We do not have a concerned attitude about making buildings energy efficient in terms of the amount of insulation. To do so would really only increase the cost by a very small percentage. In terms of improving the thermal capabilities of the building, we are talking about a small amount of money.
While the building code must apply with a very broad application and to many concerns, there is still room for improvement.
I would like to see the government go further in terms of publishing comparative data on equipment that is often used by major users of energy. I think, for example, of air

conditioners. My information is that some air conditioners are as much as 30 per cent more efficient in terms of energy utilization than others. Surely this should be a concern of the manufacturing and producing sectors. The government can perhaps play a role in that area.
I wish to make one or two other points in speaking of energy. In terms of the broad problem we are dealing with and the importance of it, I have often wondered about giving some thought to our export contracts. Canada and Canadians have a great vested interest in terms of energy export contracts. There are those who say these should be phased out, there should be higher prices, and so on. There is some validity in that. There is also concern that we may seriously damage the United States economy by so doing. We have a very great vested interest in that. We must also consider that we import a considerable amount of energy from the United States in the form of coal for Ontario.
The United States are in a very critical position at this time in relation to energy. They have vast reserves of petroleum on the North Slope. We might explore with our American friends some means of allowing them to use more of our resources at this time, if those resources are replaced by others as they are developed on the North Slope. We would pay the same price as that at which we are now exporting to the United States. This would be of some help to their critical problem. It would preserve one of the great advantages our industrial base should have, namely, medium or low priced energy for its use. If we could negotiate some type of arrangement like that it would be in the best interests of both countries.
There is one other point about which I feel very strongly. It concerns government allotments in the budget for research. Every Canadian can, and should stand just a little bit taller because of the tremendous success of Candu. However, we should not stop here, pause, and say we have done a good job. There is much more to do. We need to move quickly into the area of breeder reactors. I would like to think that Canada could be one of the world leaders in terms of research, and prototype engineering the establishment of fusion. Whichever gets to the threshold first will be the country with a future that will be envied by all nations. It is the type of country I want Canada to become.
I notice my time is almost up. I wanted to put forth some very strong views about the MacKenzie Valley pipeline. I had hoped I would have time to talk about the food problem I raised earlier. I wanted to comment on what I think are some of the problems facing that industry, and what I think is the relationship that marketing boards
October 4, 1974

should have to producers and consumers. However I hope I will have the opportunity to rise again in this House to put forward these points of view.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: I notice, Madam Speaker, it is five o'clock. I wonder if we might call it five o'clock and move the adjournment of the House until Monday.
The Address-Mr. Milne


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. It being five o'clock, pursuant to an order made by the House earlier today, this House stands adjourned until two o'clock Monday afternoon.
At five o'clock the House adjourned, without question put.

Monday, October 7, 1974