1974-03-06

VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to report to the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the table the first report of the Clerk of Petitions, stating that he has examined the petition of Sharon Vance and others in relation to the proposed transfer of the George Derby lands to the province of British Columbia, and finds that the petition meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 41(2), I have the honour of tabling two copies, in both official languages, of the first and second parts of the Study on Public Transportation in Southwestern Ontario, Bruce county, compiled by the Canadian Transport Commission.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Duncan M. Beattie (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, namely, that the credibility of the Department of Immigration is seriously undermined by the arrest of an officer of the department charged with issuing false and forged work permits to unqualified and illegal immigrants, and that other arrests may be pending. I move, therefore, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander):
That this House immediately call for an independent inquiry to clarify this serious situation.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's motion proposed under the terms of Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous
consent of the House. Has the hon. member unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


FINANCE
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to discuss a matter of urgent and pressing necessity as it concerns the steady increase in the cost of living provoked by excessive interest rates. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin):
That the House consider immediately urging the Minister of Finance to use his powers in his capacity, as well as the Bank of Canada, in order to lower the interest rates, which are one of the major causes of inflation.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the extremely crucial fat cattle market situation all across Canada that has been triggered by a fourteenfold increase in live cattle imports from the United States since

March 6, 1974
Oral Questions
January of this year over last year, and in view of the very reasonable and workable proposals presented to the minister last evening by the cattlemen, will he now indicate what action he is prepared to take to meet this critical cattle market situation?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member has stated, I and some of my officials consulted with the Canadian Cattlemen's Association late yesterday afternoon. I think the record has been pretty good that we have paid close attention in the past to what this organization has suggested and their suggestions are being seriously considered again today. I hope we will be able to make a decision shortly.


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: In view of the serious market drop of some 10 cents a pound over the last two weeks and 15 cents a pound over the last three weeks resulting in increased losses per head in excess of $150, is the minister now prepared to make an immediate recommendation to cabinet or a statement on motions this week on this situation?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I have already made a submission to my colleagues in the cabinet.


IMPORTATION OF UNITED STATES CATTLE GIVEN DES-STEPS TO PROTECT CANADIAN PRODUCERS
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that Canadian beef producers are not allowed to use the food supplement DES while United States producers are permitted to use this food additive and ship such beef and cattle into Canada, what steps does the minister propose to take to effect a fair arrangement for Canadian cattle producers?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I think I should clarify one thing. It is the male species of the animal to which you feed DES, not the female, and the banning of meat coming into Canada from the United States in cases where the cattle supposedly have been fed DES would not necessarily mean a total ban on the importation of meat. There are many things that have to be considered. We recognize that it is illegal to feed it to cattle and then to sell that meat in Canada. But we do not believe that any cattle that are being fed DES in the United States at the present time will be coming into Canada for several weeks because, as I said previously, no one is going to implant DES, or add it to the feed, and get any results from it until several weeks have passed. We are watching the situation closely. We are in consultation with my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare. We are in contact with people in the United States Department of Agriculture. I can say that a decision will be made concerning this matter before any of the animals being fed DES at the present time come to market in Canada.
O)


SUGGESTED DEFICIENCY PAYMENT TO CATTLE PRODUCERS
Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of

Agriculture. In view of the fact many farmers with cattle and those operating feedlots face severe losses and that this is an emergency situation, would the government consider making a deficiency payment to those farmers and feeders who have cattle in feedlots over, let us say, the next month or six weeks so that they will not suffer a real disaster and be forced out of business?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, this is one of the submissions that have already been made.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Can the minister assure the House that within the next few days he will make a statement on motions clarifying this whole matter in order to relieve the uncertainty that now exists in that part of the farming industry?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I announced yesterday that we would be making a decision soon, and I hope very soon.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pose my supplementary question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the fact that beef producers in Canada are now producing beef at far below the cost of production and at the same time the price at the retail level has failed to follow this lowering of prices, especially in the last four or five weeks, can the minister indicate if he is taking any action in this regard?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, we are looking into this as part of our over-all review of the situation, and we are working closely with the Minister of Agriculture and other ministers on this important matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will be recognized for a supplementary. The Chair will then recognize the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore, after which I will return to the hon. member for Calgary Centre and others who have further supplementaries.


Harold Warren Danforth: Is the minister himself undertaking or has he directed that a specific study be made with regard to this very serious problem, or is he leaving it to the general action of the Food Prices Review Board? Is he taking any action other than what he indicated in his previous statement?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the Food Prices Review Board was given vast powers under the Inquiries Act to look into this kind of matter in great depth, but I am certainly prepared to look into it further myself.
March 6, 1974


PRICE OF BEEF-CONSULTATION BY MINISTER WITH FOOD PRICES REVIEW BOARD
Mr. Terry Grier (Toronto-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs if he has had any recent contact with the Food Prices Review Board with regard to the matter of the consumer price for beef?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Not on that matter, Mr. Speaker. I was in touch with them to ascertain when they would be having meetings on the matter of the bread increase.
While I am on my feet, perhaps I might give the information that I promised to give the House in answer to questions posed yesterday.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I would like to-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister will be recognized in due course for that purpose.


Mr. Bell:: Plant a question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In order to proceed in an orderly way, I believe we should allow the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore first to ask his supplementary question, and then we will try to complete the first round of questioning.


BREAD PRICES-RESULTS OF REPRESENTATIONS BY MINISTER TO BAKERIES
Terrence Wyly Grier: Mr. Speaker, in view of the anxiety of the minister to tell us something about the price of bread, may I run the risk of setting him up by asking this question: In view of the fact that today Weston Bakeries announced that they were going to withhold for the time being the full price increases they have in mind, will the minister tell the house the results of any contacts he has had with other bakeries and what assurance he can give the House in respect of their price plans?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for giving me the opportunity to add further information to the information I have previously given. As a result of my contacts with the bakery industry for the purpose of having them restrain increases in the price of bread, at least until after further meetings with the Food Prices Review Board, as the hon. member has suggested I have been informed that Weston Bakeries are rolling back tomorrow their planned four cent per loaf increase in Quebec to three cents.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: In the province of Ontario I am informed they will be increasing their price on Monday, March 11, by no more than two cents. With respect to the Steinberg chain, I am informed that they have not increased prices on their private label house brands yet. They plan to increase the price of their private label breads by no more than two cents. With respect to A & P, they will be increasing their
Oral Questions
price on private label white bread by no more than two cents in places other than Quebec and in Quebec they plan to raise their price but only by three cents. With respect to Corporate Foods, the increase in Ontario-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: If I may complete my remarks, I am simply doing what I said to the House yesterday I would do.


An hon. Member:: On motions.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the minister might try to give the information as briefly as possible. As the hon. minister will realize, if he gives a lengthy reply which is really in the form of a statement he should expect statements to be made in reply by the opposition parties. I would hope that the information he is giving to the House at this time would be given briefly.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I will heed your admonition, Mr. Speaker. Corporate Food Bakeries inform me that in Ontario they are increasing their standard 24-ounce white loaf by two cents on Monday, March 11. The Safeway chain has advised that they will not be increasing the price of their private brand white bread for an indefinite period, at least until the end of March.


Mr. Baker:: They are not going to wrap it.


Terrence Wyly Grier: For what period of time have these commitments on prices by these bakeries been undertaken?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that this is certainly until after the meetings with the Food Prices Review Board and likely until the end of the month of March.


REQUEST FOR ACTION TO ENSURE NO FURTHER INCREASES IN PRICE OF BREAD
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister. In view of the fact that all of the relevant confidential bookkeeping data of the bakeries has already been given to the Food Prices Review Board and the board has made a recommendation based on that data, may I ask the minister if the government is now prepared to take immediate steps to ensure that there will be no further increases in the price of bread?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I have already informed the House that the steps indicated in the Prime Minister's statement of last fall were that the government would be prepared to consider further action after the parties mentioned in a Food Prices Review Board report had appeared before the board for discussions. This meeting is to take place on March 20, as the House knows, and we will be prepared to take appropriate action in light of the results of that meeting.
222

March 6, 1974
Oral Questions


FINANCE
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
In view of the fact that the last five years U.S. banks and finance companies have tripled business in Canada, the total figure going from $961 million to more than $2.7 billions, which shows that because of the artificial credit restrictions by the Bank of Canada Canadians must seek in the United States the funds required for their economic activities, can the right hon. Prime Minister tell the House what measures he will take to abolish artificial restrictions on access to credit for Canadians in their own country?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, there are many approaches to this question. I cannot cover them all briefly. But the hon. member will surely remember that the Minister of Finance has encouraged provinces in particular not to borrow from foreign sources during these years precisely to prevent an increase in American credit in the United States.
The provinces have followed partly these recommendations, but I do not believe that the hon. member would ask the government to prevent provinces or even corporations from borrowing on the world markets.


René Matte: I wish to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Can the right hon. Prime Minister tell us if he believes that what is physically possible in Canada can be financially realizable in our country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


PRICE OF HEATING OIL PURCHASED BY GOVERNMENT-RESULT OF TRANSACTION
Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Supply and Services. Several months ago the minister was asked what price the Canadian Commercial Corporation had paid for the 40 million gallons of distilled oil it had purchased and the minister replied that competitive circumstances made it undesirable to release the figure. In view of the fact that these competitive circumstances no longer prevail, would the minister now tell the House what price the corporation paid for this heating oil?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I should just like to say that the hon. member gives the wrong impression when he says that the Canadian Commercial Corporation bought the oil. In fact, the department itself did so.

Second, I am not now in a position to reveal what price was paid because incidental expenses still have to be taken into account. As soon as these have been figured out, the government should then be able to announce the exact cost of that purchase.


Harvie Andre: In view of the minister's answer, could he indicate to the House the total amount of oil that was purchased, whether the oil has now been sold and whether there was a net loss or some money made in the course of this transaction?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will understand that because of the very mild winter we have had, the oil has not yet been used. I am not now in a position to say exactly how many barrels were purchased but I shall be pleased to advise the hon. member of it tomorrow.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to the one asked by the hon. member for Medicine Hat and is directed to the Prime Minister. When the price of beef reached its peak last August the government moved very quickly to control prices. Would the Prime Minister now undertake to have the government move as quickly to stop the abnormal influx of American cattle which is disrupting the market and bankrupting the industry?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member will consider the government's program as announced in the Speech from the Throne with regard to agriculture he will see that it consists essentially of a series of measures aimed at increasing supply in Canada and therefore benefiting the consumer, while at the same time ensuring various forms of income guarantee to agricultural producers. These measures will be brought in during the course of the session and I hope that they will be explained to and understood by the Canadian public. In the meantime one cannot help remarking that yesterday the Tories were complaining that the price of bread was too high and today they are complaining that the price of meat is too low. We would like to know where they stand.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: That is totally wrong.


Thomas Gordon Towers: In view of the serious situation of the industry and as cattlemen cannot wait for delayed decisions on the part of the government, will the Prime Minister not now commit the government to making an immediate decision and have the Minister of Agriculture announce it prior to his leaving the House next Monday?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the order in which matters will take place in this session will be discussed in the usual manner by the government House leader and the
March 6, 1974

other House leaders. We would be glad, for instance, if the opposition wants to give up some of its opposition days before the end of the month, to replace them with good government legislation.


Thomas Miller Bell: But you have not got anything ready.


ARTS AND SCIENCES
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Science and Technology. May I ask whether the announcement in the Speech from the Throne of the establishment of granting councils, one for social sciences, one for the humanities and another for natural sciences, means that the National Research Council and the Canada Council will be phased out of operation?


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: No, Mr. Speaker, it does not mean that they will be phased out of operation. The National Research Council will continue with its laboratory functions and the Canada Council will continue to promote the arts.


CONSIDERATION GIVEN BY CABINET TO ADVICE OF MINISTRY OF STATE FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of State for Science and Technology. The throne speech suggests and a subsequent statement released by the minister says that the advice of the Ministry of State for Science and Technology will increasingly be taken into account by the cabinet. What new mechanisms does she foresee to ensure that this will happen, or is this simply a promise from the Prime Minister that from now on the cabinet will listen to the minister's ideas?


Jeanne Sauvé: No, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will allow the hon. minister to reply to the question. I was going to take issue with the form of the question but perhaps it might be easier to allow the minister to reply.


Jeanne Sauvé: No, Mr. Speaker. A mechanism has been worked out between my ministry and the Treasury Board. If the hon. member would refer to the speech I made last Friday in the House, he would realize that apart from that mechanism I will be in a position to publish science expenditures before the fact, that is, before they are approved by parliament, so they can be available for public discussion.


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


PROPOSED GRANT COUNCILS-METHOD OF OPERATION-OPPORTUNITY FOR INTERESTED GROUPS TO COMMENT
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a further question for the Minister of State for Science and Technology. Will the minister provide an ample opportunity to learned societies, cultural groups and other interested people before definite decisions are taken as to the precise role and method of operation for any new granting council operating alongside the Canada Council and the National Research Council to make comments upon the minister's proposals?


Jeanne Sauvé: I am always happy to consider the comments of the learned societies.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour of which I gave him notice yesterday. Has the minister received a request from the Minister of Labour of the province of British Columbia for delegation by the federal government to the province of labour jurisdiction in the British Columbia fishing industry? If so, what action has he taken on this request?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have received such a telegram. We are in the process of advising the minister that the matter is actually before the courts because there has been an application for certification before the Canada Labour Relations Board that raises the jurisdictional question. So it will be resolved from a judicial point of view. In the meantime, our position is that we have jurisdiction and will proceed.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I think I am free to ask this question despite the minister's reference to some subject matter before the courts. My supplementary arises from the minister's statement about the jurisdiction which he says the federal government has under existing law. I am sure the minister is aware of the confusion about jurisdiction. Is the minister prepared in this session to introduce further legislation amending the Canada Labour Relations Act which will in fact make clear what the federal jurisdiction is with regard to most of the fishermen who are not now covered by any labour law legislation?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I would be prepared to give that some consideration. I should have added in my previous answer that there is some legal question whether in fact we could delegate authority, even if we were asked to do so, without a special act of parliament. Be that as it may, and further to the particular question the hon. member has asked, I would advise the hon. member that when we made the most recent amendments to the Canada Labour Code we were the first as a federal government to make amendments that would provide bargaining rights to fishermen. We acknowledged the fact that they are entitled to them. We recognize that in
224

March 6, 1974
Oral Questions
the code. If further amendments are required to protect them in their negotiations with employers, we will be prepared to consider them.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the honourable and gallant Minister of Veterans Affairs. Veterans are being advised that because of the very large increase in the number of applications for pensions and allowances they may well have to wait for 18 months before a decision is made in their respective cases. Would the minister endeavour to dispose of the backlog of cases by adding ad hoc additional members to pension boards and the like in order that veterans will not be obliged to wait as long as is at present anticipated?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: We have been making considerable progress with pension applications. I might refer to December, 1972. We had 719 submissions and 103 favourable decisions at that time. In December, 1973, we had 813 submissions and 308 favourable decisions. In other words, favourable decisions in that particular month had increased by a couple of hundred. I also want to inform the right hon. member that the Pension Commission is working very hard indeed and they are really keyed up. I spent about three hours there one day last week with the people who are working there. We have a back-up staff of doctors and so on. I was very fortunate last month to be able to obtain the services of an additional doctor. We have to have a certain type of group to go and meet veterans out in the country. For instance, we have these appeal boards. We would like very much to have a doctor who has considerable experience-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: I thank the minister for his voluble attempt at an answer, but I ask him whether or nor it is a fact that veterans-they cannot be answered by statistics-are today being advised that they may expect to have to wait 18 months because of the backlog?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I would be very happy to contradict that. I would not want that to go round the country at all.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: It is far from being true. As hon. members know, assessment of pension rights involves considerable detail and fact-finding. But cases which are of a specific nature, for example, a case affecting a veteran's widow or a man who is not able to look after himself and needs additional care, can be brought forward. Not very many, we anticipate, will have to wait 18 months.


Some hon. Members:: How many?


John George Diefenbaker: You are so advised!


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Does the minister appreciate that the difficulty with details he mentioned arises because the records go back so far and that by changing the benefit of the doubt clause many of the applications which constitute the backlog could be cleared up? Would the minister look at that clause very carefully and try to relieve the situation so that applications can be cleared up quickly?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: I will give that matter consideration.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Is he aware of the fact that the State Council of the Turks and Caicos Islands of the West Indies has prepared a petition requesting from Great Britain the authorization to negotiate an association with Canada? If so, is the Canadian government favourable to such an association?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I am aware of the fact that the council has prepared a petition to the British government. A copy of this petition has come to us. Of course, it has not been transmitted officially by the British government as it would have to be if there was to be a request to us. If I might express my view as Secretary of State for External Affairs, it does seem to me to be very undesirable to raise the expectations of the people of those islands that they will join Canada when this question has not been settled by this government or in this House.


CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. I might say by way of preface that we often hear the term "Philadelphia lawyers". A case of this kind would occupy all the lawyers in Philadelphia. Failing their services, I would depend on the minister who is working toward the fulfilment of legislation passed by the House in 1967. I would ask him about the case of Mr. Campbell, a long-time employee of Dosco who, preretired by Devco, found himself on the preretirement leave of absence plan of another company, one for which he had never worked a day in his life. I ask the minister how such an arrangement could come about?
March 6, 1974


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: I would say to the hon. member that since both of us are residents of the Atlantic provinces, perhaps in addition to those Philadelphia lawyers we ought to put in a couple of sea lawyers like himself and myself to try to work it out. I am grateful to the hon. member for having brought this case to my attention. As he is aware, I have made inquiries with regard to this case and if I receive information which I have not already given him I shall be glad to make it available and discuss it with him.


Donald MacInnis: I wonder whether the minister will treat this matter with the sense of urgency it deserves and provide an answer, say as of yesterday or no later than tomorrow, and inform the House why a man can be placed on the preretirement plan of a company for which he has never worked and why some kind of financial arrangement, a very strange one, can be made whereby Devco pays his preretirement for the other company?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I obviously cannot get an answer for yesterday, although I did give the hon. member one answer which obviously did not satisfy him. I will communicate again with the parties concerned and endeavour to get him an answer, if not tomorrow, then as soon as possible.


Donald MacInnis: Get on the hot line to Tom Kent's office.


CONCERN OF FARMERS OF SOUTHWESTERN ONTARIO ABOUT ROUTE OF PROPOSED OIL PIPELINE EXTENSION
Mr. William C. Frank (Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the concern recently expressed by farmers that the proposed route for extension of the oil pipeline will result in the rape of prime agricultural land in southwestern Ontario, and in view of the answer given my colleague from Huron yesterday, can the minister tell the House whether he has received direct representations from these farmers or by farm organizations on their behalf in recent weeks?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: If by direct representations the hon. member means representations to me, the answer is no.


William Charles Frank: Then I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture. In light of the reply given by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to my first question, can the Minister of Agriculture tell the House why he has not made serious representations to his colleague following the many representations to him both by letter and personally by the farmers affected and by their organizations in connection with the proposed pipeline?
Oral Questions


Eugene Whelan: The
representations made to me have been passed on to the departments concerned, including the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. We have had correspondence about it between ourselves.


William Charles Frank: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-[DOT]


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member rises on a question of privilege. I hope it will be brief because we are running short of time.


William Charles Frank: Yes, Mr. Speaker. In his answer to me the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said he had not received representations. I said "directly or indirectly", by farmers or otherwise. The Minister of Agriculture now tells us he has made representations. Who are the farmers to believe?


Mr. Speaker:: That is hardly a question of privilege. Perhaps the hon. member would like to ask a supplementary question to try to solve the difficulty, after which I shall recognize the hon. member for Brant.


William Charles Frank: My supplementary question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the fact these farmers, whether rightly or wrongly, are looking at the installation of this proposed pipeline and the replacement of earth involved in a three-foot pit with some seriousness, does the minister consider the policies expounded by some assistants in the energy department as fact and, if they are fact, what is the point of having these future hearings?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, may I just remind the hon. gentleman that he asked me whether there were direct representations made. I repeated his question, and there were none. I hope he will not try to confuse the issue in this regard. My understanding is that his party and his leader were in favour of putting additional oil supplies into Montreal from Canadian sources at an early date. This remains the policy of the government and I hope we will continue to have their support.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister. May I ask the Prime Minister whether he has considered giving Mrs. Hartling, head of the national anti-poverty organization, the same salary, program funding and personnel as the government has so generously given Mrs. Plumptre and her staff, which will amount to approximately $1.9 million in 1974?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure that question can be placed on the order paper or considered at the time of adjournment in case of urgency.
Oral Questions


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
[Stage Direction]
March 6, 1974

Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General in his capacity as spokesman for the RCMP. In view of the fact the people of Canada have been informed that certain civil servants within the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs have not been prosecuted for theft because they claimed that they had only borrowed certain goods from that department, and in view of the fact that section 283 of the Criminal Code defines theft in words that cover borrowing or taking permanently by using the words "to deprive, temporarily or absolutely", would the Solicitor General, either today or in a statement tomorrow on motions, inform the House and the Canadian people of the true reason why prosecutions did not take place?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I will look into this, but I should point out that enforcement of the Criminal Code in Ontario comes within the jurisdiction of the Attorney General for Ontario and the Ontario Provincial Police.


Paul Wyatt Dick: I appreciate the answer of the Solicitor General, but since the RCMP investigated this matter as it fell within federal jurisdiction-


Some hon. Members:: Question!


Paul Wyatt Dick: -I request the Solicitor General to give us the reason why the RCMP did not lay charges.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, as I said in my first answer, I will look into this matter and give a report to the House as soon as possible.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister and it relates to beef prices which were discussed earlier today. I might say that I express surprise at the Prime Minister's answer as it is evident that he did not know that, in spite of the crisis, the price to the consumer has not gone down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. member to invite him and other hon. members to ask their questions as directly as possible without preambles and little statements. We would save time if we proceeded in a more orderly fashion.


William Herbert Jarvis: In light of the fact that the Speech from the Throne contained some very welcome suggestions to the effect that the government intends to give "incentives to increase the production of livestock necessary to provide for Canadian and export markets", and in view of the current beef crisis, is the Prime Minister aware that unless immediate steps are taken to mitigate that crisis there will

be no beef industry to give any incentive to because all the producers will be bankrupt?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the prediction of the hon. member is not one with which I agree. The position of the government is that supplies can and will increase. As to the stability of returns, the hon. member will recall that his own party rejected the proposition made by this government some years ago that marketing boards could be extended to cattle if the cattlemen so wanted. This is one tool they have not chosen to use, I believe in accord with the Tory party.


William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Agriculture. In light of his rejection of the proposals of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association at the meeting yesterday, would the minister indicate what counter-proposals, if any, he made to the association yesterday?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the hon. gentleman gets his information, but I can honestly say that I rejected nothing that the Canadian cattlemen presented to us yesterday. I said that their proposals would be considered, and they will be considered.


EMERGENCY GOLD MINING ASSISTANCE ACT
Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources whether he is giving consideration to amending the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act to bring into line the subsidy guarantee in order to encourage development of the gold mining industry in northern Ontario?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman will recall that the period of time for EGMA was extended, but given the current commercial price of gold it seems unlikely that that kind of floor will be needed to encourage anyone to get into the gold mining industry.


William Arnold Peters: I am pleased to hear that the minister understands the problem. I now ask him to overcome that problem. Will he raise the floor to a level that will ensure long-range investment by the industry in the production of gold, taking into account the anticipated price of $200 an ounce?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I think I would have to say that the commercial market has done far more than I could ever do in this regard.
March 6, 1974

Oral Questions


REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE MEDICAL RESEARCH FUNDS WILL NOT BE REDUCED
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the widespread fears and anxieties being caused by the cutback in medical research funds due to inflation, can the minister assure the people, many of whom have lost relatives or friends with incurable diseases, that there will be no cutback in research funds or any loss of teachers or professors in those fields?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to state that there has not been and there will not be a cutback in funds allocated to medical research. I believe these funds will represent an additional $2 million for the Medical Research Council. Second, the council decides on the allocation as between the various fields of research; this is a matter to be decided by the council. As for the total funds allocated, I would like to stress that since 1963 the funds allocated to the council have increased eightfold, from $5 million to just over $40 million.


Philip Bernard Rynard: May I tell the minister that this is the lowest increase given by the second highest inflationary government in history. How could there be an increase?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


PRESENCE OF DES IN UNITED STATES CATTLE IMPORTED INTO CANADA
Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. On February 28 I asked the Minister of Agriculture a question with respect to United States cattle reaching the Canadian market having been fed on the food supplement DES. At that time the minister stated that he would have a conference with the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has the minister had that conference with the Minister of Agriculture regarding United States cattle that have been given this cancer promoting additive to feed, or whatever you want to call it, and what steps is the minister taking now to protect the health of Canadians?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Agriculture stated a while ago, we have had many discussions on the matter and we will probably have others. As to the step mentioned by the hon. member, I would like to point out, like the Minister of Agriculture, that several weeks will elapse before the arrival on the Canadian market of any American product treated with DES. I would also like to point out that the government has contacted American authorities and that we will take the necessary steps so that no meat treated with DES will be imported from the United States. We will then consider the application of a certification system guaranteed by the American government and we will also carry proper tests.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have reached the end of the question period. Perhaps the Chair might be allowed to recognize the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster before calling orders of the day.


TRANSPORT
Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Transport if he now has information on the case of the missing coins which took place in the dark of night on a train on the way to Winnipeg?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, immediately after the question was asked yesterday I put the question to Canadian National Railways and asked for an answer right away, but I have not received the answer.


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order concerning the comment made by the Minister of Agriculture in respect of the use of DES. I am sure the minister realizes it is common knowledge that the DES implant or growth stimulant is used quite frequently in feeding heifers in feedlots and also that DES is readily available in the United States and is indeed being used right now in the United States. It seems to me-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member. He has made his point. Now that he has made his statement I do not really think it is a point of order. If the hon. member feels that the information he has obtained today is not exact he might pursue the matter during the question period tomorrow.


William Charles Frank: Mr. Speaker, in view of the misinterpretation of my earlier question I should like to pursue this very important matter at ten o'clock.


SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, March 5, consideration of the motion of Mr. Stollery for an address to His Excellency the Governor general in reply to his speech at the opening of the session.
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I believe there was some difficulty at the time of adjournment yesterday concerning the order of speakers. I think there might be agreement that the Chair recognize the Minister responsible for Urban Affairs followed by the hon. member for Sas-katoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave).

March 6, 1974
The Address-Mr. Basford


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, when I rose I was not aware that there had been some difficulty at the conclusion of yesterday's debate. If the fact I have been recognized has caused the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar any difficulty or inconvenience I apologize to him.
In entering the debate at this time I wish to join all of our colleagues who have extended their congratulations to His Excellency the Governor General and to his lady upon their appointment. As a couple they follow in the footsteps of many distinguished predecessors, and members of the House of Commons who know Their Excellencies know they have the qualities to carry out the job with dignity, warmth and very great charm. I also join with members of this House in extending congratulations to the mover and seconder of the Speech from the Throne, the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Stollery) and the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Pelletier) for their fine contribution to this debate.
I welcome the opportunity to enter the debate because it allows me to review, for the benefit of hon. members and for the benefit of the people of Canada, the progress that has been made in the solution of urban problems, especially the progress toward our goal as a government as well as a nation of making available good housing at reasonable cost to all Canadians wherever they live. Before beginning my remarks on housing and urban affairs more generally, I should like to devote if I may a few moments to matters that affect me as a minister from British Columbia which were mentioned in the Speech from the Throne. One of the highest priorities of people in British Columbia is the opening up of the northern part of the province and the development of their northern resources and northern industrial capability. The major port and railway program agreement made between British Columbia and the federal government announced the day before the Western Economic Opportunities Conference, will make those aspirations a reality. That agreement, coupled with a major further agreement to be signed between British Columbia and the government of Canada by my colleague and seat-mate, the minister responsible for regional economic expansion, will, as I say, allow those aspirations of British Columbians to become a reality.
A key transportation component announced at the Western Economic Opportunities Conference is the construction of the Clinton-Ashcroft link between the CNR and the British Columbia Railway. Although this construction is taking place in British Columbia, all western provinces will benefit from it. Those in this House who ask daily questions about the movement of wheat will realize that when bad weather closes the rail lines through the Fraser Canyon, the one outlet to the Port of Vancouver, as it has done on several occasions, the building of the Clinton-Ashcroft passage will enable us to keep the grain shipments and other freight moving between the prairies and the port of Vancouver to the markets of the world. Tnat, of course, must be proceeded with, as was outlined in that agreement, with haste.
I should like to dwell for a moment on recent federal contributions to western port development. Last year the federal government spent almost one half the total National Harbours Board budget in British Columbia.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I am delighted to hear my colleague from the Progressive Conservative Party across the way say "shame" to that. That is usually the way they regard British Columbia problems.
Specific projects now under development include the $30 million Van term Container Facility and the $20 million Lynnterm Deep Sea Terminal. This kind of capital expenditure will be continuing for some years. Outside the Vancouver port area a feasibility study is presently being conducted into the next phase of the Roberts Bank port development. For Prince Rupert, the federal government, apart entirely from the railway expansion program, has already announced a $17 million program for port expansion. These are exciting and bold developments which will ensure a strong base from which to compete for world trade. Many of the complaints about our present system of administering ports cannot be measured in terms of personnel and money. The government and my colleague, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand), the responsible minister, recognized this in the Speech from the Throne by calling for the development of a new ports policy aimed at establishing a high degree of local involvement.
I believe there is a pressing need, and I speak as a member from British Columbia, for an independent regional port authority for western Canada. For far too long we have tried unsuccessfully to evolve a single national ports policy for all of Canada. To continue to view all Canadian port facilities as a monolithic entity in the hope of finding a comprehensive ports policy is to miss entirely the crux of the complaints from the various regional ports, particularly those located in the west.
Vancouver and Prince Rupert are national ports, national in every sense of the word, but they are also western ports serving the four western provinces particularly, and the need for a national ports policy must therefore be reconciled with the essential requirement for greater regional involvement in their operation, their management and their planning. It is with that recognition that the statement in the Speech from the Throne appears in respect of the evolution of a new ports policy.


Mr. Alexander:: Let's get down to the $75,000 homes in Toronto.


Stanley Ronald Basford: The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) suggests that we get down to housing, that is what I want to do.
Urban matters and housing are among the main priorities of the government. This is adequately demonstrated by the attention devoted to urban matters and to housing in the Speech from the Throne, from which I quote as follows:
In the domain of social policy the government is playing a vital role to achieve a more balanced pattern of urban growth and to increase the quality of life in our cities in co-operation with the provinces and municipalities. Improved means of public transportation are indispensable to the achievement of these urban goals. Measures will be introduced to establish a National Urban Transportation Development Corporation to co-ordinate and market the development of required new technology in this field. You will be asked to consider measures to
March 6, 1974

assist provinces and cities in the relocation of railway lines and terminals and in the redevelopment of these areas for purposes that will enhance the environment of many of our cities and towns.
And further:
Provision of adequate shelter at reasonable prices in a satisfactory neighbourhood environment has been a continuing concern of the Government, and levels of funding to meet this objective are being reviewed. Substantial assistance to rural and native housing programs will also be proposed.
I notice an hon. member from Newfoundland desires to say something and I draw that particular reference to his attention. To continue with the statement:
The sewage assistance program will be revised to make it more effective as a means to increase the supply of serviced land. The Government will introduce measures to increase the protection available to consumers in the housing market.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: You are going to have a busy session.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Our first objective is to manage urban growth before it manages us. I come from Vancouver and I am anxious that Vancouver and our other major cities in this country such as Toronto, Montreal, Winnipeg, Halifax and others-


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: And Hamilton.


Stanley Ronald Basford: The whole Hamilton-Toronto axis, yes. I am anxious that they should flourish in the future as they have in the past. But too rapid growth in those urban centres causes numerous problems, which we are experiencing now, for those large cities; numerous problems in housing, land costs, long distances to be travelled between home and work, pollution and the lack of amenities, and we now see this phenomenon within the country. To concentrate growth in a few large cities will leave much of rural Canada in the prairie provinces, Quebec, Ontario and in some of the Atlantic provinces, as well as many small towns and cities, in a desperate position with no growth, or even losing growth.
These are national problems and the federal government has already taken a strong lead in things that should be solved on a national basis by co-operation at the federal, provincial and municipal levels of government. As the throne speech has indicated, the federal government intends to do much more in this regard during the forthcoming session in terms of developing in a co-operative way within this country good techniques of managing urban growth.
Our second main objective relates to the quality of life in the cities we have today, especially the quality of life in the central cores of our largest cities. All of us in this House who represent city ridings can think of neighbourhoods in those cities as well as small communities and small towns which are threatened by social as well as physical decay.
Two federal programs that this parliament enacted which are designed to meet these needs were introduced and passed last session through amendments to the National Housing Act. I refer to the neighbourhood improvement program and to the residential rehabilitation program in particular, both of which programs I am now happy to report, some months after passage of the legislate Address-Mr. Basford
tion, have been well received by provincial and municipal governments.
In recent months I have visited all of the provinces and raised these matters with their responsible ministers. We now have neighbourhood improvement agreements to provide for the selection of neighbourhoods within these provinces and for the rejuvenation of these neighbourhoods. We now have agreements with six provinces and I am confident that we will soon have agreements with all of them.
To the extent that we are able to go back into our older neighbourhoods and communities and rehabilitate them and the housing in them we are improving the life in our cities but, more importantly in today's context, we can through this technique provide a large stock of more moderately priced housing and relieve some of the pressures we now see for new land, new subdivisions, new housing and new servicing.
In today's society we talk about the need to recycle many things, including bottles and tin cans, we talk about all the environmental factors and the need to recycle these things. These two new programs are designed to recycle housing in neighbourhoods, and they are essential. I would hope all hon. members in this House will work with me toward assuring that the provinces name the particular neighbourhoods to which these programs should apply as quickly as possible so the programs can begin doing what they are designed to do.
Hon. members and all Canadians have their own ideas, of course, about urban needs, ideal cities, the need for good housing at reasonable cost, clean air, convenient transportation, attractive surroundings, security, excitement and so on.


An hon. Member:: Oh boy!


Stanley Ronald Basford: There is less agreement on how we should solve the problems of transforming our towns and cities to meet these views. Having regard to the contents of the Speech from the Throne, I wanted to discuss a number of topics, but I should like to concentrate particularly on urban transportation and housing. Let me begin with urban transportation.
There can surely be little disagreement that, in our larger cities at any rate, there is a need for a shift away from the automobile toward public transit systems, especially given today's land and energy situation. For this reason, the throne speech announced our intention as a government to create a national urban transportation development corporation. We have been having discussions with the provinces, and these will be intensified with interested provinces to seek their participation in the establishment of this corporation.
Scarcely a week goes by without the appearance of some new or improved scheme for improving public transit, but in some cases we do not need to wait, and we should not get carried away waiting for some new exotic system to be developed. For example, in terms of public transit, one of the more immediate needs in many of our cities is a good dial-a-bus system. Some of our cities are indeed experimenting in this regard. In many of our cities there are railway tracks and other facilities that could be adapted to
230

March 6, 1974
The Address-Mr. Basford
meet both light and heavy urban transit needs. I forsee the national urban transportation development corporation being able, once established, to supply these equipment needs to municipal and provincial systems in the best, fastest, and cheapest way.
We will be providing, in the railway relocation bill that my colleague, the Minister of transport and I will be introducing, that existing rail lines, rights of way, and other facilities can be recycled as part of an urban transportation plan for use for urban and interurban services.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: It's about time. You have been studying it for three years.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I am delighted to note, from comments from Conservatives and members of the NDP, that this measure will have their immediate and overwhelming support. I hope that, therefore, it will have easy and quick passage through the House.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Let us see the fine print.


Stanley Ronald Basford: In other cases, however, our towns and cities have networks of rail tracks and yards that, because of changes in transportation methods, are now under-utilized to meet current needs, and do not in any sense need to occupy the large tracts of urban land that they presently occupy. The railway relocation legislation will provide a vital means by which the quality of life in many Canadian cities, large and small, can be significantly improved, and under which huge tracts of downtown land can be made available for residential and commercial use.
I draw attention to studies that have been conducted in many cities, and in particular the city of Winnipeg, where the matter is a controversial one. In that city there are at least three different proposals for railway relocation and, without indicating a preference for either of them, if the bulk of the railway tracks could be removed from the Arlington yards this would free 600 acres of downtown land for housing and commercial use thereby, as is the case with the neighbourhood improvement program and the repair and rehabilitation program, taking some of the pressure off the need for new land, new services and new communities. Before outlining the housing measures, legislative and otherwise, which we are preparing for the year ahead, I should like a moment to review the progress which we have achieved toward meeting our goal, under the National Housing Act, of creating good housing at an affordable cost for all Canadians, and to put these activities into some kind of perspective.
However, this kind of comparison is not a source of self-satisfaction to the government. We will not be satisfied as long as there are families who lack the kind of home that contributes to their fullest possible well being. So, Mr. Speaker, I think that hon. members on all sides of the House will readily concede that in terms of getting houses built we are doing a good job.
Some 268,000 new housing units were started during 1973, more than in any other year in Canadian history.


Mr. Gillies:: How many single family houses?


Stanley Ronald Basford: The hon. member asks how many single family houses. We had a record number of single family housing formations during the same period.


James McPhail Gillies: That is just nonsense.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I am amused at the static I hear coming from Conservative members from Ontario. They are criticizing me for policies that have generated 268,000 housing units in one year, but only yesterday their provincial colleagues were taking credit for creating just 100,000 housing units.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Don't let us get you confused.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Before the end of the month of March somewhere in Canada workmen will begin laying the foundation for the one millionth housing unit to be constructed in Canada since 1970,-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Ronald Basford: -exceeding the forecast needs quoted by the Economic Council of Canada. If I had time I could quote speech after speech from hon. members opposite saying that we must meet the target set by the Economic Council of Canada. For their benefit, I simply want to record the fact that we are exceeding that target. If hon. members opposite want to draw a comparison with the United States, I would point out that housing starts in Canada increased by 8 per cent last year, while they declined by 14 per cent in the United States. That is a startling comparison that underlines the success of Canadian policy.
Looking forward to 1974, and taking into account the impact of our new social housing programs which will create more low and medium priced housing than has ever been built in the past, I believe that we have a very good chance of matching if not exceeding the 1973 record. As hon. members know very well-


James McPhail Gillies: What is a medium priced house?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Again, I am getting some static from hon. members opposite. All hon. members know very well, it is one thing to build housing, and it is another thing to see that housing is fairly distributed to people who need it, senior citizens, and low and moderate income Canadians. That distribution is the major problem at which housing policy is aimed. My colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), in his extremely able address yesterday dealt with the general question of inflation and rising costs.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: He did not.


Stanley Ronald Basford: He dealt with it very ably, if I may say so, and rather than dealing with the matters with which he dealt yesterday I will deal with the distribution of housing, and with why we are pushing all of our new housing programs which offer practical and immediate help to people who need it most.
An important element in housing costs is the cost of serviced urban land. The objective of the land assembly program is to overcome this phenomenon by providing
March 6, 1974

serviced land where and when it is needed. Hon. members will recall that more than a year ago we undertook to provide at least $100 million per year for five years for public land assembly schemes. Incidentally this was twice the amount recommended by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) at that time.
The response of other governments was initially slow, but I am happy to report to the House at this point that as a result of my travels and meetings with provincial governments, and as a result of the efforts of federal officials and provincial governments, we exceeded our target in 1973, so by the end of that year we were able to commit $150 million for land assembly. There are prospects for the coming year of very substantial commitments for land assembly. It has our complete support as a government.
As a result of the changes that I announced at the trilevel conference on urban affairs in Edmonton in October, the bulk of federal land assembly funds are being provided to those provinces and municipalities and to those projects which promise a quick start and quick development of lots. We undoubtedly need five to ten and twenty year land banks in this country, but immediately we need public land assemblies that provide lots as soon as possible. I am delighted that using our federal resources either by way of loans or partnership, governments like Ontario, British Columbia and Manitoba are following our. lead for "quick start" land assemblies rather than long term land banking.
Hon. members will be gratified to learn that the amendments to the National Housing Act, which they enacted into law last June, have been enthusiastically received by all who share in their implementation and benefits. If 1973 was the year of major amendments to the National Housing Act, I trust 1974 will be seen as the year of complete implementation and utilization of these amendments. If that occurs, if provinces, municipalities, non-profit groups and others who can benefit under the act, fully implement and utilize those amendments, I know that these provisions will make a major contribution to solving our current housing problems.
I have already mentioned the Neighbourhood Improvement Program and the Repairs and Rehabilitation Programs. The Assisted Home Ownership Program has already assisted more than 8,000 low and moderate income families to buy their own homes. And by the end of the year, the benefits of this program will assist as many as 18,000 families to become home owners. We hear a lot about subsidized interest and home purchase plans, and that is exactly what this program is about, reducing to those on low and moderate incomes effective interest rates to 6 per cent. I would hope that hon. members would give that program their complete support and see that people in the income categories provided get the benefit.


An hon. Member:: Where do you buy those?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I am also determined that the so-called "third force" in housing flourish to the maximum extent possible, that the co-operatives, charitable and the nonprofit groups and other organizations build or acquire low and moderate price housing. During 1973, we committed
The Address-Mr. Basford
$104 million in preferred rate loans. In addition, $313,000 in grants was paid to these organizations to help them to do research, build their own organizations and plan housing projects.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret that I have to interrupt the hon. minister but his time has expired. He can continue with the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Woolliams:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to give my consent-I do not know whether this is a condition-if he would answer one question at the end of his speech. I would appreciate that and I certainly want to hear him out.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to do so. I am sorry to go over my time and I did not intend to do so. I thank hon. members for their courtesy in allowing me to go on and I shall conclude quickly.
With regard to the non-profit and co-operative housing groups, in my view they have a piece of legislation that they can take full advantage of, and in that they have my full support and complete encouragement.
I would also like to say something about the work we are doing with the native people, particularly the Metis or non-status Indians. We are maintaining a close relationship with native peoples' housing organizations. This relationship is founded on the principle that native people must be involved in the designing and construction of their own projects.
This consultation accounts for the remarkable achievements of such native housing organizations as KINEW in Winnipeg, CANATIVE in Edmonton and the Saskatchewan and British Columbia Metis housing associations. I have the views of the Metis associations and their national council. I have recently discussed these matters with the more involved provinces and I will be meeting with the Metis and non-status spokesmen tomorrow to further develop programs sensitive to their needs. And while I intend to give priority to this special need, I also intend to outline a national rural housing program to meet the general needs of people outside of our major urban centres.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Ronald Basford: Our housing programs have been criticized as being oriented to the big cities and towns. We have a rural housing program for the country and we are developing policies to meet that. Mr. Speaker, I want by reference a few cities to show, by example, how we intend to act and how our housing policy can take effect.
In Ottawa, there are 400 acres in Nepean Township in federal hands. We want to put these lands to use as a housing project which will demonstrate new ways of building residential communities. We will explore new forms of housing which make the most economical use of land while providing all of the amenities that families require. Particularly important now, it could demonstrate ways in which new technology may be used to conserve energy and materials. We are creating a development arm within CMHC to carry out the plan. I have met with the
27398-16^

March 6, 1974
The Address-Mr. Basford
reeve and hope we can lay concrete proposals before him very soon. I hope construction can begin in 1975.
Lastly, Mr. Speaker, hon. members are familiar with our efforts outside Ottawa in what is called the southeast city and the federal and provincial governments' acquisition of some 5,200 acres upon which to develop a wholly new community. I believe that project can demonstrate the usefulness of new communities in the management of urban growth which is essential, and as a means of reducing land costs. This plan presents a practical solution to the long term growth problems of this region. Let me say-in case there is any doubt about it-that it is urgent and critical that it proceed as quickly as good planning and full consultation with all governments will allow. We are ready to do so and CMHC and the NCC have been instructed by me to attach the highest possible priority to these developments and to co-operate fully with Ontario and the regional municipality.
Outside the capital region, the Metro Toronto-Hamilton axis area must obviously be a high priority area. In the last couple of months we have committed some $90 million to $100 million so that land can be brought quickly onto the market. I trust that the announcements made in the Ontario throne speech yesterday reflect this use of federal programs for that purpose. Apart from public land assemblies, private developers can surely be persuaded to put land on the market more quickly, aimed at lower income groups in exchange for speedier developmental approval. I hope that governments will follow that course. I have long urged and pointed out that the National Housing Act supports municipalities engaged in land assembly and I am delighted that Toronto, for one is engaging in public land assembly with our support. The mayor and council have a housing report before them on which I must congratulate them, and a housing program involving the full use of the National Housing Act program including the co-op section, the municipal land assemblies, the non-profit and the rehabilitation grants. In this, the city of Toronto has my complete support and co-operation.
In Vancouver, neither the city nor the province can complain of lack of support from Ottawa for housing programs. Major projects in Burnaby and Vancouver, including False Creek, have been approved with a minimum of red tape in a matter of weeks. Loans involving millions of dollars have been approved literally in a few weeks. In these developments the full range of housing initiatives, which include direct lending land assembly, assisted home ownership and so on under our program will be used. Vancouver and other places have very low vacancy rates. For the coming year, they will be given priority in the allocation of capital funds aimed at increasing these vacancy rates.
I could repeat examples of this in other cities and towns of Canada. My point is that, apart from changes to be made this session, I hope members will do all they can to assure that the housing programs are used in their provinces and municipalities. They are generally well funded. The level of funding is currently being reviewed and the programs can, if used, make a major contribution to solving housing problems. The housing act can respond, and it

is responding to the solution of real housing needs in cases where provinces and municipalities are using it.
In addition to these measures and our thrust towards quickstart land assembly, we have been discussing with the provinces changes in the sewage treatment program which, among other things, would provide assistance for trunk sewers for storm water where they are used to create new developments aimed at bringing more serviced lots onto the market.
Another measure I plan to propose will give additional assistance to small towns and places where the per capita cost of sewage works puts an inordinate burden on the taxpayer. This is aimed, again, at bringing more serviced lots onto the market at a faster rate. This legislation is being drafted and will be introduced soon. Many provinces and municipalities have taken full advantage of the sewage treatment loan program. The province of Quebec has not taken much advantage of this program; recently, however, the government of the province announced a major thrust in this area. I have already indicated my agreement for allocating $80 million of federal funding to the province of Quebec, for the 1974 program entered into for this purpose.
There are other aspects of the federal government's urban affairs activities and housing programs which I should like to discuss, but I am already trespassing on the time of the House. Undoubtedly, the forthcoming budget debate, the rest of this debate and consideration of estimates in committee will afford opportunities for going into these things. I had wanted, in my speech, to deal with other matters, but there will be other occasions when these can be discussed. In the time available to me today I thought hon. members would be encouraged to hear a brief report on the enthusiastic response to our new housing programs, our urban transportation plans and the very substantial progress which these programs have made and can make towards the goal of providing all Canadians with sound, safe and satisfying accommodation in a pleasant and protective neighbourhood environment.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, will the minister permit a question? I appreciate the indulgence of the House in permitting me to ask it. The minister talked about serviced lots and stressed the effects of the land banking program, on which $100 million a year is to be spent. May I ask how much out of that $100 million has been granted this past year. I understand that only $9 million has gone to Toronto which, considering the extraordinarily high price of lots in Toronto, is not very much. How much of that $100 million has been allocated to our major cities?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the breakdown city by city on my desk. As indicated in my speech we had indicated last year that we would commit at least $100 million for land assembly. I indicated in my speech that, by the end of 1973, we had already committed $150 million for land assembly. I pointed out that, in addition, we must consider the cost of servicing the land assembled. That cost is included in the sewer loan support program and amounted to some $250 million. The $9 million was a direct loan to the city of Toronto only. Loans for all Ontario, many of which were made with regard to land around the
March 6, 1974

Toronto and Hamilton area, amounted to about $73 million.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I want to talk about the apparent direction of the government's agricultural policy as seen by ordinary farmers and make some references to the Speech from the Throne. It is couched in generalities, which is why, I suppose, most members in their speeches have not referred to it directly.
In the last several years the members of this House have seen some swings in agricultural policy. I listened to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) speaking the other day, to try to learn if there was to be any clearcut policy or direction with regard to farm policy for Canada.
In the last few years we have seen several farm oriented programs, such as LIFT, under which farmers were asked not to grow too much wheat. The government said to them, "Do not grow so much barley; lay off rapeseed; actually, if you take one year's holiday and get lost we will all be better off." Fortunately, the farmers did not take the government too seriously, but we are still recovering from the effects of such programs.
It is fair to say that the farm programs the present administration has offered to this country have been lacking in consistency. I will only mention one or two of them. The proposal for stabilizing farm incomes which surfaced in the previous session is again evident in the Speech from the Throne. If the idea of stabilization means anything, I suggest it means that the income of farmers will be stabl-ized, at a profitable level, that the performance of agriculture will be satisfactory, and that there will be a consistent pattern in the field of agriculture, and farm income. At the same time, however, we must bear in mind proposals such as those made by the minister for the Canadian Wheat Board, under which he would remove jurisdiction with regard to the sale of barley and oats from the Canadian Wheat Board as of Aug. 1, 1974 and allow these commodities to be traded on the open market, on the commodities exchange.


Mr. Benjamin:: Over our dead bodies.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I can think of few ways which are more effective in bringing about swings and variations in price than trading commodities on the open market through a commodities exchange, as is done in Winnipeg, Chicago, London, Paris and elsewhere. Nobody claims, I think, that such a scheme would contribute to stable commodity prices. Whatever claims are made for commodity exchanges, stability is not one of them. So I must say, on this one score alone, that I remain to be convinced about the consistency of the government's policies.
One may go on from there to take a look at the manner in which beef has been marketed in the past several months. In the last day or so, some of those representing the beef industry had discussions with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) with regard to the circumstances in which the beef feeders, those who make a living from feeding or fattening beef, find themselves. This par-
The Address-Mr. Gleave
ticular commodity has all the advantages available to it of a futures market or cash auction market.
At one point during the past few months, the government placed an embargo on Canadian fat cattle moving to the United States. Nothing could have been more calculated to throw the market into confusion. It threw the beef price structure and marketing in western Canada, Ontario and eastern Canada into confusion. An embargo was slapped on over the weekend, leaving the farmers to find out how, where and at what price they could market their beef. I do not know if a more disastrous thing could have happened to the beef market.
After the farmers recovered somewhat from that, a surcharge was put on U.S. beef coming into the Canadian market. That lasted for a while. I am sure the minister and the government received a great number of complaints. They realized it was not a good idea and decided to phase it out somewhere around February 15. That is fine, but it does not contribute to stability.
What is going to happen at this time, we do not know. We will have to wait and see. For the sake of the industry, I hope the minister will announce the government's beef production policy within the next day or two so that these men who are raising beef, feeding them at great expense and- running cow-calf operations may know what to expect. Let's have some stable policy.
When the Minister of Agriculture was in Swift Current, Saskatchewan on February 18, he addressed the chamber of commerce. That is a good place to talk to people in the livestock business. I noticed he went out of his way to say the Saskatchewan government had imposed a marketing board for pork, even though producers said they did not want it. If the federal government is in favour of a stable marketing policy, why does the Minister of Agriculture object to a hog marketing board operating in the province of Saskatchewan? Why does the minister object to the manner in which it was established? The government of Saskatchewan did not break its own laws.
I happen to know something about the marketing board act. I am damn sure the minister does, too. The province of Saskatchewan was altogether within its rights. Saskatchewan is the only place in Canada where the farmers are guaranteed 57 cents a pound or $57 a hundred for their hogs. One would have expected the minister to say he fully supported the action of that province in stabilizing an important part of the livestock industry.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alfred Pullen Gleave: The minister said he is a strong supporter of marketing boards. He means, provided they do not operate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alfred Pullen Gleave: The other great conciliator on the government side is the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. His contribution to stabilization is removing feed grains from the operations of the wheat board and putting them on the open market. That minister will go down in history as one of the greatest non-conciliators to hit the grain industry of Saskatchewan for a long, long time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

March 6, 1974
The Address-Mr. Gleave


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Because everyone did not agree with him, the minister accused the Saskatchewan representatives of walking out of the meeting. In a press release he said they can walk out and stay out; he will talk directly to the farmers and their organizations. Well, any federal minister who does not know that the minister of agriculture in Saskatchewan represents the farmers in Saskatchewan has something to learn. One need only look at the support his party received in the last election. If you do not believe that, listen to the farmers who are raising hogs in Saskatchewan.
The minister said the meeting was called to fully inform provincial agricultural officials about the details of the feed grains marketing plan for 1973-74 and to seek their co-operation in making it work. He then said they walked out of the meeting in a huff. The minister then referred to Manitoba. He said that he was saddened by the performance of Mr. Uskiw, the minister of agriculture for Manitoba. Everybody is out of step but Aunt Nellie's Joe.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alfred Pullen Gleave: The minister said on one hand he was saddened by Mr. Uskiw's performance, but on the other hand he was more determined than ever. He said he was saddened because the kind of political nonsense displayed by Mr. Uskiw and Mr. McArthur can only hurt the cause of prairie farmers. I say most sincerely to the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board that is not the most effective way to gain the confidence of the people in western Canada.
A review of freight rates was asked for at the Western Economic Conference. I do not suppose much has yet been done. Our transportation system is a real disaster when it comes to moving grain. I forecast that because of our transportation system, we will not have the ability to move all the grain for export this year that we could have marketed. The Western Producer reports that a string of 25 carloads of grain which had been sitting at Perdue since January 7 was finally picked up only a few days ago. The President of the National Farmers Union said the CPR cleared the Rosetown-Biggar line of cars on January 7, then abandoned it to the wind and snow, thus leaving it plugged and stranding any grain in elevators on the line. That is typical.
If I had time I could give instances of similar neglect throughout western Canada. Perhaps things are better in Eastern Canada. All this will cost us a great deal in terms of income, and I see no sign that conditions will improve. The minister has told us that more hopper cars will be provided. But the cars we already have are sitting empty. The railroads have simply failed to supply sufficient motive power. The minister responsible for the Wheat Board says he has met with representatives of the railroads and that they would not give him a commitment. Mr. Speaker, we own one of these railroads; the other is privately owned. Is the government so weak, so incompetent that it cannot extract a commitment as to what will be done?


An hon. Member:: The Tories own the CPR and they wont sell it.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I cannot see why we should buy it. It was given to the company in the first place and it has done nothing ever since except milk the public for everything it can get.
I turn, now, to another subject. To whose advantage will it be when the government finally gets feed grain on the open market? One of the sad things about this policy is that nobody will benefit except the traders in Winnipeg. The farmers in Quebec will find themselves at the mercy of the grain traders, at the mercy of the scalpers, with nobody standing in between. I have nothing but derision for the minister responsible for the Wheat Board and for the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), if it comes, to that, when they say the Wheat Board will be charged with responsibility for seeing that the grain is in position after the commodity market is in charge of the buying and selling. Those two marketing arrangements are like fire and water; they just don't mix. How can there be a futures market which permits any corporation to purchase any amount of grain it wishes, and which is available for future trading, while at the same time it is someone else's responsible to deliver the grain which has been bought? The consequences of this policy will be an uneven flow of grain, whereas formerly there was even controlled flow. The Wheat Board cannot be made responsible for the delivery of grain which someone else owns.
One of the most rewarding discussions I heard last session took place in the Standing Committee on Agriculture. Mr. Gibbings was appearing before the committee. One of the members from the maritimes said New Brunswick farmers were running short of feed grain. He asked the Wheat Board representative where the grain was, and was told it was in Thunder Bay. "Could I buy it?" the hon. member from the maritimes asked. The representative of the Wheat Board answered: "That depends upon who owns it". Of course, it does. That is the sort of situation we shall face after August 1.
I wish to say something, now, about the dairy industry. I wonder whether in the not-too-distant future the minister will be able to announce a policy enabling us to produce all the butter and the cheese we need. I notice a recent statement from Manitoba to the effect that the province is no longer able to produce all the butter it needs. I suspect the position is not much different in Saskatchewan. What incentives will be offered to encourage people to produce the butterfat and the butter we need, as well as all the other dairy products the nation requires. In at least one province powdered milk is being reconstituted so as to meet the demand for fluid milk. It is all very well for the minister to say that milking cows is a 365 days-a-year job. it is all very well for him to say we are now entering an era in which it is more difficult to keep people in the dairy industry. But it was the policies and actions of the Canadian Dairy Commission which forced or persuaded many small farmers to get out of the dairy business. They did get out, and the minister knows it will not be easy to bring them back. He says, and I use his words, that we shall have to re-arrange the dairy industry. Why did he not tell us what he or the government propose to do by way of re-arranging the dairy industry?
One of the most interesting meetings I attended during the last election took place in a little town in my constit-
March 6, 1974

uency. I happened to drive into the town at a time when a meeting of those interested in the dairy industry was being held. The town used to be a dairy production centre of some consequence. The meeting was attended by agricultural representatives as well as by officials from the senior levels of government. A discussion took place about the best way of persuading farmers to get back into the business of producing manufacturing milk, setting up tanks, transportation and so on. I listened to the discussion and listening, too, at the back of the hall, were women and men who had been milking cows only a few years earlier until they lost their quotas and their right to a subsidy was removed. I heard someone interject that this is not the case. But I read the letters and I listened to their complaints when all this took place. It will obviously be difficult, now, to get these people to go back. I say to the minister he had better take a hard look at the operations of some of the big monopolies and combines which are now engaged in this industry. In my opinion they are carrying too much clout and swinging too big a club, along with some monopolies in other lines of business as well.
The minister mentioned sugar in his speech and the fact that we have not done too well in supporting the sugar industry in underdeveloped countries, as was mentioned by the mover of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. He is right. We have not done very well in supporting the underdeveloped countries; indeed, we have done very badly. We should be supporting a sugar agreement and giving some support to countries in the Caribbean which need it, which have needed it in the past and will need it again. By doing this, we would also benefit our own consumers.


Eugene Whelan: You remind me of Morty Shulman who said that if you want to buy sugar you should buy it cheap from the Caribbean. That is his attitude-don't pay any attention to slave labour. That remark is right in Ontario Hansard.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I do not know what Morty Shulman said, but I do know what I am saying. What I am saying is that we ought to be party to an international commodity agreement to buy and sell sugar, but we are not. The reason we are not is that it does not suit the big sugar combines in Canada, the three big companies which dominate the sugar industry in this country.


Eugene Whelan: There is no international sugar agreement now between any countries.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Are we, as a nation, a signatory or an observer?


Eugene Whelan: We sit in on the negotiations.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: We sit in and we might as well sit out for all the good it is doing.


Eugene Whelan: There is no agreement at the present time.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: We are helping neither the disadvantaged people in the world nor the Canadian consumer. We can buy sugar in Regina cheaper from a company in Denver,
The Address-Mr. Gleave
Colorado than we can buy sugar from an Alberta company, and I can quote the figures if the minister wishes. This is the kind of food system we have in this country. It is about time we had a policy that benefitted both the consumer and the producer, and this is possible of achievement. But it is not possible through the Winnipeg Grain Exchange. It is not possible through the sugar combines that exist in Canada and which are presently under investigation. It is not possible with a 20 per cent increase in the cost of production faced by farmers in one year. Both fertilizers and machinery have risen in price.
Dealers in farm machinery in my constituency tell me that they cannot get an adequate supply of machines to run farms, and farming is a mechanized industry today. Neither can farmers in my constituency get a firm price for fertilizer at this point in time. I wrote the minister on February 11 asking him specifically what assurances he had been able to get from the fertilizer companies as to price and as to supply, and I have not yet had a reply.
I do not know whether the minister does not know the facts, or whether the facts are so horrible that he does not want to put them down on paper and admit to them. An hon. member to my right yesterday, I think it was, asked some questions about baling twine and did not receive a very good answer from the minister, who said we were short of sisal. We manufacture twine in this country out of material other than sisal. We also manufacture synthetic twine.
In this regard a pattern seems to be establishing itself. Things we need become in short supply; there does not seem to be any around. The next thing we know, the price moves up substantially. This pattern is becoming so commonplace that we really come to expect it. In the United States, the heads of the big oil companies were called before the responsible Congressional committee and charged with following the practice of creating a scarcity, then jacking up prices.
We would feel a lot better if we had some assurance from the minister that something really effective was being done to keep prices down. We have had no such assurance in regard to farm machinery, farm machinery repairs, fertilizers, and many other commodities that have increased costs for farmers. Neither do we have the assurance from the bakeries that the price of bread is not going to increase. The government subsidizes wheat for domestic use and we as farmers subsidize it also, yet the bakeries jack up the price of the bread and walk off with the profit. What a charade! What a joke! This is Liberalism at its best.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret interrupting the hon. member but the time allotted to him by the Standing Orders has expired. He might, however, continue if there is unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think I have made the most of the points that I wanted to make, but there is one further matter that I wanted to bring to the attention of the minister. I refer to the outbreak of brucellosis, which is a pretty serious matter. I thought the minister was most unfair when he was asked a question by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker)

March 6, 1974
The Address-Mr. Wagner
about this outbreak in his area. As a matter of fact the minister replied: "You guys better quit talking about it or else it's going to affect our sales".
I am very much concerned if that is the attitude of the minister, because we face a very serious situation as a result of this contagious abortion in livestock, or brucellosis, as it is known. It is proving very expensive to farmers. I do not think you can pay sufficient compensation to a farmer who has a good dairy herd wiped out by brucellosis; you just could not put up enough money. The same is true of a good beef herd. I would have been happier if, in response to that question, the minister had said he was carefully examining the department's procedures with a view to finding the most effective method of eliminating this disease, or else that new procedures were already in place. In my own area the farmers are greatly concerned about this question.
One last matter before closing, Mr. Speaker. In the absence of the minister to whom the Wheat Board is responsible, I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether the Wheat Board would some day tell the House what its policy is toward working out a new international wheat agreement. Has the Wheat Board any plans to work out a new commodity agreement, and can it get the co-operation of the European Common Market countries, or Australia, Argentina and the United States, the principal signatories of the last one? Are they actively exploring the possibility? At some time I should like them to tell us if they are exploring the possibility of an agreement on sugar and other international commodities.
If we are to hope for or expect a stable return to farmers, there are two or three major things which must be done, as the minister knows. We must seek international commodity agreements. That is one thing. The other is that we must seek and encourage machinery throughout this nation that will give us stable prices and stable bargaining power for the farmer. That is the second thing we must have if we are to achieve the objective which the government has set. Frankly, I say to the minister, so far as this party is concerned, we will be judging the legislation which comes in not only by what it provides but by what it leaves out. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that if there is stability of prices and income for the farmer as well as giving a fair break to the consumer, we will look at that.


Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, our tradition is such that in the debate on the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, a member of Parliament is expected to pay tribute to His Excellency the Governor General, to the right hon. Prime Minister, to the Leader of the Official Opposition, to the Speaker of the House, to the mover and seconder of the Address in reply. Therefore, all these distinguished gentlemen may be assured of my most sincere regard, and I congratulate them for the work they have achieved in their respective function. I do not know any better way of giving them a proof of my solidarity than by anticipating their wishes and proceeding right now to the analysis of the outline of this government intentions that is called the Speech from the Throne.

I do not consider the official opposition's role as being the incense bearer of the government, praising it for its good deeds if any, sympathizing with its problems, excusing its weaknesses as if they were unavoidable. On the contrary, the opposition's role is to induce the government to do better when they only do well, and to condemn them when they do not properly fulfill the responsibilities that are bestowed upon them. Democracy is the better for it.
Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne leads us to ask ourselves questions, first on our real chances of success in the short and long term as regards the fight against inflation then on the suitability of the federal approach to urban problems, in the field of transportation or in other areas. In both cases, the very approach of the present Liberal government is controversial and debatable. Before explaining why and how, I would like to emphasize right away that the Speech from the Throne completely fails to mention the international policy of this government. Must we believe, Mr. Speaker, that rumours relating to the early resignation of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp), which have circulated for sometime, were or still are justified to the extent that he was unable to draft a few relevant sentences that could have given evidence of a new breath of the present government in foreign affairs? Who knows? It is strangely silent. One thing is sure, within roughly ten days at the most my party in keeping with the work it undertook to be better prepare to govern this country when the time comes will publish a work paper to make known to all both its orientation and its commitments with respect to foreign affairs. As many others that document will be submitted to our members for consideration and approval at our forthcoming national convention to be held in Ottawa on March 17, 18 and 19.
I further point out, Mr. Speaker, the remarkable discretion of the Speech from the Throne on the serious problem of regional disparity. I find but one sentence and even then a very short and most evasive sentence, and I quote:
The government attaches great importance to regional development.
And that is all. The need is barely felt to say that measures will be introduced to deal with transportation, freight rates and port facilities. Nothing is said about the need for an industrial strategy, an economic development strategy underlying the entire concept. Once again we have empty promises with respect to regional economic expansion.
The hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Pelletier) could speak at length on the expectations and disappointments of the people in his area and if necessary he could read to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson) headlines on this subject published in La Tribune, a daily newspaper in the Quebec Eastern Townships.
Other areas in Quebec are growing impatient because this government is dragging its feet. The northwestern part represented by the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) who, we are glad to see, is back among us today would even have more to say on this subject. Also in the same situation we find the Saguenay, Lake St. John and St. Muarice areas, where the working papers on regional development are more numerous than viable projects and where people are fed up with false hopes raised
March 6, 1974

in the Kruger manner; the Laurentians, where Mirabel is being built in spite of delays, makeshifts, if not injustices, when one considers the fate of expropriated individuals on behalf of whom I am requesting once again the setting up of a parliamentary committee; the North Shore that refuses to be merely an economic appendage of the United States; the Lower St. Lawrence and the Gaspe Peninsula, where because of the failure in Cabano of a proposed community cardboard factory, the people are desperate and where the fishermen, according to the members for Matane and Gaspe (Messrs. De Bane and Cyr), are tired of being neglected; in the Bois-Franc area as elsewhere, bankruptcies have shown that the government economic growth policy is in no way based on a strategy of industrial and economic development; the Quebec area, where at times patronage and expedience have outweighed wisdom and long-term prospects and where, for example, Lauzon is still awaiting the government's decision about a merchant marine. This derides the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Comtois), but it does not amuse neither the people of Lauzon nor the unemployed workers; the greater Montreal area, where projects as tremendous as Mirabel or 1976 Olympics should not make us forget on the one hand the shocking and early disposition of farm lands in the area, and on the other, the pressing need, both for the people in greater Montreal and throughout Quebec, to see Montreal launched on a viable and sustained economic recovery likely to create permanent jobs; the Outaouais region nearby, which ought to be something more than merely across the river from Ottawa and which must not be taken away from Quebec heritage, culturally, socially and economically. Those Mr. Speaker, are the areas, where the citizens are living in the expectation of better days to come without uprooting themselves from their environment, days which would be planned right now in closer cooperation with the Quebec government.
In my own riding of Saint-Hyacinthe, several businessmen or contractors complain to me about the difficulties they meet with when trying to expand, to enlarge or improve their plant while some industries threaten to leave as did recently Crane Society Ltd., in Marieville. We are sick and tired of the same short sighted program, sick and tired of those piece meal loans without any planning. And failing recognition as a special area which I requested last year and for the reasons I gave at that time, Saint-Hyacinthe wants to know quickly and squarely what industries will the government encourage in the area. For instance we want to know when they will take concrete measures to establish an agricultural food industry in the riding of Saint-Hyacinthe. Those are the regions, the ridings in Quebec where the Liberals in the next election campaign will have to explain the silence of the Speech from the Throne concerning regional economic expansion.
In Quebec, we will force them to speak about regional economic expansion and unemployment because we have 250,000 unemployed in Quebec. Nearly 10 per cent of the labour force in Quebec is idle and the future is not very promising. We will force them also to talk in concrete and clear terms about the 9.3 per cent rise of the cost of living during the last 12 months. In the food sector alone, which is vital, there was a rise of 18.2 per cent during those last 12 months. Unfortunately, that is not the end of it.
The Address-Mr. Wagner
Let the Liberals come to Saint-Hyacinthe to Brome-Mis-sisquoi, to Joliette, whose distinguished representative has come back among us and who is certainly destined to assume great responsibilities in our team. Let them come to one of these constituencies or to any other.


An hon. Member:: They already did.


Claude Wagner: They came and we saw the result. Let them come to our constituencies during the next election campaign and apologize to the people for their inertia before inflation and let them say that the main reason for the problem is the international inflationary spiral. [English]
There is quite a difference between a government's constitutional right to govern and its moral right to seek the confidence of the people. I doubt very much whether this government understands that difference or, even worse, cares about it. As long as the Liberal-NDP charade continues, as long as the pressures of big corporations and big unions frustrate both members of the coalition from acting on prices, wages and profits, this daily erosion of our system's credibility will be massive, and rightly so. No wonder people are losing faith. Gentlemen on the other side should not wonder why the young are cynical and the aged are bitter. We have no government.
Ministers are racing around the country eradicating what confidence might still remain out there. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) is keeping a low profile for reasons that friends of the heir apparent know too well. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) leaves hints that he might like a switch of task, or something even more restful, and the consensus of Eglington, from what I gathered on my last visit there, is that he will soon have what his heart desires. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Gray) snatches insincere-ties from the jaws of truth whenever he rises to answer a question. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) talks about football while inflation attacks the rights of Canadians to decent nutrition. The Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) is out trying to sell what the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) is trying to buy back. The Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) wants to investigate in private what is going awry very seriously in public, and the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) says: Spend, spend, spend a little more. What is $3 billion and some, asks he. As the Minister of External Affairs would say, that is the Liberal way.
They remind me of a company on the verge of bankruptcy, unafraid to amass as many creditors as possible. It would be funny if it were not so sad. The creditors are the Canadian people. The government is piling up massive debt, debt that in terms of eroded confidence, mistrust, cynicism and despair may carry with it a rate of interest our nation is unable to pay. Politics, if they are to have any meaning today, must be synonymous with honesty, integrity, and responsive government. Members of the NDP used to care about this. Indeed, they used to be the purists about our system and its accountability. In all sincerity I ask my colleagues to the left: where is this purism now?

March 6, 1974
The Address-Mr. Wagner


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: And where are they?


Claude Wagner: There isn't one member of the NDP in the House at this moment. The purism is gone, and the members are gone. They only reappear when they have to give a vote to save the government and keep the government in power.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Claude Wagner: Where is the decency and the implicit humanity of Mr. Tommy Douglas' new Jerusalem? What, if anything, I ask them, have you said you cannot suffer as social democrats from this government? I have to wonder. I have to wonder about the young people attached to all the political parties, in the schools, and across the young work force. What are they to learn from this parliament? What are they to learn from this government? So far, they have learned that no Conservative policy is too repugnant for the Liberals to steal, no socialist principle is too sacred to be sold, and no Liberal policy is so solid as to stand on its own merits.
As a famous Liberal was wont to end his speeches-I am sure hon. members across the aisle have often heard this- he would end by saying, "Gentlemen, these are our principles-and if you don't like them, we have others". I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if that is the type of game we want to play with social justice in Canada. I wonder if we have the right to play that game with our nation's fiscal and economic policies.
Beyond this chamber, beyond the pundits and the trained observers in the Press Gallery, there are 22 million Canadians who, for the most part, are partisans of no political party. They are partisans of this institution we call democracy. They are poll workers in their everyday jobs, if you like, for the concept which we call Canada. They believe that this concept means more than politics. They believe it means justice, equity, unity and direction, and when we play with this concept we are playing with the faith and trust of those who make this country live and grow and prosper.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Claude Wagner: When we attack their faith, undermine their hope, limit their fair share, we are attacking this nation's future. I would think that no member of this House would want to be a party to that.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to refusing to speak on many important issues, the present government, is at fault in its very orientation. While the government seems winded, without either imagination or daring on the international level, the same holds true on the domestic scene.
Inflation and the record of the relations between Ottawa and the provincial governments-particularly Quebec's- give ample proof of this fact. This country no longer needs intellectuals who are either bored or weakened by power, a power which they are gradually losing; this country needs qualified administrators who are capable of innovation.

Mr. Speaker, it is not true that we have to submit to the increasing inflation-any pressures and it is no longer true that the Quebecers' only real choice of a government is the Liberal party.
For instance, the cost of single-family dwellings built for the average wage earner went from $22,500 in October 1973 to $28,600 in February 1974. This happened at Laval, on the south shore of Montreal and elsewhere. It is not true that this is solely the result of international inflation.
When the owners or managers of well-known grocery stores have reached the point where, to operate according to the good old principle "the most for the least", they keep their employees regularly for two and one-half days every week, and week after week, only to mark up food stuff, it is not true that this is the result solely of the international inflation.
When some of those same merchants, these are facts, Mr. Speaker, and this happened in Montreal early this week, increase by one cent or more the price of some 400 different articles, it is not true that this is the result solely of the international inflation. When the large chain stores such as Loblaw's, Dominion Stores Ltd., Steinberg, Provi-go, Becker Milk and Harvey's Food, as well as several others manage to increase their profits from 1971 to 1972 respectively by 43.2, 188.2, 58.2, 29.4, 63, 646.5 and 78.9 per cent, and when we know that those same stores and others made even higher profits in 1972 and 1973, it is not automatically true that this is simply the result of international inflation.
When businessmen, the "big shots" especially, build up stocks like never before, whether it consist of heating fuel or mostly food products, in such quantities that they have to rent additional storage space to better plan their spiralling profits, it is not true that the only influence is that of international inflationary pressures. The hon. member for Laval (Mr. Roy) and many others should try to find a single unoccupied storeroom in good condition in Montreal at the present time!
Mr. Speaker, the cost of living, especially as concerns food products, is increasing at a scandalous rate.
The poorest among our fellow citizens, and even those whom we say belong to the middle class, all the wage earners who-and I was happy to hear the prime minister himself say it-are not responsible for the present increase in the cost of living, want us to control inflation.
In my constituency of Saint-Hyacinthe as elsewhere in Canada, the government is expected to take immediate, strict, firm and energetic action tackling at short term both with the present effects of inflation and its causes at least its Canadian causes.
The present inertia of this government which, in the short term at least, is forsaking the consumer threatened by inflation, is already appearing as the basic cause of its impending defeat and proves to be, which is more serious, an accomplice of the worst injustice.
This government has in fact surrendered to inflation. Public opinion exacerbated by the "big one" annihilating the "small one" should compel this government to resign
March 6, 1974

and give way to a serious team ready to administer the country.
If the farm producer, his problems and his needs are finally better understood, so much the better, and with my constituents of Saint-Hyacinthe, I am the first to rejoice about it. But. .. beware, I want to enter the following caveat: If it is high time and commendable that politics serve the farmer a little better, let no one use the farmer to play politics, as has been the case far too long in Quebec politics.
Our farmers are also, and first of all, first class citizens and in this capacity also, they consume a great deal of products. On the farm itself, they know what their raw materials cost-always more. If they want more assistance, and rightly so, they do not want and do not accept, as several of them told me recently in my riding, to be used as short term "surety" by a government that has become helpless in the face of inflation.
On another level, Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government has got us used to a strategy of clashes that provincial governments, including the Quebec government, and Canadians as a whole cannot put up with any longer. Measures to initiate a food production or urban transportation policy must not once more bring about a deterioration of federal-provincial relations here, must not either be brought to a term without any previous serious consultation to such an extent as to create new crises that almost invariably the present central government uses in order to appropriate jurisdictions which are not devolved to it.
We can rightly fear the worst here, especially when one reads in the speech, and I quote:
The Government will wish to consult with provincial governments-
-How cynical! What a return to the former arrogance which has already been decried, judged and condemned in October 1972.
Mr. Speaker, I conclude my remarks, because I see that you are making signs to me and because I hear my friends opposite say that my time has elapsed. I know that they have had just enough of it and that their conscience is bothering them. Duly so, and they will have a hard time trying to explain to the Quebec people the failure of the government. I conclude, therefore, by saying that this government, lacking in leadership, increasingly less recognized and accepted as a true, reliable and honest interlocutor by a number of provincial governments, less and less accepted as a conciliatory agent by an increasing number of Canadians, should retire from the bargaining table and turn over the direction of this country to a Progressive Conservative team, ready to take over, as a responsible alternative, and to a leader whose patience, persistence, determination, will and competence are more and more appreciated by the Canadian public as a whole and especially-a very encouraging and revealing sign-by Quebecers themselves.


Mr. Raynald Guay (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments regarding some aspects of our economy which is of interest to me as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) and as a member for Levis.
As hon. members know one of the main objectives of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is to ensure
The Address-Mr. R. Guay
the adequate and constant development of production as well as of trade in Canadian goods and services by creating, for instance, a proper national and international setting, by encouraging production of new goods and services and the introduction of new production techniques conforming to the requirements of a developing market, by improving the use of resources and by seeking to increase the necessary outlets for our economy.
True to its objectives, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce was deeply involved in the creation by the government of the Industrial Development Bank and the Development Agency for Small Business of which the Industrial Development Bank is the spine and the heart. Through this organization, the government is more than ever in a position to encourage small business activity in Canada, which are so essential to our economy. It often is the most effective means of producing goods and services which can meet the specific needs of Canada and it has the flexibility to cope with the production and local distribution requirements of the various regions of this country.
I would point out, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) who has just concluded his speech, that these are positive measures taken by this government to help small and medium enterprises in the province as in all other provinces of our country.
An independent organization, the IBDA offers small and medium enterprises a highly diversified assistance, acts as local information centre for all government programs and services available to small enterprises, and it supplies the required information on the availability of private sources of financing, and even providing the financing in case of need. It assumes the practical responsibility for the advisory and administrative services to small business, including the CASE consulting program; the main responsibility for the development and management of the federal administration training programs for small businesses, keeps an up to date list of the various assistance programs offered by the government and the private sector; it cooperates closely with the federal and provincial departments and agencies as well as with the private institutions.
The wellbeing of our economy in the years ahead will depend on it. In brief, the IBDA plays an absolutely essential role with the small businesses on which it depends to a large extent.
As regards the textile industry, Mr. Speaker, small business-and I think this is closely related to the riding of the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe which contains several textile firms-in its multiple aspects is of vital importance to this country.
Despite a manpower shortage and the problems it is facing today to get supplies of natural and synthetic fibers, the Canadian textile industry usually maintains its operations at the high level that was observed during 1973 when substantial increases in sales and profits were recorded.
Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce officials have done their best to help this industry get supplies of petrochemical products and it is expected that this spring

March 6, 1974
The Address-Mr. R. Guay
the situation will improve a little in this area. The petrochemical product shortage is now felt on a worldwide basis, but I am pleased to see that Canadian producers enjoy a very favourable position as compared with most of their foreign competitors.
The Canadian capacity to produce synthetic fibres is now expanding, particularly in acrylics, nylon and polyesters. You know that Du Pont of Canada Limited announced that it plans to build a $40 million polyester plant in Coteau-du-Lac, in the province of Quebec, with production slated for 1976. Therefore, I think that the outlook for our textile industry is promising and I am pleased about it.
Mr. Speaker, our shipyards are an example of the prosperity of the Canadian industry, encouraged by government measures. Despite a shortage of steel and delays in the delivery of diesel engines, our shipyards are now operating at full capacity. Shipyards throughout Canada, and particularly in Lauzon, still benefit from STAP, the Shipbuilding Temporary Assistance Program of the Department of Industry, Trade, and Commerce which has been extended. This program implemented on November 27, 1970, provides grants to the builders of ships which will be registered in foreign countries. The maximum grant is 17 per cent of the certified cost of the ship, with restrictions relating to the Canadian content and the minimum size of ships. The extension of this program will make it possible to pay subsidies for ships completed before October 31, 1978 and ordered before March 31, 1975. This Canadian industry thus contributes to the overall prosperity of our country and is a good example of Canadian technology competing with that of big industrialized countries.
It is well known that this matter is of special interest to me, since there is a very important shipyard in my riding of Levis. The level of employment in Quebec shipyards is relatively high at present and it seems this situation will last until 1976. We are very happy about it. This high level of employment is due to contracts secured thanks to STAP adopted by the Canadian government in 1971. However, we are concerned about what will happen to employment after 1976 and about the long term future of that industry because studies now being made in various quarters seem to be unanimous in their fear of an overcapacity to produce in the years prior to 1980. That is why we believe that foresight is necessary on the part of the government in this area and a long term policy must immediatly be set up.
The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe is nodding his head and I am glad about it but I find it completely abnormal coming from that hon. member. Newspapermen in the press gallery might say that I am criticizing this government. No. On this side of the House we want to be positive, we want to build and the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe who just concluded his speech said nothing worthwhile, Mr. Speaker. All he was able to say was that there are unemployed workers in Lauzon. If anyone knows, I do, and I studied the causes of it. We looked at those causes, we made studies and we drew conclusions and that is why on this side of the House, even if I sit on the government side, I can speak in Ottawa and especially in the province of Quebec.

Steps must immediately be taken to allow the shipbuilding industry in Canada to take its place in the field of international competition so Canada will be recognized as a shipbuilding country. The international situation with respect to shipbuilding is now characterized by six major factors-production costs of Japanese shipbuilding yards; the threat of overproduction hanging over shipbuilding yards throughout the world; financial, administrative and technological changes taking place in European shipbuilding yards; the prospects of the freight market and maritime construction; flags of convenience and competition among different national flags and, finally, the U.S. maritime construction and navigation program.
It is here also that the merchant marine problem merges with the shipyard issue. As a matter of fact, the establishment of a merchant marine would contribute to stabilizing employment in the shipbuilding industry. Let Canada put an end to the agreements concerning the merchant marine which favour ships registered within the Commonwealth and allow them to operate in the Atlantic area. The Canadian government should also make sure that the Arctic waters are national waters that should come under the national coastal trade. The Canadian government should also provide for at least a 50 per cent Canadian content in our international maritime exchanges with the United States and the rest of the world.
Lastly, as I have often mentioned in this House, let the Canadian government limit registration of merchant ships flying the Canadian flag to those built in our national shipyards. We could also establish a shipbuilding research centre whose cost would be shared by concerns and various levels of government, and create an organization to provide communications and facilitate exchanges between governments, ship owners and shipyards.
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to see that the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe agrees with me. And I still find it strange that the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe should have devoted 90 per cent of his remarks to repeat the contents of the speech and to conclude that it did not mean anything. But I say there is something in the Speech from the Throne. I fully endorse the entire Speech from the Throne, but I can be positive and make suggestions to the government. That is what I would have liked to hear from the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe but that is not what he said. Mr. Speaker, I have heard 22 speeches from Progressive Conservative members and I have not found anything positive in them. We are being told: Our problem is inflation. We know that the problem exists, but the opposition members do not seem to know how to solve it. I have here a newspaper article which says and I quote: "The government did nothing". The article appeared in Le Soleil. I shall talk about it later, if the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe has enough patience to let me finish. I shall come back to the article in about five minutes. Anyway, he can read my comments tomorrow.
Finally, I should like to deal very briefly with a matter' which is very much with us: the oil situation. The energy crisis has certainly had important effects on the industrial sector. Its impact, present as well as future, has not been and will not be consistent however, because we must bear in mind the fact that some industries need much more
March 6, 1974

energy than others. Among these, let us mention the pulp and paper industry, the petrochemical industry, metallurgy, the processing industry for some non-metallie minerals and the food processing industry, all of which are important in Quebec.
It is to be hoped that industries will not suffer too much from the shortage of oil in the next few months. I can assure you that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce will keep a very close watch on the international situation and its impact on Canadian industry. Although supply does not seem to be too much of a problem at this time, the problem of prices is not an easy one to solve. Several companies have already made their difficulties known in that area and as stated in the agreement passed following the Federal-Provincial Energy Conference, a price freeze was decided with grants for the Eastern part of the country. The Federal government is now implementing that plan.
Members of the Opposition talk about the oil crisis. It was said on several occasions that there was an oil problem. Some say they want such and such a route for the pipeline, they want it from Sarnia, they want it through the North, they want this or that. It seems that members of the Opposition and especially Progressive Conservatives when they are from the province of Quebec, support a solution which would favor Quebec in the shortest delay with respect to supply but when they are in Northern Ontario, when they are in Toronto, they are in favour of another solution. I say, Mr. Speaker, that this is playing politics with a problem as crucial as the one we are faced with. In spite of the short term squabbles, we must realize that we have, on a long term basis, a unique occasion to develop our industrial sectors involved in energy because few countries will be able to guarantee those industries a steady supply. Of course, if those resources are to attrack industry they must be available at competitive prices.
Mr. Speaker, in the last session I was pleased to see several pieces of legislation passed which dealt with subjects I had included in my speech on the budget on February 21, 1973. On other points, I see that substantial progress was made towards future legislation.
However, there are two suggestions which I then made and would like to discuss in the House in the near future. I draw them again to your attention. The first deals with housing. In my opinion, it would be advisable that the government considers granting an income tax deduction on the construction of family dwellings, in order to encourage Canadians to become home owners.
Since the owners of public and commercial buildings are allowed each year a certain depreciation on their properties, it would seem logical that the owners of family dwellings be entitled to the same privileges as well as an income tax deduction on maintenance costs and other expenditures incurred, such as interest on mortgages. They could also be claimed as a tax deduction. Such measures would stimulate the construction industry while attaining the aim of the government which is that a great number of families become owners of their home.
Another suggestion which I also made dealt with the CNR employees. They have indeed obtained a retroactive 2 per cent salary raise, but this is not their only demand.
The Address-Mr. R. Guay
They wish to obtain pension fund parity with Air Canada employees and civil servants.
Presently, CN employees wonder why, being employees of a Crown Corporation, they do not get exactly the same treatment as other employees of corporations which fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government.
I know perfectly well that an hon. member on this side of the House is about to introduce a Bill on that matter and I wish to emphasize that I will be pleased to support it.
To conclude my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few personal comments about the Local Initiative Program. I realize that in the Estimates for the fiscal year 1973-74, the LIP budget has been further reduced. This decision being unjustified, in my view, I wish to make two proposals to this House. Either we should completely abolish this program which in its present state causes but dissatisfactions and disappointments among the people, or we should discuss in committee a proper way of applying this program in a more efficient way.
I was pointing out a few things a moment ago, before the departure of the Hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe. I do not know whether he is going to the province of Quebec while his leader is here but I know that whenever his leader, the hon. Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), is in Quebec, he in turn is here. Last Sunday, there was a benefit cocktail in Quebec City for Progressive Conservative partisans and this is related to my remarks, since it emphasizes first the absence of the Hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe, and then that of the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey). In every speech, we have been told that the dear child of Joliette was back home. He was going along with the Leader at that time. Well, I want to ask the Leader if, in Quebec, at the present time, it is one thing to find the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. LaSalle), and another thing to loose the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe and the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi?
When the leader of the opposition was visiting his supporters-who, by the way, are not that many in Quebec- two thirds of his members in Ottawa were absent. Fortunately, the hon. member for Joliette has come back to the fold, because the whole caucus would have been absent.
I find it very amusing that this member should make his first official trip with his leader in Quebec when he himself, on every TV and radio network, following caucus meetings on topics of particular interest to Quebec, makes statements to the media repeating what Mr. Balcer once said in the House: There is no room for a Quebec French Canadian in the Progressive Conservative party.
How can he, this is the question the hon. member for St-Hyacinthe was asking a moment ago, explain in the ridings of Joliette or Saint-Hyacinthe the inaction of government? Personally, in Joliette, I would have simply asked the member for that riding to explain his change of heart. For that matter, he follows in the footsteps of his Quebec leader who has had many changes of heart.
I have here, an item that appeared in Monday's issue of the newspaper Le Soleil. The article was entitled as follows:

March 6, 1974
The Address-Mr. R. Guay
Robert Lome Stanfield rewrites Quebec's history
The article reads as follows:
Saturday night, Robert Lome Stanfield encouraged the Quebec conservatives to write a new chapter in the province's history, a chapter entitled: "The province reconquered".
Of all the Quebec members sitting in this House, none, I think, who is really aware of what happened in Quebec in the years 1760 during the conquest would have dared say that in Quebec. It is the Conservative leader who comes to conquer us again, under the "tory" banner, a party made up of Englishmen.
Don't take the Quebec people for fools. We were conquered once, more than 200 hundred years ago, and it still hurts. I shall not tolerate any attempt to reconquer us in 1974. Perhaps the leader of the official opposition meant his conquest of the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle). It could be that I say that anyone trying to reconquer the province of Quebec and banking on the hon. member for Joliette will have a lot of work to do. The way he keeps changing his mind, the hon. member could very well be in another political party at the time of the next election.
I note something else in that article on the great speech on the leader of the official opposition. I ask the members of the opposition to pay close attention to what I am about to quote: The Trudeau government "has done nothing" to check inflation, the Liberal government "has done nothing" to solve the oil crisis, the Liberal government "has done nothing, absolutely nothing". But, in the same speech, he contradicts himself, and I quote the words the leader of the official opposition spoke in Quebec:
Since January 4, 1973, we have seen the Liberal government adopt, one after the other, quite a few of our policies and ideas, which it had previously spurned, derided.
Does that mean that when the government accepts the positive suggestions of the opposition, when they are positive, when they can be passed by the House, it does "nothing"? Some inconsistency! I put the question to the leader of the official opposition.
Mr. Speaker, I say that this speech is a mass of inconsistencies. They say that we have "done nothing". And yet, we have done everything the Progressive Conservatives had recommended we should do. Which means that they did not recommend much and they did not do anything for Quebecers.
Mr. Speaker, I am almost through with my remarks. When they talk about "conquest" of when they say:
"La Belle Province should keep in mind that the Conservative Party was the only one to stand up for Quebec with respect to oil supplies and prices.
But I simply ask what steps they proposed as a solution to this problem, to "resoudre a l'avantage", as the leader of the opposition says when he comes to Quebec, what single measure, if any, have they proposed, except to say: The government is powerless, the government "has done nothing".
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I dare hope that before the end of the throne speech debate, at least one Conservative in the House will have a concrete proposal to make. If the Con-

servatives did not understand my French, I ask them to read it in French tomorrow in Hansard. I have made proposals to the government and I know it is willing to listen to us. But the opposition can only criticize, so they are beyond help-


An hon. Member:: It will not be better tomorrow.


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: Yes. Read my speech tomorrow. [English]


Mr. O'Sullivan:: It won't make any more sense
tomorrow.


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: You read it tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, people come to Quebec and say: "Let La Belle Province remember ... " Quebec remembers one thing especially, and that is the Conservative members of Parliament. The same article refers also to the official language. What did the Progressive Conservatives and the Social Crediters do about this? They separated and said: We are still hesitant. Out west, the members of Parliament said: Understand that we have protected you. Then, in Quebec they said something else. A few Quebec members voted for the bill on official languages. As for the Social Crediters, what did they do? When the vote was taken on the official languages bill they abstained from voting. They said: "It is not enough!" When one says it is not enough, when one refuses to make the first move, how can one march in step. If nobody makes the first move, things come to a standstill. I blame them severely and the Quebec people will also blame them for taking this attitude.
Mr. Speaker, we have heard about a solution: The Leader of the Official Opposition goes around the country saying: Well, we will freeze prices for 90 days and after that, we will see, we will look into the matter, we will set up committees and then see how to deal later with the problem of inflation.
Mr. Speaker, everyone can see that these people are irresponsible, and I think the public, the Canadian people, cannot trust a party that has never proposed a policy which would benefit not only Westerners or Quebecers, but all Canadians.
The Liberal party, with our prime minister, was not afraid to go out West during the federal-provincial conference of western prime ministers to discuss problems and put forward solutions for the benefit of the western people. It was not afraid to come to Quebec to face problems, because only the Liberal party is and will remain the party of all Canadians.


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Speaker, before I begin my comments on the Speech from the Throne, I should like to refer briefly to the words used by the hon. member who has just taken his seat. May I say that when I hear a speech like his I am extremely embarrassed. It hurts me to see a grown man representing a riding as large as his stand in this House and cry. All he says, in essence, is: Give us an indication of your policies. This is what we have heard over and over again. They want us to govern, but they want to be the government.
March 6, 1974

Like other members of parliament I had the privilege of listening to the speech from the Throne and hearing what was said by the mover and seconder of the Address, by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and by various cabinet ministers as well as by supporters of the government. I believe the people of Canada will be as disappointed as I am by the contents of the Speech from the Throne. We are living in troubled times here in Canada. We are in difficulty economically. We are not sure what the future will bring. The country is looking desperately for leadership. It has occurred to many, as it has occurred to me, that all we hear in the Speech from the Throne is, really, a rehashing of policies which have been in Liberal speeches from the throne for the last 15 years.
I should like to deal with some of the deficiencies in the Speech from the Throne, deficiencies which affect small businesses, defiencies which affect the labouring people of the nation, deficiencies which affect the housewife, the merchant, those who are trying desperately to get along on fixed incomes. However, I have been delegated to deal with the Speech from the Throne as it concerns agriculture.
Mr. Speaker, I have known the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) for a great many years, even before we both became members of this House. He is a man for whom I have a great deal of respect and affection. I have a great deal of affection for him as an individual. But I consider that his response, as minister, to the needs of the industry and of the nation, to be less than effective. He has travelled across the breadth of this nation making, perhaps, more speeches than any other Minister of Agriculture in our nation's history. He has assured the nation that the farmers of Canada are second to none in productivity. He is correct. He has assured the farmers that they are tops in efficiency. He is correct in that too. The Minister of Agriculture has told the farm community that they are second to none in the world. That, Mr. Speaker, is absolutely true, because if they had lacked those qualifications none of them could have survivied the last six years of Liberal administration as far as agriculture is concerned.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harold Warren Danforth: Let us recall one of the speeches the minister made. It was at the Outloook Conference. This throws light on the manner in which he is carrying out his responsibilities. He said:
We are watching energy supplies. We are watching fertilizer supplies. We are watching equipment supplies. We are watching steel production. We are watching agricultural chemicals. We are watching agriculture stocks and we are watching international markets.
Mr. Speaker, the minister and the other members of the present government are probably the greatest Canadian spectators of all time. But what the farmers want is not conversation or spectator entertainment; they want to know when the minister will get off his podium, sit at the drafting thble and begin to introduce legislation so that some of his fantasies could become facts.
In his speech the other day-and I was amused by this- the minister said:
X note that an hon. member suggests that this is a Conservative policy-
The Address-Mr. Danforth
The reference was to the program for agriculture which the minister had just outlined and which had been mentioned in the Speech from the Throne. He said:
I note that an hon. member suggests that this is a Conservative policy. I note he has been reading some of my speeches and is adopting some of my ideas.


Mr. Knight:: He was right. The minister stole them from us.


Harold Warren Danforth: We need only go back to the 1958 policies of the Conservative party. There one would find, almost verbatim, the proposed 1974 policy of the government, with one small exception, that is, the reference to payment for grain storage in eastern Canada. It is no wonder members of the Conservative party recognize these proposals. They, themselves, were the proponents and authors of that policy. Now, we see it incorporated in Liberal policy for 1974. Mr. Speaker, the policy was good in the 'sixties but surely it is not adequate for the 'seventies.
We have entered a new era. There is a revolution in agriculture. There is a brand new ball game, and some new rules are required.
If agriculture is to make progress, a long-range policy is needed. The policies proposed must be credible. There must be confidence in the minister and in the government. But they have done everything possible to discredit the minister and discredit themselves. I should just like to give a few illustrations of what I mean. One of the greatest concerns of the primary producers of Canada today is the availability of fertilizer and its price. I should like to quote what the Minister of Agriculture said to the growers of this nation, as reported at page 1248 of Hansard for February 13, 1973:
Having done some research and made telephone calls, I wish to report... that the price of fertilizer will not increase.
The price of fertilizer has almost doubled, Mr. Speaker. The minister also said that we must be thankful we have the farmers we have in Canada. After the crass Liberal policies we have had, we surely can be thankful that we have any farmers at all left in Canada.
The minister also said that we must be very cautious that we do not do something that would discourage them. I should like to deal with some of the actions this government has taken which are discouraging farmers, and I do not have to look very far. I should like to deal with the beef industry, the representatives of which are in Ottawa today. The price at which this industry is being asked to sell its products is less than cost of production. Beef producers in this country today are losing thousands and thousands of dollars. As a matter of fact, many of them have already gone bankrupt. Many more are contemplating bankruptcy, and havoc will be created so far as future production of beef is concerned unless the government does something to correct the situation, and does it now.
I should like to repeat what the minister said about this, not today but at a prior meeting with the cattle producers. He said:
During my discussions with the cattlemen's associations and others I found them to be as happy a group of producers as I have found in any part of our nation.

March 6, 1974
The Address-Mr. Danforth
How ironic it is that the producers who are his friends, and who are so happy, are the very ones who are going bankrupt at the present time as a result of the policies of this government. And the minister says that we must be very cautious that we do not do something that would discourage them! The minister scares me to death when he talks like this.
I want to deal with another commodity about which he has made a statement. The minister has said that more stability has been provided to the dairy industry than any other sector of the agriculture industry in Canada. I ask, what stability? We have the same dairy production in Canada today as we had 100 years ago. It cannot provide for the needs of the Canadian people today, when three or four years ago it was producing an abundance of butter and milk powder for export, with hundreds of thousands of pounds in storage. There were adequate supplies of cheese, butter and milk powder for all Canadian citizens at a reasonable price. Yet the government says it has provided stability. What has the government done in its search for stability? One thing it did was to establish quotas and to say that anyone under a certain quota-and the government set the minimum-would get no subsidy or support. What did this do, Mr. Speaker? It put every little milk and cream producer out of business.
Then, the government was not satisfied with that. It said that what it would do with the quotas was to fix it so that anyone who went over quota would be fined $1.25 per one hundred pounds of milk produced over quota. What has been the result of this? Dairy production in Canada has degenerated to such an extent that this year we are going to have to import 54 million pounds of butter to supply our own domestic needs. No wonder the minister says that we have to turn the dairy industry right around. I wonder what he means by that, because he has already turned it upside down. This is why we are so anxious about government policy and want to know what is going on.
We are also very concerned about the poultry industry. The minister has stated there must be more and more production to fight the increase in inflation. Yet this is the same government that slaughtered two million head of poultry in this country. We had too much poultry and now we are told we do not have enough. The government says we must put emphasis on the production of food and that we must have more food. The farmers must take acres out of fallow and provide more food for the nation and for export. And this is the very government that paid farmers not to grow wheat. The government now says they must grow wheat and it is doing everything it can to get them to grow wheat. This is the type of stability we have, Mr. Speaker, and it is why it is a mockery for the government to say that we have to be very cautious that we do not do something to discourage agriculture.
I should like to say a few words about sugar, something very dear to me. The government has said that we must have a sugar policy and do something about the price of sugar. The government and this Minister of Agriculture were the very ones who put the sugar beet growers in Ontario completely out of business. Now, the minister says we have to establish a sugar industry in southwestern Ontario, the very industry that it put out of business. The

government stopped the subsidy of $700,000 to Ontario producers to produce sugar beets in an endeavour to save money. It then paid the same farmers $1.5 million to stay out of the sugar beet industry. Today, the minister says that we must establish a new industry, that it may cost $30 million to build a new plant. How has this government established any credibility? How can we believe the government is sincere when it tells us its programs are designed to help the farmers?
If anyone had any doubt about the sincerity of this government, let them read the Speech from the Throne. According to the Speech from the Throne, it is government policy to provide high quality food to Canadian consumers at lower prices. Then, the government turns round and says that we have to encourage the farmers of this nation to grow more food at a greater return to the farmers. Anyone who knows anything about business should know that you cannot have cheaper food and pay the farmers more. That is no policy at all. It is not possible, practical, feasible or credible. This is why the government is in trouble.
What has the government done to the beef producers of this country? First of all, it placed an embargo on beef shipments to the United States, our traditional market. Then, it lifted that embargo. Then, it took off the tariff protection we had against imports of U.S. beef flooding our market. Then that was not good enough; the government put it back on again and doubled the tariff. Then, it reduced the tariff gradually to its original floor. Now, when our industry is being crippled as never before, the government is considering what else it can do. When the government comes up with some plan I just do not know whether it will help or hinder. I shudder every time the Minister of Agriculture makes some proposal or puts forward some new policy. We are told not to interfere, to be very cautious about doing anything. Yet the government has changed its policy on beef alone six times in six months. How can agriculture thrive with a policy like that, Mr. Speaker?
We in the vegetable industry in Canada depend for the most part on tariff protection in order to survive. If there is one thing we must have in Canada today it is a guaranteed, stable production of fruits and vegetables. Who would ever believe that the housewives of this country would go to the grocery stores and find the shelves bare of fruits or vegetables either in the fresh, frozen or processed form; but that is what is happening. It is happening because this government kept tinkering with tariffs and reducing them so that many of our vital industries have gone out of business. In my area there used to be thousands of acres devoted to the production of early fruits and vegetables. However, these producers have found that under the reduced tariff protection offered by this government they could not continue in business.
What happened? The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) in this House a few weeks ago, without consultation with any segment of the agricultural industry and perhaps not even with the Minister of Agriculture, eliminated the tariff on many fruits and vegetables coming into this country. Immediately there was chaos in the Canadian industry because this was done at a time when production
March 6, 1974

was coming in. Many of our markets collapsed as a result of this action by the government. The actions of this government where the farmers and agriculture are concerned are those of an antiquated body which either does not understand at all the complex agricultural industry or does not give a damn about the farmers. It is one or the other. There is no other explanation for these policies that have been carried out.
I should like to speak of another problem in respect of agriculture. We must have some policy in this regard because we are in trouble. It deals with farm labour in southwestern Ontario in the harvest and planting seasons. There is difficulty obtaining labour. The government establishes minimum wages. We have tried to compete, but the result is that there are not sufficient people to do the work there. We have attempted in every way possible to encourage people to come from other parts of Canada and even offshore. What does the government do? It sends a group of people down to that area to inspect the working conditions of the labourers who go there. They find a single case of abuse in respect of housing, at least an alleged abuse. On the basis of that, the publicity goes out across this nation that the employers in that area abuse their privileges as employers and make the position of the employees almost untenable. There is reference to substandard wages paid by the growers in that area. The wages paid in that area are comparable to those paid by the automobile factories adjacent to them. If they were not, there would not be any labourers available.
The very objectives of this government, without investigation of the facts and without listening to the representations of the agricultural groups, have made it almost impossible for us to have enough labourers to take off our crops. Excursions were started into the area by this government. These excursions involved young people from all over the nation with a view to helping us with this problem. "Excursion" is the word for it because these young people came at government expense. They got off the buses, the planes, the taxis and the trains, looked around, said it was a good district, and then got back on the planes, trains and buses and said to the government "Thank you for the trip". There were some exceptions involving young people who worked for an hour or three hours in order to see what it was like, so that they could go back to school and write an essay about how they worked in the fields. Now, the government is talking about a pool of labour from which the employers can obtain labour to help them. This is not regular labour. They have to take their chance and they can do this provided there is adequate government inspection of the working premises in order to determine that conditions are acceptable, not to the workers, but to the government inspectors.
This is the reason the agricultural community lacks faith in this government. This is the reason the agricultural community lacks faith in the Minister of Agriculture. They like him as a person. I like him as a person, but unless he can produce some effective policies he will be completely discredited, not only across this nation and in this House but in his own riding. That would be unfortunate indeed, because I think without a doubt he is the only individual on that side of the House who knows anything at all about farming. Perhaps he is the only practising farmer on the government benches today. Perhaps that is
The Address-Mr. Danforth
the reason we are in trouble; I do not know. I had great hopes when he was appointed Minister of Agriculture. I am from a neighbouring riding of his and I had great hopes. I went to him and told him that I would do everything in my power to help him in his programs to help the farmers. However, it became evident that, although he had some ideas, he was unable to convince his colleagues. Had he had any influence over his colleague the Minister of Finance, perhaps we would not have had the reduction of the tariff on foodstuffs.
In the Speech from the Throne there is a suggestion that the government intends to do great things in respect of transportation. There is no mention of transportation as it relates to agriculture. When we talk about transportation in the House everyone in Canada thinks there will not be sufficient boxcars to move the grain to the coast. But that is only one part of the problem. The housewives of this country are becoming very concerned over the fact that there are not sufficient canned goods on the shelves when they go to the grocery stores. The shelves are becoming more and more bare. It is true that in some cases the fruits and vegetables are available in the warehouses of the companies which manufacture them, but there are absolutely no cars available to transport these goods to the retail stores. There are no boxcars. I spoke to the manager of a canning plant in southwestern Ontario who said that so far as he was concerned-and this is just one of many instances-they are 140 boxcars behind last year's minimum effort in respect of shipping goods. He said they are attempting by all possible ways to get the goods on the market. They are paying premium transportation rates for trucks and every sort of licensed vehicle they can obtain with the result that the consumer will have to pay more money for these goods. I do not want to hear the government blame producers for the high cost.
Much of the blame for the increased cost of food today can be laid at the doorstep of this government. Is it not ridiculous to think that we have a Minister of Agriculture going around this country saying that so far as the producers are concerned the price of food is still not high enough and that the farmers should have more for their produce, then have another minister saying they will do everything they can to drive down the prices of food. I am speaking of course of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Gray). That is in direct opposition to the Minister of Agriculture. Then, we have the third minister in this unholy triumvirate so far as agriculture is concerned, the Minister of Finance, who wants cheaper food not because of concern for the consumer but because of political expediency and the fantastic dream that the importation of cheap food will force down the cost of living.
This government's policy is not formulated for the farmers of this nation. I might use the old cliche that is so true in respect of agriculture. The government staggers from crisis to crisis. It has taken the Conservative policy of 1958, has constantly revamped and patched it and reproposed it to the present date. I am not surprised at hon. members over there asking us what we would do, because it is evident that in all departments they are bereft of ideas. I am as convinced as my colleagues that when the people are again asked to give a mandate they will vote for a party which is progressive, which shows

March 6, 1974
The Address-Mr. Poulin
some initiative and has some policies to solve crises. Over and over again I have sat in my seat listening to the members of the government condemn us for even proposing price, wage and income control, yet all they have to do is look at the results of their own monetary and fiscal policies to see that they have been an absolute disaster. They must devise other ways of tackling these problems. Perhaps we do not know all the answers but we are not wrong all the time.
This nation must have a policy that will lift us out of the doldrums in which we find ourselves today in order that we can again become a nation among nations. We have a golden opportunity to be a leader among nations, but we cannot hope to be under this present government's policies. This government says it cannot take action because our problems are worldwide. I suggest that under a progressive government we would once again become a leader instead of a follower.


Mr.   Hugh. Poulin@Ottawa Centre: Mr. Speaker, let me first add my congratulations to those of my colleagues who have already spoken in this debate to the mover (Mr. Stollery) and the seconder (Mr. Pelletier (Sherbrooke)) of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. I wish every one of the constituents of the hon. members for Spadina and Sherbrooke could have been here to hear those speeches. Had that been possible, I am sure those hon. members would win their ridings in the next election by landslides. In any case, they certainly did justice to their cause and deserve to be proud, as we are proud of their outstanding contributions to this debate.
May I also extend my warm regards to His Excellency and Madame Leger, with the wish that their term in office provide them with much happiness and peace. I can see already that they will make a great contribution to Canada.
Having said that, may I also welcome all of you, my colleagues, back to my riding, as the parliament buildings are, of course, part of Ottawa Centre, the riding I have the honour to represent. This afternoon I have heard those opposite say they are having some difficulties dealing with government. May I also offer to those who live within my riding, as many here do, the services of my constituency office at 340 Elgin Street to help with any problems they may have.


An hon. Member:: Give us a new member of parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: You would then be busy 24 hours a day.


Mr. Poulin:: I am already busy 24 hours a day. Ottawa Centre is the heart of the national capital area, not only politically but culturally and socially as well. It is for this reason I have spoken on a number of occasions of my conviction that the National Gallery of Canada, presently in quarters that were never intended to be more than temporary, remain in its present general area. To be more specific, I should like to see the new National Gallery built on the land directly south of the National Arts Centre, and

the land of Cartier Square, which is presently occupied by a temporary Department of National Defence building, become a parkland area for the citizens of the area known locally as Centretown as well as for the citizens of the nation who come here to visit.
Ottawa Centre, as the political heart of the nation's capital, also finds a majority of the 125,000 federal public servants in the national capital area working within it. Many of these people also live within the riding. Bilingualism in the public service is thus a matter of concern. However, I know that the vast majority of public servants accept and endorse, as do I, the policy of bilingualism as stated in the legislation passed by this House in June of last year. The concern which has been expressed in the past over the implementation of the Official Languages Act among public servants has decreased substantially in past months. A couple of weeks ago there was a new flutter of concern about bilingualism when it was reported that the number of positions to be classified bilingual would probably be greater than the original estimate, but surely this issue of numbers is not a real one to any reasonable minded Canadian.
Recently the Ottawa Journal hit the nail on the head. In its lead editorial on Wednesday, February 20, regarding bilingual positions under the heading "Its Need-Not Numbers" it stated:
The purpose of designating bilingual positions is to give effect to the will of parliament, to assure the right of all Canadians to communicate with their federal government in the language of their choice, to ensure the right of public servants to work for the federal government in either official language.
Therefore, whether the number of bilingual public service positions is 25,000 or closer to 50,000 is not an issue.
In addition, as the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) has stated, the principal reason for not disclosing the total or an approximate number of bilingual positions stems from the firm commitment of this government to the staff associations that they would be consulted and fully advised before any official disclosure or determination was made.
Last year $2 million was applied toward the stimulation of bilingual education in the lower grade schools in this community. These federal funds were spread out among the four area school boards in the national capital area on the Ottawa side. May I say from personal experience that this has been of great benefit to all of the children who had the opportunity through this federal funding to learn a second official language. It should be continued and I would urge the government and the President of the Treasury Board to consider very seriously making the same amount of money, or more if necessary, available in order to encourage the learning of the official languages in our schools in the national area.
However, the official languages policy is only one area in which there is a two way relationship between the employer, the government, and the employee, the public servant. Salaries represent another such area, and here also the government must act as a responsible employer, and the public servant must act as a responsible employee. Salary increases must keep up with the increase in the cost of living, but at the same time they must be such as not to add to the inflationary pressures in this country.
March 6, 1974

Ottawa Centre, however, in many ways is not unique among urban ridings. This riding has many of the same social and economic problems that are present in numerous other urban ridings. However, in the case of Ottawa Centre, the federal government has special responsibilities as the federal government itself is a major landowner, tenant and employer. For this and many other apparent reasons I again urge the government, as it has been urged many times in past parliaments, to establish a joint parliamentary committee to study the present and future development of the national capital and the national capital area, a committee composed of members of this House and of the Senate, of members from all parts of Canada. It is my determined belief that not only are we blessed by Providence with the finest country in the word but also blessed with potentially having the finest national capital in the world as well.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Take Lebreton flats for example. This is a choice area of land, formerly partly residential, on the shore of the Ottawa River just to the west of the parliament buildings. As a matter of fact this vacant area of land can be seen from the parliamentary restaurant. This land was acquired by the federal government in 1961, and has lain idle since that time. When the land was first acquired, the plan was to use it as the site for the new National Defence Headquarters. That plan did not materialize. In the mid-1960's much of the land was earmarked for arterial road construction. Fortunately, nothing came of that plan.
Again, I urge that work begin immediately on a concept plan for Lebreton Flats. It is my recommendation that this area be developed for housing so that the people of Canada will be able to use and enjoy this choice area of the national capital. Because of its proximity to downtown Ottawa this land is too valuable to lie idle. I envisage an integrated, forward-looking community for this area, a community of various types of housing to accommodate a cross-section of Canadian society, a community which has its educational and commercial requirements taken into consideration from the beginning, an area which would lend itself also to exemplary recreational facilities for Canadians of all ages and interests including, for example, much needed soccer fields for this sport which is rapidly becoming so popular. There have been encouraging signs in recent months for this type of proposal. I urge the National Capital Commission that, starting immediately, it report monthly progress on development of a concept plan for Lebreton flats along the lines that I have suggested.
To be taken into consideration when developing Lebreton flats should be the citizens in the area directly to the south, that is, Dalhousie Ward. The residents of Dalhousie Ward have published a study, done almost exclusively by the people of the area but financed by a $45,000 federal
The Address-Mr. Poulin
government grant from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. The initiative of the residents of Dalhousie Ward, of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and of the minister responsible for it, all deserve a great deal of credit for this experiment in urban planning.
As the minister mentioned earlier in his remarks today, an agreement has been reached between the province and the federal government with respect to the neighbourhood improvement program and with respect to the residential improvement program. The plan, as I say, was developed by the residents of Dalhousie Ward. It is now being considered by the citizens of the ward. It will then go to the municipal officials, and I would only state to the people of that area, to the minister, to the municipal officials, and to the corporation that they will have my entire support in having that area designated in order that it qualify for the neighbourhood and residential improvement programs as enacted by recent legislation.
I now wish to turn to some national issues, Mr. Speaker, It was heartening to me, and to most Canadians, to see mention in the Speech from the Throne of such a wide range of measures to impede inflation, and especially inflation in the area of food prices. I note particularly the measures that will result in increasing the supply of food, for this is the only long-term solution to the complex problem of increasing food prices. Here I mention measures such as assistance to farmers to help them modernize their methods, assistance to young farmers to help them get established in agriculture, improvements to marketing systems, and the availability of manpower, especially during peak periods.
I note the twin commitments in the throne speech that on the one hand the producer must be assured a fair income for his work, and on the other hand that the consumer must be ensured a fair value for his dollar. I quote from the speech:
He must be protected against disruptive increases in the price of essential food stuffs caused by international market demand. Guarantees against unduly low prices to producers must be coupled with guarantees against unduly high prices to consumers.
In the past several days we have heard that bread prices are likely to rise in the near future. However the fact remains that without Liberal government action last summer and fall, bread prices today would be 10 or 12 cents more per loaf than they are now.
Mr. Speaker, I see it is two minutes to six o'clock, and I wonder if at this time I could call it six o'clock as I am just about to go to another topic.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Does the House agree to call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow morning at eleven o'clock pursuant to Standing Order 2(2).
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, March 7, 1974