1974-11-21

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Second and third reports of Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, in both official languages-Mr. Campbell.
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, there have been informal discussions amongst the House leaders and there is general agreement that, in order to give more members an opportunity to participate in the debate on the budget, speeches be limited to 20 minutes.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES ACT
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury
Board): Mr. Speaker, I wish to table a report on the progress that has been made in implementing the resolution adopted by Parliament in June 1973 as it relates to carrying out the government's responsibilities under the Official Languages Act.
The report contains the results of the process of identifying the language requirements of all positions in the Public Service for which the Treasury Board is the employer. Information is provided on the number of bilingual employees occupying positions identified as bilingual, as well as data related to language training for public servants.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Speaker, hon. members will note that the number of positions identified as bilingual is approximately 53,600, compared to the estimate of 25,000 made in December, 1972. The main reasons for this are that the number of bilingual positions required to serve the public servants were underestimated. In addition, to allow public servants to work in the official language of their choice, the number of bilingual supervisory positions is higher than estimated. Criteria for identifying bilingual positions were established in consultation with certified bargaining agents.
Fifty-three per cent of incumbents of bilingual positions are bilingual, leaving an estimated training load of some 19,000, the majority of whom are Anglophones. Experience with full-time language training is still quite limited and it will be some time before complete data becomes available on the number of employees who will be able to complete language training successfully. However, the government wishes to ensure that the maximum number of public servants are able to acquire a knowledge of their second official language. Therefore, a study will be carried out by recognized linguists to determine why some persons appear to be unable to learn a second language and whether, as a consequence, teaching methods can be improved.
In addition, at the request of the government the Public Service Commission has agreed that, effective immediately, unilingual employees aged 60-or over, will automatically be exempted from language training while retaining the right to occupy or be appointed to bilingual positions. This means that a unilingual employee aged 60 or over who has all the other qualifications for a bilingual position can be appointed to the position without having to become bilingual.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Speaker, the resolution adopted by Parliament called for measures to increase the use of French within the Public Service as well as for ensuring full participation of both the anglophone and francophone communities. Hon. members will, I am sure, hope for a continued improvement in the situation indicated by the statistics describing a linguistic profile of the Public Service.
During the process of implementation of Parliament's Resolution the Certified Bargaining Agents have been consulted. The fruitfulness of our consultations with these employee representatives and particularly the work of the Official Languages Committee of the National Joint Council deserve special mention and I wish to express the appreciation of the government.
28543-281/2
[Stage Direction]
November 21, 1974
Official Languages Act
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I would like to thank the minister for his courtesy in supplying a copy of the statement well in advance. I think all members of this House want to make certain that Canadians can secure the services of their government in both languages and that our public service will not only be the best possible but, more than that, it will be a contented public service while this process is going on. Even Liberals, however, are human-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Explain.


Walter David Baker: -and there are few greater examples of mismanagement than with respect to this program and its implementation which is so important to the future unity of our country. Perhaps I should not be unduly unfair in singling out the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien)-as many of his colleagues are equally guilty of mismanagement, as we saw a few days ago at the beginning of the debate in which we are involved.
Let me tell the House why we on this side believe there has been gross mismanagement. I will use only the data contained in the minister's statement to support my claim; then I will tell hon. members how the program could have been implemented in a much more efficient, economic and humane manner. Let us consider the minister's report. It shows, first, that the government has misled the Canadian public, this House and the public service. The report shows that the number of positions identified as bilingual has more than doubled in two years, from 25,000 to approximately 53,600. Notice the word "approximately", for the figure may go substantially higher. There is little evidence here of any sensible planning before the government made its decision.
This increase, apart from being an example of the government's shoddy preparation for the bilingual program, has deeper implications. It shows that Canadians who are unilingual, either Francophone or Anglophone, will find it more and more difficult to reach the higher ranks of the federal public service; and since, as the government admits, no one knows why some of us cannot learn languages, the government is unnecessarily halting the careers of a large number of young Canadians. When one considers the lack of leadership by the federal government in the provision of language training in schools across the country, and the relative failure of the government's own language training program, one can appreciate the hardship caused to young Canadians.
Nineteen per cent of all positions are now designated bilingual. In the national capital region the figure reaches 66.4 per cent. This means that promotion in our national capital region is highly restricted. Yet even outside Ottawa the chances of promotion are not much better. A glance at appendix B to the report provided by the minister shows that 92.7 per cent of all executive positions, 36.6 per cent of administrative positions, 26.8 per cent of all scientific and professional positions, and 25 per cent of all administrative support positions are designated as bilin-

gual in which fluent use of both French and English is essential.
These figures make a mockery of the various so-called protections provided in the government's proposals for the implementation of bilingualism in the federal public service of this country. The minister, in his report, demonstrates the generosity of the government, if I may use that word. Unilingual employees aged 60 or over will be exempt from language training while retaining the right to occupy or to be appointed to bilingual positions. Since at the same time the government is endeavouring to force many civil servants into retirement at the age of 60, one can see exactly how much protection is afforded by such vacuous statements as the one just referred to. The government admits, as we all must, that there is a serious problem in connection with language training. This is a problem which seems to bother most English-speaking countries and countries such as ours where a high proportion of the population speaks English. Most educators could have told the government the grave problems facing it in the area of language education. The evidence was all around the government but was obviously ignored and the government decided to go ahead without consultation.
We need to do a number of things. Most of all, we need to improve the motivation of members of the public service of this country to join wholeheartedly and willingly in the bilingualism program. If we are to accomplish this we must do certain things. First, we must reform our language training programs so that far fewer public servants will need to take full-time, centralized training programs. This can be done by having continuing interdepartmental programs which will assist members of the department concerned to understand and read the other official language. Only those with particular motivation and aptitudes should be required to take full language training in order to qualify, which would involve competence in speaking and writing as well. Competence in reading and comprehension are sufficient for many of the tasks necessary in positions which have currently been designated as bilingual in the full sense. An increase in the number of public servants who can read in the other official language will mean that an increasing number of unilingual personnel, either Francophone or Anglophone, can be employed in better positions than at present.
I suggest we also need to adopt a new approach to the operational side of the public service based upon a decentralized, bilingual infrastructure. We need a rapid translation capability so that an increasing number of Canadians can work in their own language within their departments. A little outside advice would have helped the government improve the implementation of these programs. That advice was offered but the government refused to accept it.
In closing, let me say that we are just beginning the debate on the budget; therefore I am particularly disappointed that the minister's statement did not contain any figures concerning the cost of the program. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to remind hon. members that during the twenty-ninth parliament we asked the government to put into the law of the land the protection of the guidelines that we dealt with in that debate. This they have appar-
November 21, 1974

ently refused to do. I think the public service is not served well by that refusal.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have often wondered why I have so much difficulty learning French.

Now I understand: I am 60 years old-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: That applause was so delayed in coming that I thought I would have to translate into English what I had said in French. This whole question of bilingualism in Canada, particularly bilingualism in the public service is, to put it mildly, a sensitive issue. Nevertheless, the fact is that parliament, with the support of all four parties, passed the Official Languages Act and has continued to support the policy of bilingualism in the public service, because we believe it should be made possible for Canadians of both our official languages to communicate freely and easily with their government. Therefore, it seems that we can only approve when the government indicates it is taking steps to try to carry out a policy decision that has been made by parliament.
It is true that along with its responsibility to develop that policy, the government also has the responsibility to be fair to the employees concerned, particularly those who are unilingual either way. We welcome the fact that this is still being recognized by the federal government. We welcome in particular the recognition-I alluded in my opening remarks to this fact-that for some persons it is difficult to learn another language. My hon. friend across the way, who just said he is having no trouble learning English, is an example of proficiency in this field, as is the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) who, when he first came here, did not know a word of English.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I like the realism of the statement that it is necessary to carry out a study by recognized linguists to determine whether our teaching methods are filling the bill. If they are not, we believe the government would do well to see that those teaching methods are improved. On behalf of my party, I wish also to say that we like the recognition on page 9 of the report that the only way this problem of learning a second language can be resolved for Canada as a whole is for Canadians to have the chance to acquire the basic knowledge of a second language, be it English or French, at an early age.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: We believe that this recognition should be put into practice even more than it is at the present time. It is quite possible to get into a numbers game on this issue and it is quite possible to be
Official Languages Act
aware of the sensitivities, feelings and criticism which there may be. However, Canada, being the kind of country that it is, and this parliament having endorsed the principle that bilingualism should be a fact in the public service, we believe efforts should be made to work that out with fairness to all concerned. This includes both major language groups and the rights of all those in the public service.
I have just one other word to say to the government. Acceptance of the principle of bilingualism in certain parts of Canada is helped if the policy of multiculturalism is pushed and advanced, and I urge that the government put a little more steam into that program. In fact, it might be a good idea once again to assign a full-time minister to that effort, to the development of multiculturalism in all parts of Canada.


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should have thought that the minister would have made a statement to the effect that the government was willing to supply the department of education of each and every Canadian province with the funds required to teach both official languages in our schools. Absolutely no more than five years would be required for all Canadians to become fully and totally bilingual. Once again we start at the end of the line.
Mr. Speaker, when I hear our minister telling us about the good intentions of the government and yet see that some departments are still hiring unilingual staff, I wonder then how sincere the minister is.
Recently I took an Air Canada flight; some of the young hostesses of 20 or 22, spoke only one language, English, and they had just been hired. I claim that if a young French-Canadian girl wants to be hired by Air Canada, she should learn English, just as an English-speaking one should have to learn French before getting a job with Air Canada.
Mr. Speaker, the minister says that 53 per cent of those who hold bilingual positions are already bilingual. Thus that leaves some 19,000 people who are mainly Englishspeaking. The minister should have said totally Englishspeaking, because in the federal ministries, no Frenchspeaking civil servant is going to be hired if he does not speak English. I know that by experience.
Mr. Speaker, the other point that I find very hard on present civil servants is that the minister says: At the request of the government, the Civil Service Commission has accepted unilingual employees aged 60 or over. Mr. Speaker, just ask someone who is 50 or 60 years old to learn the second official language. It is almost impossible and I think it is unfair. You do not learn the second language when you are 50 years old: that is much too late. So, instead of saying: Civil servants of 60 or over, the minister should have said: 50 or over and established the maximum at 50 years of age. But we are still going to spend money to teach the two languages to the 35 or 40 year-old civil servants. I have nothing against that, on the contrary. If the government gave those millions to the provinces to allow them to teach the two languages to their young people as early as the first grade in all the provinces of Canada, we would obtain much better results

November 21, 1974
Official Languages Act
within five years. The member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Bechard) says it is up to the provinces to do that. We spent $53 million to learn that English was spoken in Ontario and French in Quebec. Why don't we spend another $53 million to teach both languages to the young people of Canada and within five years Canada will be a bilingual nation. That is all I have to say, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Murta:: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order respecting the import controls on beef and pork which have been imposed by the United States government over the past few days. The reason for my point of order is this. The situation might be very serious in terms of pork for the immediate term, and in terms of beef for the long term. We could be talking about a loss in sales of up to $100 million. I think to a great extent the government has brought on the problem by its own fumbling and mismanagement-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member be good enough to come to his point of order.


Jack Burnett Murta: My point of order is this. The minister indicated that he would make a statement in the House telling the Canadian people what the government is proposing to do. Even if the government is going to meet with officials of the United States government in the near future, I still feel that it is up to the Minister of Agriculture to give some explanation to the Canadian people so that we know what the government is doing, if anything.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Jarvis:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. In yesterday's Hansard, at page 1496, in reply to a question by my colleague the hon. member for Edmonton-Strath-cona (Mr. Roche) regarding the world food conference in Rome, the Minister of Agriculture replied, in part:
I will be making a more detailed statement tomorrow, and I hope that some of these questions will be answered at that time in more detail.
This simply confirms the assurance that I thought some of us had from the minister that a detailed statement on the world food conference in Rome would be made on a day not later than today. I can appreciate the minister's very serious difficulties in attempting to draft a statement that would bring some credibility to the government, but that is not my question of privilege. My question of privilege is that yesterday in this House the minister assured us in unequivocal terms that a statement would be made today, and he has not risen in his place to do so.


Mr. Whelan:: Mr. Speaker, when I said yesterday that I would make a statement today, I did not know that my colleague, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien), had made arrangements to make a statement today, so I thought I would make mine tomorrow, and that is what I intend to do rather than take the time of the House today.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Greenwood rising on the same point of order?


Mr. Brewin:: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot (Mr. Jarvis). The minister did say he was going to make this statement on an extremely important subject, and I am wondering what is keeping him from doing so.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43 to ask the leave of the House to move a motion that is self-explanatory and which I feel should meet with approval from both sides of the House. I ask permission to move, seconded by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), the following motion:
In view of the most serious situation created by the blocking of the St. Lawrence seaway as a result of the sinking this morning of the Canadian freighter the Roy A. Jodrey in United States waters, off Wellesey Island west of Brockville, Ontario, the House requests the Minister of Transport to offer immediate and full co-operation to American authorities in taking any steps necessary to re-open the channel and that the minister advise the House as to when it is expected the seaway will re-open as indicated from the latest information available to him.


Mr. Speaker:: Before putting the question pursuant to the motion under Standing Order 43, with regard to the proposed point of order raised by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta) and supported to a certain extent by an alleged question of privilege by the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot (Mr. Jarvis), the point of order is not, of course, valid in view of the fact that the minister, as I recall, indicated yesterday that he hoped he would be making a statement today. Comment may be valid in respect of the minister's statement, but there is no requirement at all that the minister make a statement at any time. Therefore, I cannot accept that the hon. member's point constitutes either a question of privilege or a point of order.
This motion having been proposed by the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt) pursuant to Standing Order 43, it requires unanimous consent of the House before it can be debated. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
November 21, 1974


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT
Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice) moved: the first reading of Bill S-6 (from the Senate), to amend the Canadian Wheat Board.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of widespread reports about our country becoming less than self-sufficient in oil in a few years time, I should like to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, instead of concentrating on fighting over the spoils, when he is going to announce to this House a program of conservation and development of our petroleum resources? In particular, when is the minister going to announce to the industry and to the country in general a settlement of the land use regulations question, which has been all up in the air in the north since as far back as 1970?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I anticipate putting before parliament, prior to our rising for the Christmas adjournment, the details of the conservation program which we hope will be effective in changing the attitude of Canadians, over a period of time, toward their use, particularly of petroleum and natural gas.
With regard to the oil and gas land regulations, one of the principal obstacles to a final conclusion in this regard has been the fact that these same regulations apply to the east coast offshore and apply to the north. The desire for some time was to have an identical set of regulations, including rent collection, for the two areas. As the hon. gentleman knows, it has not been possible to come to an agreement with the five easternmost provinces as yet with regard to the east offshore. I will be suggesting to my colleagues that we proceed separately on the two different issues, proceeding in advance with the regulations in the north. If legislation should be necessary, as indeed it may be, that could be introduced in the House during the current session.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. With regard to the land use regulations has there been any effort by the minister or the federal government to obtain an agreement with regard to that aspect of the conflict with the five eastern provinces? Is the minister telling us there has been a refusal by those provinces to
Oral Questions
agree to the land use regulations proposed for the north, or is it other aspects of the eastern off-shore contract about which there has been disagreement?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Of course, the basic disagreement is with regard to the question of jurisdiction. What the federal government has proposed to at least the four provinces which have agreed is that the jurisdictional question should be put aside and we should work out an appropriate regime to cover both the revenue question and the administration of the resource which may be there, both in terms of the operational practices as well as rent collection. So, the rent collection apparatus with regard to the permit and leasing arrangements has been an integral part of the whole discussion. We have not attempted to go ahead and solve a particular issue but were rather hopeful that the entire arrangement might have been concluded before this.


Mr. Speaker:: The Leader of the Opposition on a final supplementary.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of the urgency of the settlement of the question with regard to land regulations, the urgency in respect of the settlement of that question offshore and the urgency in the north, what possible excuse has the minister for at least not having had this question settled so that the question of land regulations would be cleared up for the north and presumably for the offshore as well.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: If the hon. gentleman has been following the public reports of this question he will have noticed that the question of land regulations is one of the points on which the government of Newfoundland in particular has been most critical of this government.
In respect of the land regulations, the administration of the resource is really the fundamental and basic question involved in the over-all administrative arrangement. It therefore, I think, does not make much sense to talk about settling that particular question until one can settle the over-all regime, whether it is to be carried out by the federal government under its jurisdiction, as we think would be the appropriate legal position, or whether it is to be carried out co-operatively, as we think is the appropriate political solution.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Regina East on a further supplementary.


Mr. Balfour:: My question is not a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, so I will defer it.


OIL-POSSIBILITY OF CRISIS SUPPLY SITUATION-REASON FOR FAILURE OF GOVERNMENT TO CURTAIL EXPORTS TO THE UNITED STATES
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. According to the figures which are purported to have come from the National Energy Board report, which the minister has not yet made public, it is estimated that even if Canada were to cut off its supply of crude oil to the United States we will be in a position of non-self-sufficiency in less than eight years and if we do not cut off supplies to the United States we

Oral Questions
will not be self-sufficient in four years and will not have sufficient oil to put through the pipeline from Sarnia to Montreal. In view of this very serious situation, and the possibility that Canada may be heading into an energy crisis within a few years, I wish to ask the minister whether the government is taking any steps to phase out the exportation of oil to the United States which last year amounted to 1.2 million barrels a day?
Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines
and Resources): I should say to the hon. gentleman that that is one of the questions to which the National Energy Board addresses itself. I can indicate to him that it would be my intention to make the report public tomorrow afternoon. Bearing in mind the fact that the recommendations in the report could have potential financial implications for the firms involved here, I think it should be done after the close of the last stock exchange in this country, about five p.m. I will be making arrangements through my colleague the hon. member for Algoma-Manitoulin to make sure that the hon. gentlemen, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain and the spokesman for the Ralliement des Creditistes receive copies in advance in the hope that we might have close co-operation in dealing with this tomorrow afternoon at five p.m.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that, as the minister says, the National Energy Board has the power to deal with this matter, and in view of the fact that its report was handed down last April and undoubtedly they had the statistics before that time-the minister shakes his head. Whatever time he received the report he has had it for several months. The National Energy Board has had the data. That was admitted before a committee of the House. The National Energy Board has had this data and information for months and the minister should have had it. I want to ask him why we have allocated 977,000 barrels a day for export to the United States for the month of November and 974,000 barrels a day for the month of December and why have these exports not been phased out? Why is the minister dragging his feet and why has the National Energy Board not acted in the face of this critical situation?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can correct the hon. gentleman. The Board report was received by me just at the beginning of this month. I transmitted it shortly thereafter to the two producing provinces in order to seek their approval in this regard. I think it is appropriate that we should consider the board report first within the framework of our relations with the two provinces. A dramatic reduction in exports from Canada to the United States would mean an abrupt drop in the revenue of the producing provinces, and this is a question upon which we thought it natural that we seek their views. We could, of course, have acted upon the report unilaterally but chose not to do so.
At the same time, we recognize the impact that a dramatic reduction of Canadian oil exports to the United States could have, particularly on the northern part of the United States, and we considered it sound within the maintenance of good relations with the United States that they should have an opportunity to react to the impact of

the report before the government made a final decision. As I said, this question has now been considered and we will be making a public statement on it tomorrow.


Mr. Speaker:: A final supplementary by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, in view of the minister's desire not to drastically reduce the revenue for the oil producing provinces, may I take it for granted that he proposes to persuade the Minister of Finance to withdraw some of the provisions of his budget? May I also ask him, in view of the statement he made a few moments ago that the government intends to undertake to persuade the Canadian people to alter their attitude with regard to the conservation of oil, whether he is prepared to begin with the government and persuade it to change its attitude and stop these large exports of oil?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Well, the government certainly would intend to accord its own policies in the use of oil to those that it would be advocating for others. With regard to oil export, I think I would have to restate the previous response, that it is true from the standpoint of the consuming interest in Canada that it would be desirable at the earliest possible date to reduce exports from Canada to the United States. That is the position which, in general terms, I have been stating these many months while we have been waiting for the board's report. The actual fact of the matter is that I think before an action of this kind is taken, which could adversely affect our relations with the United States and indeed adversely affect revenues in the two producing provinces, it would be appropriate to have consultation. At this time, I can only say I find it rather surprising that the official opposition, which has had so much to say about consultation, should be opposed to this particular course of action.


NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD REPORT ON OIL RESERVES- REASON FOR MINISTER'S STATEMENT ON ALBERTA'S POSITION-POSSIBILITY OF CONSULTATION
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, on the same subject, yesterday the hon. member for Crowfoot asked the minister whether he had received a reply from the provinces with regard to this report and the minister's answer was as follows:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I had had a reply from the minister of mines and minerals of Alberta asking that the report be made public.
The minister for Alberta expressed no opinion with regard to the substance of it, and apparently any level of exports from Canada would be acceptable to him.
My question to the Minister, in view of the statement he made yesterday, is: what is the source of his information which permits the minister to make that statement of judgment?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the minister of mines and minerals sent me a telegram in response to my request that we have a response from Alberta, giving no substan-
November 21, 1974

tive response whatever. Indeed, prior to the cabinet discussion of this question today I sought to contact that gentleman during the course of yesterday to find out if in fact it was the position of the government of Alberta that it was not going to respond substantially. I reached Mr. Dickie late yesterday and he indicated that, quite the contrary, they would like to have consultation and input into the level of exports over a period of time. We have taken that into account in the course of the decision that has been before the cabinet.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, the whole matter that we have just been discussing is verging on a question of privilege, as you can understand. My supplementary question is this: in view of the fact that the minister says he does not choose to act without consultation, does he now intend to have a meeting face to face with these ministers of the producing provinces to find out authoritatively what their opinion is, rather than this gratuitous type of statement made in the House yesterday?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The statement which I made in the House yesterday was literally correct-


Some hon. Members:: Literally!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: -that there had been no substantive response from the government of Alberta. I am glad that even as late in the game as last night, after having had the report for two weeks, the Alberta government indicated it would like to discuss it and expressed the wish that we discuss it. This is one of the factors that we will take into account in our action on this matter.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I want an answer to that question: will there be consultations with the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan on this subject of what their wishes are on this matter?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would say that there already has been. Having communicated the report to the provinces very close to two weeks ago and not having had any-response, except at the very last minute, from both of them, I think the federal government went a long way toward consultation with the provinces-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I think that an important element in terms of federal-provincial consultation is that when we are under pressure, as we have been in the House, to make a document such as this one public, if the province is substantively interested in it it should make some effort to make its views known as soon as possible.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise on a question of privilege, and I think you will have to make a ruling. Yesterday the minister said in the House that he received the report from the minister of Alberta expressing no opinion with regard to the substance of the National Energy Board Report.
Oral Questions
Then, he want on gratuitously to make the following statement:
... and apparently any level of exports from Canada would be acceptable to him.
My question of privilege is obvious. The minister is trying to mislead the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: In his
statement in the House today the minister said that when he took this up with his cabinet colleagues he telephoned the minister in Alberta trying to get more information as to what the latter's opinion was, which confirms the fact that the minister did not know what he was talking about yesterday. Yet, he stated that any level of exports from Canada would be acceptable to Alberta. I want to put it to you very bluntly, Mr. Speaker. I think you will have to rule on whether there is a case of contempt of the House by the minister in misinforming the House on the views of the province of Alberta.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, in relation to the question of privilege, I think that the words speak for themselves. I would be quite happy to lay on the table of the House the telegram, which I do not have with me. As I said before, I think it is appropriate in these federal-provincial discussions that if there is to be effective consultation we should have a full and prompt reply.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Are there other hon. members who wish to make a contribution to the question of privilege.


Mr. Horner:: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The minister appears to be complaining that the province of Alberta has not replied in substance to the secret document of the National Energy Board. The government of Alberta believes that the report was sent to them in confidence, and therefore they will make their answer to it public when the report is made public.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Are you speaking for them?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I will speak for them only if they ask me to do so. But I know very well that is their answer with regard to the secret report. That is why they want it made public. Then they will make their remarks to you public.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Unless there are other hon. members who have a contribution to make to the alleged question of privilege, my view, on the submissions to which I have listened carefully, is that the proposed question of privilege-


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. My view is that the proposed question of privilege amounts to a complaint about the quality or content of the minister's answer to a question that has been put to him in the House. I think it is significant that the last question which was put to the minister by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Moun-

November 21, 1974
Oral Questions
tain was, as I recollect it, in these terms: that the hon. member was seeking a direct answer to the question as to whether there will be consultation between the federal government and the provinces involved. The minister made an answer to that question, and now the hon. member seeks to complain about the quality of the answer in which the minister was referring to past consultations as opposed to future ones. However, in all that I am unable to see it clearly established that there is a charge that the minister, either deliberately or otherwise, is misleading the House. The proposed question of privilege amounts to a complaint as to the quality of the answer. I am sure the hon. member is well aware that this does not constitute a question of privilege.


GOVERNMENT INTENTIONS WITH REGARD TO CONTINUED SUBSIDIZATION OF DOMESTIC OIL PRICES
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: My question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Will the minister advise the House whether the government intends to continue the subsidization of oil prices after exports of oil to the United States cease and, if so, what method of subsidization will be implemented?


FINANCE
James Balfour: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Is it possible that the effect of the ways and means motions Nos. 7 and 7.1 of the current budget will be to require petroleum companies in Canada to pay tax to the federal government in excess of their production revenues in circumstances where such companies are obliged, by provincial law, to sell their production to provincially controlled corporations or marketing boards?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member ought to know that he ought not to ask the minister for interpretation of a statute, even a statute that is not before the House, and particularly one which is obviously going to be debated in the House.


AGRICULTURE
Donald Stovel Macdonald: The actual determination, whether and when exports will drop, of the way in which the subsidy will be financed is, I think, premature at the moment. I think it is obviously a question to be considered, depending upon the appropriate level at which exports are to be set either this coming year or in the following years. I think the hon. gentleman's question is premature in that it precedes the government's announcement of its position.


BEEF-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE CANADA WILL NOT LIFT IMPORT QUOTA ON UNITED STATES CATTLE
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Because of mounting speculation that the Canadian government will remove import controls on U.S. cattle, thus creating panic within the beef industry, can the minister unequivocally give this House an assurance that such action is not contemplated, in order to avoid havoc within that industry?


INDUSTRY
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, we are going to leave the area of oil to turn to that of textile. All is not going well there either.
I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Can he advise the House whether the prices paid for the textile products which have been imported by Canada from the Far East over the past six months are considerably lower than those paid for Canadian textile products? If so, does the minister consider this as a form of dumping, and can he say whether he will take any steps to protect Canadian textile industry workers?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: I am not aware of any dumping at present or undervaluation of imports. I am aware of a good deal of distress selling on the part of foreign producers of textiles, seriously affecting the prospects of the Canadian textile industry. For these reasons, I have referred a number of textile products to the Textile and Clothing Board for an urgent and immediate examination. I hope to have a report in the near future.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, should there be any change in government policy in respect of this matter it will be announced in the usual manner. In the meantime, I can assure the hon. member and members of the House that there is no change in government policy respecting beef import quotas.


BEEF-POSSIBLE GOVERNMENT PURCHASE OF SURPLUS FOR FOREIGN AID
Thomas Gordon Towers: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In order to maintain a stable market for beef in Canada, if a surplus becomes apparent in certain grades of beef for a short time, would the government consider purchasing that surplus and making it available for foreign aid?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the concern of the government I am sure is the concern of everyone in this House, so we are looking at every aspect to make sure that markets are properly looked after to ensure there will be no waste in this product. I had some consultations concerning beef aid with some countries when I was at the World Food Conference and some of them told me that they simply could not use beef in their food programs. We have already started trying to find what countries can use beef in any
November 21, 1974

of their food aid programs. So, we are looking at that and we are looking also at programs to make sure that the market is stabilized.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister and concerns the note sent to the United States. It appears that the protest lodged by the Canadian government with the United States may not be worthy of reply. I would ask whether he can assure the House that the matter of beef and pork restrictions imposed by the United States will be high on the list of matters to be discussed with President Ford on December 4?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it appears some misinformation has appeared in the press about the response of the United States to this note. It is my understanding that the United States government is announcing today that it welcomes Canada's request for consultations under the provisions of the GATT.



FISHERIES


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries. Is it the government's intention to establish a guaranteed income plan for Canada's 20,000 self-employed fishermen? If so, will the plan be administered by his department or the Department of Manpower and Immigration and will unemployment insurance be discontinued for those fishermen whose earnings are above a specified inflation index level?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries)):: Mr. Speaker, it is the intention to establish such a plan. I must confess that when the problem of who administers it is the only problem remaining I will be very relieved. As for the matter of discontinuing UIC, that is also part of the discussion that is going on right now.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister arising from an interview given by the Prime Minister to Ron Robert of
Oral Questions
Selkirk News Service on November 9. When asked about western problems and disaffection the Prime Minister said:
. .. the Western Economic Opportunities Conference was the place where we put our intentions and our objectives and our policies on the table ...
At that conference did government representatives clearly, categorically and unequivocally assert the right to invade and occupy a field of federal jurisdiction, natural resources, as they have done by their actions over the last few weeks?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker.



INTENTION OF MINISTER OF FINANCE CONCERNING FAIR DEAL FOR WEST WHEN DRAFTING BUDGET

Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance based on the same interview. I put it to the Minister of Finance because I assume he is an assiduous reader of primeminis-terial statements whether attributed or otherwise. In the same interview, the Prime Minister said that:
... we as a federal government are determined to make sure that the west has what you would call a fair deal in Confederation.
Did the minister have this before him when he drafted his budget or did he forget about it?



FINANCE


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. Yesterday the minister said that there was an understanding between the Prime Minister and the premiers-presumably in particular the premiers of Saskatchewan and Alberta- that the provinces agreed that one-third of the additional revenues from oil and gas deriving from the international situation would be considered for equalization purposes. On March 28 in the House when reporting to parliament on that conference the Prime Minister said with reference to capital funds for energy development that the revenues taken into those capital funds would not be subject to equalization. He said, "would not be", Mr. Speaker-there was no qualification about percentage, whether 60 per cent, 40 per cent or 30 per cent. The Prime Minister said that the revenues so handled would not be considered for equalization purposes.
My question to the Minister of Finance is, when he said in the House yesterday that there was an understanding that this whole situation had been changed, between whom did this understanding take place? Was it between the Prime Minister and the western premiers, between the Prime Minister and members of his cabinet or whom?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker the last time this understanding was discussed it

November 21, 1974
Oral Questions
was between the Prime Minister, the premier of Saskatchewan and myself after the first ministers met with the Prime Minister two weeks ago. At that time, it was evident that there was no misunderstanding as to the true nature of the problem relating to equalization as it affects the situation.


John Edward Broadbent: A supplementary question. I listened with care to what the minister said, Mr. Speaker. He said there was no misunderstanding between himself, the Prime Minister and Premier Blakeney as to where the federal government stood. Is that what he is saying or is he telling the House that the Premier of Saskatchewan did accept the reversal of the agreement that was announced in this House on March 28?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, it was the intention of the Premier of Saskatchewan at that time to bring revenue from oil royalties, amounting to $230 million extra this year, into a capital fund which under that understanding would not be considered for equalization purposes. On the other hand, Premier Lougheed of Alberta had made no such commitment, although he hoped to bring a substantial portion into the capital fund at that time. Whereas the amounts taken in by Saskatchewan would not be considered part of the equalization formula it was always evident to the Prime Minister and the premier of Saskatchewan that any amounts not brought in by Alberta would be part of the equalization formula. That is why on budget night I said that the general understanding was that in total the ratio would be about two-thirds to one-third which is the formula I intend to propose to the provinces.


John Edward Broadbent: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The minister's answer is still not clear. Is the minister saying that Saskatchewan is excluded, in terms of its use of the fund, from the general rule which he is applying to Alberta alone?


John Napier Turner: No, Mr. Speaker. I should like to explain this in detail, although this is difficult to do in the question period.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure that it is proper to make that kind of explanation in detail during the question period. With the greatest respect, it has to do with the interpretation of the budgetary policy of the government, which is the very subject before the House today. I do not think we can expect the minister to give an explanation in detail in the limited time remaining in the question period. However, the minister may give a brief reply if he wishes.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I will be as brief as possible. It is apparent that the revenues affecting the Saskatchewan equalization position deriving from additional revenues from oil particularly are not only those revenues brought in through the coffers of the province of Saskatchewan but also revenues brought in to the Consolidated Revenue Fund by the province of Alberta. Therefore, the Saskatchewan equalization position can be affected by how Saskatchewan treats those revenues and,

because of the different revenue position of Alberta, by how Alberta treats them.
 * *



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Expansion. On October 30 I directed a question to the minister regarding the tabling of the Canstel steel report. At that time he said there were difficulties in translation and he would table it some time later. On November 14 I again asked, the same question. The minister said last week that he hoped to table the report by this week. He intended to discuss it with Premier Regan and hoped to present it to the House this week, as soon as the translation is complete. Is the translation complete and will he table the report either today or tomorrow.


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the translation has been completed. I had hoped to table the report tomorrow. In the meantime, perhaps we could make some kind of informal arrangement, in case the translation is held up, and I will be glad to make the report available, without tabling it, to interested parties on the understanding that I will table it in both languages later. If that is agreeable I would be glad to do that later, or tomorrow.


Robert Muir: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that if the minister does as he suggests, he will receive support from both sides of this House. In view of the importance of the study to the three members from the Cape Breton area who are concerned about the future of steel in that area, I am sure, that there will not be any objection to the minister's suggestion from any part of this House. Could we agree to do as the minister suggests?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will see that members who are interested, as long as it is not every member of the House, have copies available within the next 24 or 48 hours, or before the end of tomorrow.


Mr. McRae:: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. As he is not in the House, I will not ask my question today.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. Since the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is on record as stating that there will be full time CBC radio stations in the communities of Penticton, Kelowna and Vernon, B.
November 21, 1974

C., within months, when will the application to the CRTC be made and at what stage are those plans?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure, but I will find the information for the hon. member.



MANPOWER


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and arises from the speech made by the minister to the Toronto Chamber of Commerce on September 23 last in which he suggested that the number one priority was setting up a partnership between the Unemployment Insurance Commission and manpower offices. As unemployment is advancing at the same time as increases in job vacancies are advancing, can the minister tell the House when this partnership is to be established.


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, it has been established in the last two years and is working increasingly effectively.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister inform the House whether the partnership to which he refers and which he says has already been established goes further than putting the two offices under one roof? Does it involve the integration of these two important functions in the same ministry?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I have given members of the House in various forums a great deal of evidence regarding special measures which have been taken over the last two years; and, most recently, some fairly detailed description was given before the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration about the special job placement drive, which was a cooperative effort between manpower and the Unemployment Insurance Commission in seven metro centres. It met with considerable success in placing people, in indicating which people are trying to find jobs, and in monitoring the unemployment insurance scheme. I indicated to the committee that it is intended that this successful pilot project, which is a broad one, is being extended across the country.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, could the minister answer my specific question. Is the minister to reintegrate these two functions which were disintegrated at an earlier time, as this really is the only solution to a satisfactory partnership.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is jumping to a detailed conclusion which may not be supported by a detailed examination. We are pressing, and successfully pressing, for increased coordination and cooperation between these two major operations, and I am not satisfied that an organizational integration is the answer to the particular problem.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: So, the answer is, no.
Oral Questions



HOUSING


Mr. Armand Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs.
Can the minister advise the House whether the $500 grant to new house buyers will apply also to those who buy lodgings inside apartment buildings or condominiums?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, yes, it does apply.


Armand Caouette: I wish to put a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
Further to the question of the hon. member for Abitibi the minister replied that a $500 grant would be applicable to the purchase of a mobile house considered as a dwelling. Could the minister tell us if that $500 grant applies only to those whose financing is done by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation or as well to those financed by chartered banks or by caisses populaires?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, the source of the financing does not matter.



INQUIRY AS TO TAX POSITION OF FIVE HUNDRED DOLLAR GRANT

Mr. Marcel Roy (Laval):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a supplementary to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs.
It deals with the federal grant of $500 to owners of new houses. Could the minister tell the House if this amount of $500 will be regarded as income and subject to income tax?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I have consulted with my colleague, the Minister of National Revenue, who advised me that it is not subject to tax.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question, directed to the Minister of Labour, who has been pushed into making statements concerning the Seafarers' International Union. In light of the serious allegation made by a member of the Ontario Legislature that the Seafarers' International Union has been resorting to violence, intimidation and bribery which affects federal officials and, even more important, politicians on

November 21, 1974
Oral Questions
the federal level, what immediate steps has the minister, along with the Attorney General and the Minister of Justice, taken to bring about an investigation by royal commission or otherwise, and I stress, or otherwise, into these matters?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, first, the premise of the question is wrong if it suggests that anyone has been pushed. I was asked by a reporter to respond to Mr. Shulman's statement within hours of his making it, and I made the comment which the hon. member has before him. I do not think that has anything to do with his question.
As far as the substantive part of the hon. member's question is concerned, I advise him that, according to the records of my department, no complaints have been brought to my department about the substance of the allegations which have been made against the union, in terms of beatings. That does not mean to say they did not occur. It means that no such complaints have come to the attention of the officials of the Department of Labour.
Second, if there are allegations of misconduct on the part of this union or various elements within it, and this may be subject to confirmation or advice from the Minister of Justice or Solicitor General, my opinion is that the provincial government is charged with responsibility for enforcement of the Criminal Code. They have ample power to set up royal commissions and go into this whole question if they feel that is warranted. Local and provincial police forces have power to investigate abuses of this kind and, indeed they should, if Mr. Shulman or anybody else has any information.
If Mr. Shulman or any member of this House wishes to bring to the attention of the federal government complaints of this kind, or they are of such a nature that they warrant investigation, we will of course be prepared to consider them. However, to do so here is questionable.
I might further indicate that as far as allegations against politicians are concerned I, like any other politician in this House, can defend myself, both in public and on the floor of this House. What is very serious here is there are allegations against federal officials, members of the public service who cannot defend themselves, and they are not being named. That is a practice that hon. members in this House should not condone under any circumstances.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carr Munro: As a result, a cloud has been cast on the integrity of certain officials who cannot defend themselves.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Nor can members of parliament.


John Carr Munro: I think members of parliament can defend themselves. We have a public forum here. We can defend ourselves against what we consider to be unwarranted attacks.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John Carr Munro: I am talking about a public servant.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the minister. His answer, although long, was certainly listened to very attentively which attests to the necessity for the length and substance of it. However, we are running out of time. Perhaps the answer could be abbreviated.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I have just one sentence to finish the answer to the hon. member. Because of the cloud of suspicion cast on certain unnamed officials, I and my deputy feel it might be related to officials in the Department of Labour since we have labour dealings with the SIU and so on. My department has asked the RCMP to investigate these allegations to see whether there is any substance to them as they may pertain to officials connected with the Department of Labour.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, in light of the very serious nature of this matter, and in light of the minister's extreme concern about public officials, and I would certainly add to that group the members of parliament because we do not know who this member in the provincial legislature is talking about, notwithstanding the fact the minister has asked the Attorney General to bring in a report, and something tells me that report has already been asked for and is on the way, has the minister discussed this matter with the solicitor general for the province of Ontario and the attorney general for the province of Ontario, particularly when inside or outside the House some member of the Ontario legislature has indicated, and I quote, "What is stopping the investigation is that someone in Ottawa is getting paid off." Does the minister not think that is a serious enough matter, whether questionable or not in terms of authenticity, that he should discuss this matter with the solicitor general and attorney general of Ontario in order to determine what proper method we can take, particularly with regard to a royal commission or otherwise, in order to get to the bottom of this matter?


John Carr Munro: As I have indicated, Mr. Speaker, as far as these suggestions with regard to public servants in the Department of Labour are concerned, we have asked the RCMP to make inquiries. We are in the process of asking them to do this today. As far as the substance of these allegations is concerned, and that is all they are and no one is named, it is now perfectly within the competence of the attorney general of Ontario, and I am sure this is where a substantial portion of the membership reside who are subjected to this type of abuse, to set up a royal commission, if he feels the facts as turned over to him, if indeed they are turned over to him by Mr. Shulman, warrant such a commission.
As Minister of Labour, as far as I am concerned, no facts have been turned over to me by Mr. Shulman or anybody else other than this particular article. If the hon. member wishes to find out whether such facts that would warrant an investigation have been turned over to my colleagues responsible in this area, including the Minister of Justice and Solicitor General, and whether they would warrant the action the hon. member is now putting forward, it is
November 21, 1974

his right to pursue those questions with the ministers responsible.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I have one final supplementary. This is a very important matter. It appears that the minister is fluffing off his responsibility.


An hon. Member:: Come on.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Don't tell me "come on". We are trying to get the facts. That is all we are trying to do. In light of the fact that the Seafarers' Union is under federal jurisdiction, and the solicitor general and the attorney general of Ontario recognize that fact and are therefore reluctant to move, will the minister now appreciate that fact and move himself in order that we can appreciate that the minister knows what his responsibilities are in this regard?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, let me make this quite clear. It is within the jurisdiction of a province, and in many cases this is what is done, for the attorney general to enforce provisions of the Criminal Code with regard to Canadian citizens residing in their province. The fact that this union may be chartered under federal labour laws is not pertinent to this particular question. If wrongdoing is alleged and enough facts have been advanced to me by Mr. Shulman to substantiate it, and none have been advanced to me, or to the federal Minister of Justice or Attorney General or the attorney general of the province of Ontario, there is a duty to investigate the matter. That is where this matter presently stands. On the other hand, if the hon. member is suggesting on the basis of an article like this that every politician in this House of Commons, irrespective of political persuasion, should be investigated, that is another matter.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I didn't suggest that.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the usual Thursday point of order. I wish to ask the government House leader about the business of the House for the next week. In his reply, I ask him to indicate whether it is the intention of the government to continue the budget debate without interruption. Also, I assume there will be some time after that for other business before budget bills are brought in. What will be done in that interval? In light of exchanges which took place today and previously, will the government House leader seriously consider bringing in terms of reference to a committee on the issue of conflict of interest which has already been before the House?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the business for the next week, I can confirm that it is the government's intention that the budget debate should proceed on consecutive days until it is completed. It is also the govern-
The Budget-Mr. Breau
ment's intention that there be a break between the conclusion of that debate and the introduction of the budget bills. I hope I will have an opportunity of talking with my colleagues, the other House leaders, about the business we might have for Thursday and subsequently. I hope we might be able to proceed with the final stages of some of the bills that are on our urgent list that will be reported back from committees and which I am sure members opposite want to see completed.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, November 20, consideration of the motion of Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carle-ton) that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government; the amendment of Mr. Stanfield (p. 1502) and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Nystrom (p. 1506).
Mr. Herb Breau (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have had opportunities to speak in the House during this parliament on behalf of the Department of External Affairs, but this is the first time I participate in a general debate.
Therefore, it is suitable that I offer you, Madam Speaker, my congratulations upon your election to those high duties. I pause to give the House a chance to get back to order.


@Acting Speaker: Order, please.


Herb Breau: Madam Speaker, I am convinced that the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Jerome) was experienced enough to take this burdensome responsibility of presiding over the proceedings of the House and that he is able to perform those duties with competence, firmness and fairness. In fact, he has already proved it.
Before dealing with my riding and area, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a few comments on the budget and the economic situation. I believe the budget speech the Minister of Finance made last Monday evening is a responsible and fair document.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. There are many conversations going on while the hon. member is trying to deliver his speech. The Chair would appreciate it if those who wish to carry on conversations would do so behind the curtain.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mainly on your side.


Herb Breau: No, not only on my side.

November 21, 1974
The Budget-Mr. Breau
I was saying, Madam Speaker, that the budget speech delivered by the Minister of Finance last Monday night is a fair and responsible document. It is responsible because it recognizes the problems facing us and proposes practical solutions. It is fair because it continues the policy of helping those for whom it is more difficult to face the economic situation.
Sometimes, a budget like that can be better because of what it contains, but sometimes because of what it does not contain. What the economic policy of the Minister of Finance does not contain is an element of panic, an element of over nervousness because of the inflation now facing us. It recognizes the problem of inflation and the problem caused by too rapid an increase in the cost of living. But it also recognizes that inflation is not a problem that must be considered in absolute terms. What is important is to look at it in the world economic context. What is important is our position towards other countries of the world.
All hon. members know, as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) knows, that there are steps to fight inflation but what we must do is consider the consequences of various measures introduced by certain hon. members or certain economists.
Obviously, we must try and stabilize prices, I agree with that, but we must also work towards the objective of social justice without losing sight of that objective, and if fighting inflation means in certain cases withdrawal by the government from any intervention in society, then we must give it a second look.
As to the limitation of government expenditures I think an attempt should be made to reconcile the interest of price stabilization with that of greater social justice.
The policy of the government has been to encourage production in order to increase supply and, particularly, to help those who adjust themselves less easily to fluctuating prices. As for the earners with a fixed income, all those who are not unionized and work for very low wages, the government help them by reducing taxes.
In the speech of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Stanfield), which started Monday night and went on yesterday, there is not much to be found by way of positive suggestions that might help us face current economic problems. The leader of the opposition criticizes the government expenses and suggests that they will be very high. But his speech does not propose any effective or concrete measure that could lead us to curtail or even abolish some programs. It is not difficult to say that the government expenses are high and should be cut down. The problem, Mr. Speaker, is to determine which program is least important for society.
I believe that, for the time being, it is not necessary to operate such an important cut in government expenses, for, when we consider how government expenses have been orientated for the past few years, we find that they aim at reducing existing inequities in this country. [English]
On the question of petroleum, here again we did not hear many suggestions from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield). He spoke about the price of oil and about provincial control, but he did not tell us what he would do

if he were prime minister. He says we must avoid industrial concentration. Does this mean that if one part of the country wants to be more opportunist than another, its position should be accepted by the rest of Canada?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Is the hon. member saying that Alberta is opportunistic?


Mr. Nystrom:: Or Saskatchewan?


Herb Breau: Saskatchewan less that Alberta. My point is that it is easy for the Leader of the Opposition to criticize the government for its stand without telling us what he thinks about the consequences of the possible erosion of the federal government's economic position. What does he think about the possible erosion of federal financial power? Does he think it important to retain this power, or not? The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) made a comment concerning the merits of the situation; but regardless of the merits, the position taken by hon. members opposite would, if adopted, lead to erosion of the federal government's taxing powers.
I wish to express my firm support for the stand taken in the budget on this question. Some critics have based their arguments on the constitutional position, but I would remind them that the constitution was not written with the idea that it would cover every situation which might arise. Who can say what the spirit of confederation might have been had today's petroleum situation existed a hundred years ago? Everyone accepts the fact that this parliament possesses the power to tax. What is being done under the budget involves the Income Tax Act; we are not depriving the provinces of the power to manage their own resources.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Herb Breau: As to the substance of this issue, I believe that one fundamental point was missed by those who took part in the last federal-provincial conference on the pricing of oil. I attribute this to the rhetoric of some provincial premiers and their friends in this House. As far as I am concerned, the crucial point is that there is a petroleum industry in Alberta and Saskatchewan today, not because those provinces were clairvoyant but because of a series of national policies. The protected market up to the Ottawa Valley line at a time when there was no export market, the system of depletion allowances, and the application of special export policies are among the measures adopted. The producing provinces have been the beneficiaries, and I am happy for them; but these were national compromises which some of us have had to defend. Not enough attention has been paid to this side of the story. If there is a petroleum industry in western Canada today, the whole of Canada paid for it.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Nonsense. We couldn't raise a penny in Ontario and Quebec.


Herb Breau: That might very well be so, but when a large percentage of our investment goes into one segment of the economy, someone has to make a sacrifice. Some of us had to defend the policies designed to support the oil industry in Alberta and Saskatchewan, and we are happy about that.
November 21, 1974


An hon. Member:: You certainly did have to defend them.


Herb Breau: Yes, we did, I admit that; and I am very humble about it, if that makes the hon. member more at ease. But this is precisely my point: at stake are the changing economic circumstances in the world-not in Canada, but in the world. Can we let the federal treasury become eroded to the point where equal opportunity among regions or among people in this country becomes impossible?
The essence of federalism, and especially of Canadian federalism, is to have a political instrument that can balance opportunities for all people in this country. I contend that that political instrument is this parliament. I believe that we in this parliament must make sure that we use every means, every power available to us to do what is best for the country, not just for one part of the country. What should govern us is not only technicalities in the constitution but the spirit of confederation and the desire to keep Canada a fair country for all regions. We must make sure Canada is a country that can stand in the world, and this parliament and the federal government within this parliament is the only body that can guarantee it.
It is one thing to be an opportunist, Madam Speaker, but one must be reasonable. An increase in revenue of roughly $1 billion for Alberta seems to be a reasonable payment in view of the economic circumstances in the world today. I repeat that I am not unhappy if Alberta is able to benefit from this revenue.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Who gets most of the export tax?


Herb Breau: Again I will be humble about that. All the export tax goes to reduce the price of energy in Canada. That is what I mean when I talk of balancing opportunities and dividing the benefits among all the people of this country. The hon. member is helping me to make my point.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Say something about the royalties.


Herb Breau: I have just been talking about the royalties and I said we were changing the Income Tax Act. Surely the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) knows that this parliament has power to deal with the Income Tax Act.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: No one is challenging that.


Herb Breau: If I am speaking about the importance of a strong federal government, Madam Speaker, it is not because of dogmatism or ideology, but merely because what Canada needs at this point in its history is Canadian reality. We have five relatively stable provinces, economically speaking, and five others that are less so. And that brings me to my riding and my province.
We need the federal government to improve our surroundings. We will always oppose measures which could
The Budget-Mr. Breau
erode the federal power and, consequently, its financial position. I said that my constituency depends on the federal government. The whole northeastern part of New Brunswick needs special assistance to improve its economic structure. However, I would like to point out one thing: we are not without organization, we are not "deportees", we are not beggars and we are not starving to death. I am feeling frustrated almost every week, if not every day, because of this attitude that is developing in New Brunswick and even elsewhere in Canada, this attitude which tends to depict us as a region overwhelmed by problems.
It is true that we have problems, and I will deal with them later in my remarks. And if the publicity about the Acadians in northeast New Brunswick which depicts them as poor people may make the population of New Brunswick and of the rest of Canada aware of the problems of this area, I will be glad. But that is not what happens. We find that the reaction of southern New Brunswick people, especially obvious within the government of New Brunswick-and I am not just referring to the Cabinet but also to the provincial public service-shows itself in a certain uneasiness, a certain restlessness when dealing with the northern people. This situation develops itself, I fear, as a stigma. Finally, in order to attract on ourselves the attention of the Canadian society and the attention of the New Brunswick society and to promote our development, some people have inevitably done deplorable things which gave us bad publicity and which in turn worries those who do not know us.
There is a multiplying effect in all this which generates still more publicity whose results are still more negative.
The worst was probably an article in one of the MacLean's magazines of last year which described a particular region, Tracadia, as a desperate area, obviously a disgrace. The article reflected this stigma, this lack of understanding of the problems of the people of northeastern New Brunswick, and particularly of Acadians in the northeast of New Brunswick. The strange thing about this, is that from what I have been told, the author of this article is a native of New Brunswick or stayed in New Brunswick for some time. I did not bother to keep this article or to quote from it because I found it disgusting, ignorant and unworthy of a supposedly responsible magazine.


An hon. Member:: Shame!


Herb Breau: It is true that we have poor people, we do not hide this fact, and it is also true that we have economic and other problems.
Madam Speaker, we agree that this should be made public, and I do not blame those who want to talk about it, whether it be MacLean's or the national press or whoever it may be, they can say all they want, but I take exception to the fact that they do not talk about the positive aspects even though there are some. For every sign of poverty, for every problem, there is a sign of progress. Moreover, for every problem without exception, there is a group or community direction to take care of it, to study it and to look for answers. Normally, responsible people would talk about these to give the true picture to Canada and the rest of the province. But some people try to show the opposite. We may have doubts about their motives, which are per-

November 21, 1974
The Budget-Mr. Breau
haps only to sell a sensational story. If this were true, it would not be so bad, but sometimes the motive can be much deeper and much worse.
I said that there were positive signs. I mentioned one of these, namely local leadership. I challenge anyone to compare the sense of leadership of the Acadians in northeastern New Brunswick with that of any other area of the country. The difference has its roots in our history and in sociological and economic conditions. Our condition is different and we should concentrate on other things, on problems which are different. This may not be as sensational or as far-reaching, but it is nevertheless very important.
The awareness has been there for a long time and we are trying to cope with the matter. But the negative publicity to which I referred is extremely prejudicial because it describes us as a society without future or direction. The effect is that the people, especially in southern New Brunswick and the remainder of Canada, are concerned about us, but that negative attitude does not help us at all.
There is yet another aspect which can still be more harmful. If others consider us as lost and without direction, it is not so bad after all, but we could become convinced, as our young people, that it is impossible to survive, that the problems are insuperable.
It is extremely difficult for community leaders to keep a positive and confident attitude before such a negative and distorted picture.
I hope that the awareness and negative manifestation will not give rise to an inhibition which the area will never be able to extricate.
I would like to conclude by urging the media to talk about our problems and our area so that they might understand, but I also urge them to give equal time to the efforts made by the people themselves in the area to solve these problems and to say that they are digging into them. The result will be a better understanding of the situation and confidence on the part of the Canadian public instead of unease towards solving our problems. And, even more important, the population will become confident and will stay positive.
Madam Speaker, repeatedly negative descriptions can only kill the morale of this region.
Before concluding, I would like to talk about a specific question because it is impossible in such a speech to outline all the subjects that deserve attention and that concern my riding. I must therefore choose and mention the most important one.
Fishing is not the only important element of our economy, but it is that which touches the greatest number of people. That is one of the reasons for our being proud of the nomination of my colleague from Westmorland-Kent to the position of Minister of State for Fisheries.
In the field of fisheries, in my opinion, we should as soon as possible, as the minister has already announced, implement a stabilization program for fishermen's income. The present unemployment insurance program is a far from adequate answer to the problem.
We must also ensure reasonable prices on the market. Through the use of different procedures, we must also

make sure that the market, especially the American one, does not unduly exploit our resource so that the industry might pay the fishermen an adequate price and the factory workers, an adequate salary.
Madam Speaker, we must encourage increased production at home, especially for finished products. We must make a special effort to encourage the setting up of an integrated food industry. Institutional meals and food based on fish protein can be prepared just as well in our area as elsewhere. The government has only to provide for transportation costs caused by the fact that we are far from our markets and for other occasionnal costs which might be incurred from time to time.
But the most urgent problem that requires particular attention at this time is the lack of harbour facilities. Ships grow bigger all the time, require more and more wharfage and deep water, yet port facilities remain almost the same.
One must admit that the federal government already started to do something for deep-sea fishing in Shippegan, but the fishing industry still has serious and costly problems to face in Lameque and in Caraquet.
As regards coastal fishing, something is being done also but there is still much more to do to improve many important fishing ports. In some cases, digging is the most urgent thing, but the wharves are far from being satisfactory.
I asked the Minister of State (Fisheries) (Mr. LeBlanc), my colleague from Westmorland-Kent, to watch the situation closely and if the estimates available to him are not adequate to solve the problem in a few years from now, I believe the government will have to make a special effort, either through the Department of Regional Economic Expansion or otherwise, as the development of the area should begin with upgrading the fishing field. As I said before, that is the part of our economy that affects the greatest number of people. Forests, agriculture and mines are also important in our area and the Department of Regional Economic Expansion will have to increase its efforts to improve the value added of those resources in the area. It must also keep on implementing the road improvement program and all the other services needed by the population to keep the economic development going.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Madam Speaker, I apologize for interrupting, but there is a rule that speeches be limited to 20 minutes and my understanding is that the hon. member has spoken beyond that limit.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The time allotted to the hon. member expires at 3.57. He has one more minute.


Herb Breau: I have finished, Madam Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert).


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Madam Speaker, I am glad we have been able to come to an agreement that speeches be limited to 20 minutes. Perhaps there was a slight breakdown in communications to start
November 21, 1974

with, but we hope we can catch up so that everybody who wishes to speak will have the opportunity to do so. We would like to have as many members speak as possible, at least those from this side of the House. Also, I understand the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Cullen) has a list, as long as both arms, of members who wish to speak. So I think we should get on with it.
In beginning my remarks this afternoon I wish to underline and reinforce as much as possible what was said by my leader yesterday about what I consider had its origin more last May than on November 18. This question deals primarily with taxation of the resource industries. The minister made some changes from what he said on May 6, but they are merely crumbs. I know the working capital position of the Canadian independent company may be helped and those few companies which may be able to obtain capital will perhaps embark upon limited exploration programs. They may be able totally to recover their expenses now, whereas such would not have been the case under the May 6 budget.
However, the problem is much deeper than that. I find it astounding that the minister, who has been to Alberta many times since May 6, has not the comprehension that I thought he had with regard to the nature of the oil industry. This is not a debate on the oil industry, but so far as the cabinet is concerned I wish it would take a lesson in fundamental economics with regard to the industry. Perhaps some members of the cabinet understand it, but for some blind reason they have decided that the government should take this course, perhaps to punish or try to punish the province of Alberta because of its stand on oil and gas, since it has not toed the line in respect of the demands of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).
This problem did not start in May; it started last September when a grievous error was committed by this government in respect of the resources belonging to a few provinces. This government took unilateral action without consulting the provinces. There is the first sin of omission-lack of consultation with the provinces. The government decided to act by imposing a price freeze and an export tax. At the beginning the government did not know what to do with the export tax. I remember that when we came back to parliament the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) suggested there should be a uniform price for oil and that the Atlantic provinces and Quebec had to be held firm. This was agreed to by the Premier of Alberta. There was no quibble about that at any time. I find it rather naive on the part of the parliamentary secretary who spoke before me to suggest that the province of Alberta would take advantage of the situation and profit off the backs of fellow Canadians. That has nothing to do with it.


Herb Breau: I did not say that.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It has been said so often that we are sick of hearing it. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) did not learn one lesson from the May 6 budget; he did not learn one lesson from the election campaign so far as the provinces affected are concerned. What is the situation? The first ministers of the provinces of western Canada have rejected in the last few days this barefaced raid on their resources. There is no
The Budget-Hon. Marcel Lambert
way the minister can escape that fact. The government talks about co-operative federalism. The minister was part of the administration a few years ago which thought it had invented the term co-operative federalism. With regard to taxes, the Government of Canada has the right to change the Income Tax, but we are concerned here with corporate taxes regarding which the provinces have an equal right. Yet unilaterally the minister will change the corporate income tax structure.
We will find out about that argument when it develops and see whether the minister has so much freedom that he can change the level of taxation without the consent or co-operation of the provinces. I am absolutely repelled by the thought of the struggle that will take place. I see headlines such as the one in last Tuesday's Edmonton Journal about Alberta cancelling the oil agreement. They have the right to do that. The only trouble is that the minister himself would like to have changed the policy on oil royalties, but unfortunately he found himself in a corner and so did his colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald), who is in an even worse corner. I think we should send the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) ahead of the Minister of Finance if he should go to Alberta. As a matter of fact, I would like to see the Prime Minister go back to Calgary. He thought he received a warm reception in the month of May or June, but that was a tea party compared to the kind of reception he would get now.
We have indicated in our resolution that this budget includes measures which strike at the heart of unity in this country. I was never more serious in underlining those words. I would have liked the minister to visit Edmonton with me and circulate among the people. He would have learned their reaction during the election campaign and later. I can promise the minister that it will take a very long time for this legislation to pass. Many features of this budget repeat those of May 6. Some of these measures, such as some aspects of the personal income tax and some of the reductions, had merit. But here again I must temper my congratulations by saying that the combination of runaway inflation with a tax system that feeds and battens on to inflation gives the minister all sorts of scope to be generous.
Even with these tax cuts and the claim that hundreds of thousands of taxpayers will be removed from the tax rolls, is it not a fact that the tax yield for 1974-75, on the basis of the reductions and the additional exemptions, will be 27 per cent higher than it was in 1973-74, just through a combination of a bad tax system and inflation which this government does nothing to control? Total government tax revenues will increase 32 per cent-by$5,517 million- on the basis of the tables of budgetary revenues introduced by the minister Monday night. Corporation income tax will go up 42 per cent; Customs duty, 26 per cent, and other duties and taxes-that is, where the export tax is hidden-will go up 105 per cent, for a total of $1,446 billion. That is the increased take from the pockets of Canadian citizens and Canadian corporations.
The total is $5,730 million in additional budgetary revenues that will be siphoned off. No wonder the minister can be generous. He can take the tax off clothing and foot-

November 21, 1974
The Budget-Hon. Marcel Lambert wear, as he did-and that was a real performance, a real comic opera. They could not take it off during the election campaign, but a week after the election results were in the tax was taken off.


John Napier Turner: At that time we had a mandate again: that made a lot of difference.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mandate, my eye! There was only a mandate in two provinces so far as the government is concerned. Now there is the removal of 6 per cent of the tax on building materials. I wonder why there was only this halfhearted gesture. There is the repetition of removal of the sales tax on certain types of construction machinery, municipal water distribution equipment and a number of other things. That is fine, but again it is only to be expected because the minister has so much latitude due to the heavy overrun of government revenues. Did the minister not forecast a deficit of $450 million last May? Last September there was a budgetary surplus in revenues of $560 million, for a total of $1 billion. The minister was going to follow the instructions of the throne speech; there was to be a restriction on government expenditures. How will he swallow that billion dollars? I would love to find out.
There is very little time left, but let me say that I would have thought that, since reference was made to consensus and we have had all this talk about inflation, why did the government not take the people of Canada into its confidence to fight inflation along with them, in partnership? There was such a call from the provincial ministers. It was rejected out of hand by the Prime Minister, who said that the provincial premiers were impotent. What an insult! Yet a week later he invited them to a long lunch. That is not the way to deal with the problem of inflation, if it is the important problem that is outlined in the budget speech. To deal with inflation takes preparation and it calls for united action, not only among governments but with industry, organized labour and everybody else. That would be arriving at consensus.
However, what does this government do, Madam Speaker? It hides its head in the sand. It hopes that the problem of inflation will be swept under the rug. It applies band-aids here and band-aids there, hoping that the people will be appeased by some goodies in the budget. That is the reason our motion is designed this way. We acknowledge there are some good things in the budget.


Mr. Gillies:: There is nothing.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: My colleague says there are not. I would simply say that they are pleasing to a few taxpayers, but as far as dealing with the problem of inflation is concerned there is absolutely nothing.


Mr. Cullen:: What are you going to do?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: What am I going to do? The minister was hollering about a mandate a few moments ago: the problem is yours.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: That is not an answer. We want to know what you think.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: This government was elected. If they want the opposition to provide the solution, that is another thing. But it is a most amazing and fatuous way of dealing with the problem. This government was elected to govern, and they turn around and ask us what we would do. What a way to act! This motion indicates that nothing is being done to deal with the problem of inflation. It sets out, in its provisions with regard to the resource industries, to rend this country apart and strike at the heart of confederation. Madam Speaker, I commend this motion to all members of the House, those who want to think about it, those who go beyond blind adherence and cupidity in so far as the policies of this government are concerned.


Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Toronto-Lakeshore):: Madam Speaker, it is a great privilege for me to have the opportunity to take part in this debate on the budget. I believe this is one of the most crucial and difficult budgets a Canadian finance minister has ever had to present. It comes at a time when the international financial and economic situations are in a state of turmoil and near chaos, when there is an increasing sense of frustration and despair, and when there has been a significant slowdown in economic activity while inflation continues to rage and the balance of payments deficits of oil importing countries soar to potentially disastrous levels.
While it is true that Canada has not been as directly affected as many countries in terms of oil imports and crop failures-which are the major causes of the present international predicament-still, due to our position as one of the world's great trading nations, we are extremely vulnerable to the unpredictable winds of international economic developments. With this background of uncertain and adverse developments from abroad, the minister's normally difficult task of providing economic and fiscal leadership and direction for Canada has increased immeasurably. However, it is my belief that he has succeeded admirably.
Madam Speaker, my training has qualified me in several spheres. However, the few economics courses which I took in university, and my not always successful attempts at managing the household budget, are not sufficient to enable me to discuss Monday evening's budget in the detail which I would like. However, there are many on both sides of this House who do possess the qualifications to do so, and I look forward to their comments with interest and no small degree of envy. For my part, I would like to discuss the budget in terms of its impact on the constituents I represent.
Toronto-Lakeshore, the constituency I have the honour to represent, is situated in the borough of Etobicoke, one of the six boroughs which comprise metropolitan Toronto. The trouble with representing a Toronto riding is that everyone lumps you in with the 20 or so other Toronto ridings. However, while many concerns and interests are common to all metro ridings, the degree and intensity of these concerns differ from constituency to constituency, and while the people may not readily identify with a federal electoral district as such, they do identify with communities and neighborhoods within that district. It is in the setting of these communities and neighborhoods
November 21, 1974

that interests and problems are articulated and priorities established.
In Toronto-Lakeshore there are six distinct communities: Mimico, New Toronto, Long Branch, Alderwood, Queensway and Sunny Lea. Undoubtedly, the predominant concern of the people of these communities, as it is with most Canadians, is inflation measured in terms of soaring food prices, lack of moderately priced housing, record high mortgage rates and the day to day battle between the individual's pay cheque and rising costs. However, because of the economic, social and demographic composition of the communities, their priorities, although sometimes similar, often differ from those of other metro ridings.
The constituency I represent has a high percentage of senior citizens and, as such, measures to protect this group from inflation are continually being pushed. I was particularly pleased to see two such measures in the throne speech, namely, the elimination of the earnings test on retirement pensions for persons aged 65 to 70, and the payment of allowances to spouses aged 60 to 65 of old age security recipients.


An hon. Member:: It is not enough.


William Kenneth Robinson: It may not be enough, but at least it is a start in the right direction. The budget contains a number of measures which should go a long way in lessening the impact of inflation on our senior citizens. The $1,000 exemption for interest and dividends, although available to all taxpayers, will have an especially beneficial effect on the elderly, who very often have much greater dependency than others on this form of income. The $1,000 deduction for pension income will come as a welcome tax relief to the elderly.
The same is true of the provision which will permit the transfer of the age exemption from one spouse who does not require it to the other who does, when completing the income tax return. I would like to see more of this kind of realistic and practical government flexibility in other programs. A final point before leaving this subject. I hope the government will act during this session to provide increased funding for senior citizens housing. There is a great need for more of this type of housing in my constituency, and I am sure this is true of many other constituencies.
However, I must say I was pleased with the emphasis the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) placed on housing in his budget. The proposal to produce 200,000 houses or more per year is commendable. The reduction of the sales tax on building and construction materials to 5 per cent, and the removal of the sales tax on construction equipment and on materials used in municipal water distribution systems should reduce the cost to the home buyer. The registered home ownership savings plan and the $500 grants to those purchasing new, moderately priced housing units will enable more Canadians to purchase a home. These measures and others contained in the budget should provide much needed stimulus for residential construction.
Another aspect of the housing situation which has attracted a considerable amount of interest in Toronto-Lakeshore is development designed to rejuvenate existing homes and neighborhoods; for example, the Laburnam
The Budget-Mr. Robinson
project. I commend the Department of Urban Affairs for the increasing emphasis it is placing on this kind of project and ask them to encourage more such projects in the future. I would hope that Laburnam would be followed through and completed.
Madam Speaker, the overwhelming proportion of my constituents are middle-income earners many of whom are unionized. There has been a growing demand among union members that some form of cost of living allowance- COLA-provision be written into their labour agreements. There are certain serious weaknesses with the COLA provision, such as the consumer price index which is the basis of measurement and tends to underestimate the effects of inflation on lower income groups and overestimates its impact on higher income groups. Nevertheless, it remains perhaps the only acceptable mechanism to protect workers committed to long-term contracts.
While I am on this general subject I would like to say a few words about the growing number of strikes and lockouts, particularly in the public sector. I feel the public's patience and understanding in this regard is nearly exhausted. In terms of their number, disrupting effects and cost, strikes have reached an intolerable level. The point has been reached where management, labour and government must seek other alternatives. I am hopeful that before this parliament is over, progress in this direction will be made.
I have mentioned that a high proportion of my constituents are middle-income earners in the $8,000 to $15,000 a year range. During the past year or so I believe there has been growing resentment among this group; young couples beginning a family, the trained, experienced workers buying a home, and university graudates starting their careers feel that government has forgotten them or, worse, is taking them for granted. These people find themselves caught in the middle at budget time, with tax relief going to the lower income groups in order to assist them with inflation and to business enterprises in order that they may sustain or expand economic activity and employment opportunities. They feel their hard-earned tax dollars are spent on programs aimed at other groups and other interests, and too often they find serious abuses and inefficiencies in these programs.
Although I do not agree entirely with these sentiments, the fact is that this is how a growing number perceive the situation. This middle-income group has traditionally been the strongest supporter of social programs and legislation. However, I fear a backlash has been developing against certain such programs. Without the support of Canada's middle-income earners, new, needed social legislative measures will be in jeopardy, if not doomed. The government must act to wipe out abuses and inefficiencies in existing programs. In the same light, it must show or ask companies to show that tax concessions and other assistance to large businesses are not just increasing profits but, rather, are creating more employment and/or providing reduced prices to the consumer.
We must again provide some form of incentive for middle-income earners, incentive which many of them believe is now absent. All too frequently I come across university

November 21, 1974
The Budget-Mr. Robinson
graduates who are on unemployment insurance or welfare. They find the opportunities to employ their talents are too few, the rewards too small and the alternatives both attractive and available; that is, welfare and unemployment insurance. I believe the budget which the minister presented Monday offers more to the middle-income earner than has been offered by any other budget in a good many years. A great many of my constituents will be able to look at a number of measures which are contained in this budget and say, "That is good for me." The most obvious of these measures are the personal income tax cuts. While the greatest benefits will be received by lower income earners, and rightly so, these tax cuts, both this year and in 1975 will assist most Canadians.
I have already mentioned other measures which will directly assist many middle-income earners, such as the housing initiatives aimed at reducing the cost and increasing the accessibility of home ownership, the interest and dividend deductions and other proposals such as the Canada Savings Bonds provisions which are designed to protect an individual's savings. In addition, there is the removal of the 12 per cent sales tax on adult clothing and footwear, implemented last July by order in council, along with sales tax reductions on a number of items ranging from buses to bicycles. I congratulate the minister for the removing such tax. I know that metropolitan Toronto will benefit from this measure: we need many buses and a great deal of subway equipment and I am happy to note that such equipment will not be subject to tax.
Although the Minister of Finance did not specifically mention in his budget speech the needs of the Canadian forces, I should like to do so at this time. It is my understanding that to perform the tasks outlined in the 1972 report, the Canadian forces will require a minimum strength of 82,000 personnel, together with the replacement of obsolete and obsolescent equipment, as well as the provision of new, sophisticated equipment required to keep our forces up to date. I hope the minister will also find funds to provide the expertise, ships, planes and ground forces to more adequately guarantee our sovereignty from sea to sea and in fact from our shores to the 12-mile limit and even out to the 200-mile limit, because we must project our fishing rights and the environment.
I began, Mr. Speaker, by giving a brief description of the world's severe economic situation which was the setting for the budget. The Minister of Finance said that the world is "in a fragile and precarious state, suffering from severe inflation and the gathering forces of recession." I should like to conclude by saying that the need for international co-operation has never been greater, if we are to avoid international catastrophe. This need for co-operation and joint action was reflected during the past year by such gatherings as the Law of the Sea Conference in the summer, the recent World Food Conference at home and other international economic meetings.
Unfortunately, the potential of these gatherings has been undermined by petty national and regional jealousies and interests. Just last week we had a demonstration of this with the United States placing quotas on beef and pork. History has shown that attempts to provide this kind of unfair protection for national producers during periods of economic uncertainty have snowballed, resulting in

economic and social disaster for the international community.
I congratulate the Minister of Finance for his budget presentation last Monday night. It provides needed leadership and determination in the fiscal field, yet contains the flexibility needed to cope with unforeseen international developments. The measures incorporated in it will, I believe, have a beneficial impact in the fight against inflation while at the same time guarding against recession. Finally, I see the budget as an optimistic appraisal of Canada's potential and, at the same time, a realistic assessment of the dangers we must face.


Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) took it upon himself to show the government team in its true light. Within a few hours, the minister served-us a speech, that is the budget speech which, while professing to be a government program, constitutes paradoxically a condemnation of the government by the government.
Throughout his speech, the minister managed to expose the hoax the people had already started to suspect. He recognized having misled Parliament through his erroneous forecasts, which he naturally attributes to others, the international context, the weather, poor crops throughout the world, monetary difficulties, market fluctuations, the price of gold and God knows what else!
He admitted having deceived the people who do remember that the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) once condemned the removal of the 11 per cent tax on building materials. He particularly deceived the population by suggesting that he would lead a fierce battle against inflation, while today, dropping the gloves and worrying about a possible recession rather than about the present inflation, he leaves the battle before the first round has even been called.
Mr. Speaker, ever since 1968 until now, the Liberal government never had the intention nor the desire to control inflation. Never mind that, we, under the leadership of the leader of the opposition, to whom I wish to pay a tribute for the stirring speech he made in the House yesterday, will not give up.
One need be neither astute nor very suspicious to see this budget as the first step in a carefully planned and orchestrated game, a game that the Liberals have been playing for some time with our country and our federation. This budget, if we look at its highlights and provisions carefully, treats inflation as a trifle, something to acknowledge but not really worth seriously worrying about. The various provisions of the budget move in every direction so imperceivably that it is impossible to glean exactly the direction in which the government is going or the direction the country should follow.
This document comes from those wonderful people who offered Canada leadership, that strange, elusive quality that only the Liberals can offer and, as we were told by their hucksters, only they can deliver. This budget has done for statesmanlike leadership and economic leader-
November 21, 1974

ship what the Boston strangler did for door to door canvassing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Claude Wagner: However, let us leave this staring gap in the budget provisions and look closely at the one thing about which there is no doubt in this budget no doubt in the mind of the Minister of Finance and no doubt in the mind of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). The big red machine, in all its grandeur and arrogance, is picking a fight. Those gunslingers, the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister, with the itchy trigger fingers have saddled up and are eager to do battle with the people of Alberta. In any event, the big red machine seems prepared to fire the first shot and keep its guns loaded.
I suppose, Mr. Speaker, they figure that Alberta is Alberta and only Tories come from Alberta, so why not take them on. The real people, the Liberals' heartland of support-the golden triangle and central Canada-will be proud of the way the big red machine takes on the oilmen of Alberta: it might even push the machine a few points up in the polls.
Let us consider who the brave Minister of Finance is really aiming at in his budget. Alberta and her rights to the development of secondary industry and a renewable and consistent economic base happens to be one target. But there are others. What about Newfoundland and her hopes for royalties and development, thanks to her resources; or Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick? They, too, are directly implicated: they are directly in the line of the big red machine's sputtering cannon. Indeed, what this finance minister who rides high in the saddle has really done is cast a pall of smoke over the growing hopes of maritimers for the type of mineral and resource wealth that recent encouraging finds have given them every reason to build their hopes and aspirations on for the future. Of course, when one notes how much patronage the big red machine would lose if the maritimes enjoyed an economy that DREE would not have to support, one can understand the big red machine's desire to scuttle any hopes there.
The people of Quebec, how well they are served by their gunslinging representatives in the federal cabinet! The Quebec caucus of the big red machine may think that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance are taking aim at Alberta, but closer examination reveals that those Quebec members who think they are looking out over the gunsights at Alberta are really looking into a mirror.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Claude Wagner: How they serve confederation! How they stand "solide", as they used to say, as their leader takes away their province's mineral and resource rights, along with those of other provinces! The Minister of Finance always boasts that he seeks example budgets from many Canadians of all walks of life. That is, indeed, an admirable practice for such a straight-shooter. But I have to wonder-indeed, I have to ask-whether the section on resource taxation read by the minister in the House might not have been written by Rene Levesque. As a former resource minister, Mr. Levesque knows full well how much Quebec's prosperity and economic growth depend on
The Budget-Mr. Wagner
its natural resources, and that a threat to those resources would aid in so many ways the separatist cause.
No province, no territory, no group of Canadians who seek or enjoy improved services through their provincial government can escape the effects of the budget's implications. It is, as I said, an old game, a game steeped in victory for the red machine, a game bathed in cynicism and deceit. The Liberals have always liked what confrontation does for them politically. They have always liked painting things black and white, choosing sides and watching the opinion polls come their way. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) did it in 1973 during the energy crisis that never was, and indeed the red machine's figures at the polls jumped high enough for them to coast home in July of 1974.
The Prime Minister, when minister of justice, built his reputation on confrontation with his own province. In more devious fashion they did the same thing in 1970, overreacting and spreading panic by their own extremism. But oh how their popularity soared and they coasted through on that. I would like to have more belief in this government, more belief of this Minister of Finance; but I say there is no basis in fact for any faith whatever.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Claude Wagner: There is a basis in fact and a basis in history to believe that this government will seek in every way to manipulate this battle, to exaggerate its proportions and to extenuate its circumstances so as to reap maximum partisan gain. Our hope, Mr. Speaker, lies in the ability of Premier Lougheed and the other provincial premiers to work out meaningful options based more on public interest than the self-serving options of this minister and his government.
Once again I say that leadership is not being exercised by the federal government-only brinksmanship of the worst order. Leadership in the form of statesmanship will have to come from other sources and other major levels of government in Canada. My leader exposed yesterday the duplicity of this government, duplicity which covers everything from personal conduct-I need not give any examples-to insincerity of commitment and purpose.
This budget is another example of that manipulative ability, common to Liberals, to divide the nation while campaigning as great unifiers once the divisions they have begun are established. They have sought to divide Francophone from Anglophone when it has suited their purpose. Now they have returned to their old target-confederation itself. As the government seeks to divide Canada into easterners and westerners, producers and consumers, exporters and importers, as they seek to label their enemies and patronize their friends, as they seek to wreak dissension and disunity, I am confident, Mr. Speaker, that your compatriots and mine will remember that, above all, we are Canadians-Canadians who have worked out our problems before, patched up our differences and risen above the chameleon qualities of the demagogue and the political huckster.
They will recall how long we have striven to achieve the unity of purpose and sanity of approach which have pro-

November 21, 1974
The Budget-Mr. Wagner
tected and nurtured our nation's growth and development. Let us remain resolved that these little men who sit opposite shall not tear us asunder.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, there is a verse in a very well known song by Gilbert Becaud which says: The train we take always takes us somewhere. Well, the train of the supporting measures which are found in the budget speech of November 18 is taking Confederation straight into bankruptcy.
I want to consider for a while the interference of the federal government into the area of natural resources, for this is indeed a case of real interference.
After having pondered over the possibility of meddling with exchange markets, carried out, through its URBEX projects, a general offensive in the area of urban planning, tried to lay its hands on the income which may flow from the development of off-shore mineral deposits, the government becomes excessively centralist in a number of chapters of the communications file, assuming increasingly more jurisdiction in a clearly cultural area, interfering at the level of territorial development through its community programs and what have you. This federal administration has finally decided to deliberately and off-handedly tackle the provincial governments through its taxation of resources.
By brutally asserting that royalties, taxes and other payments to provincial governments will no longer be deductible from taxable income at the federal level, the present federal government itself is violating the national energy agreement reached last March or, at the very least, is jeopardizing the survival of national consensus in the name of equity between east and west.
Of course, this way it is first of all reneging on the deal with the producing provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan. But, at the same time, it is calling down upon itself the collective anger of the premiers of this country. The government, by this violation of the spirit and the letter of British North America Act section 109, is opening the door to a major constitutionnal conflict which will have a decisive effect. Reactions are already piling up and I shall spare the House that subject. In fact, they are coming from all corners of the country.
It is equally clear that Ottawa is looking for a confrontation and will get it.
Assuredly the present federal government, besides putting aside the limits that it imposed upon itself when formulating the long promised and awaited-for policy which is self-evident if we consider Bill C-32 and the new budget, wishes and is looking for a showdown. To be sure, if they had wanted one they would not have done otherwise.
With the government refusing to allow royalties paid to provinces as deductions for federal income tax purposes, the Prime Minister of the country has proved his inadequacy in building Canada's more and more complex future. It might well be that he is not interested in it anymore.

Here we are in Canada, Mr. Speaker, with a Prime Minister presumably elected in 1968 to tighten the bonds of national unity and he is speaking pocketbooks when he is talking about a policy which could lead Confederation to the brink of the precipice.
It is under the same Prime Minister who boasted of taming the Parti Quebecois, of "having no good done" to young impatient Quebecers and who at first was elected because of that, that Quebec has seen its independentist movement rise like a meteor. He has no more managed to tame the P.Q. than he has managed or wants to manage to tame inflation. It is under this same Prime Minister that western alienation is gaining steam.
Had the present paradoxical, cynical, Machiavellian, Prime Minister of this country chosen to prove the nonviability of Confederation, he would not have proceeded otherwise.
The Minister of Finance in his unilateral approach in the field of resource taxation missed a fine opportunity to both promote exports and loosen up federal-provincial relationships.
The Trojan horse that has become the equalization program-there is talk of $253 million more for Quebec, but that is not sure-must not put to sleep either provincial governments or responsible authorities. One Trojan horse trick in history is enough.
Before concluding, because I will not be repeating here points that would be relevant to this debate that I had ample opportunity to express on November 4 last, I like to think that the Quebec government in particular will not be prepared to sell its rights. Let it realize that one day it could be its turn. Let it not wait to react firmly, officially and publicly. Let it not wait until the federal government glances at the power and mining resources in Quebec. The claims, and even more so, the legitimate aspirations for any "sovereignty", for obtaining increased powers, must all resist the federal millions.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps for the first time in the history of this country, provincial governments must understand and use the weapon of disinterested, total and open solidarity on an acceptable compromise in face of a central government which seems to be stricken with political panic and whose recent reelection can already be viewed as the greatest disservice in modern times Canadians did themselves.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, we are discussing this budget at a time when the world faces more serious problems than it has faced at least since World War II. In the underdeveloped parts of this world- Asia, Africa and South America-hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people face death by starvation. In the industrialized part of the world-North America, western Europe and Japan-we see recession on its way or presently existing. Italy and Great Britain are faced with financial crises the like of which they have not seen for the last 200 years. Japan, that post-World War II miracle, is faced with unemployment and a sharp increase in costs with which they do not know how to deal. Our neighbour to the
November 21, 1974

south, the United States, a country to which we sell' most of our exports and from which we import more than any other country in the world, is now in a recession.
Let me put on the record a couple of paragraphs from last Sunday's New York Times outlining the situation in the United States. Industrial production-output of factories, utilities and mines-dropped six-tenths of 1 per cent in October, but this figure does not reflect recent large cutbacks in automobile production. During the July-Sep-tember period, the gross national product slipped 2.1 per cent, the third consecutive quarterly decline. During October the dollar total of the country's payroll increased less than in September, a strong sign of recession, says the Times. Automobile sales were off more than 38 per cent in the first ten days of November, a more severe decline than had been expected. Unemployment, 6 per cent in September, continued to rise. And so on.
Despite these facts, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) brings down a budget essentially the same as the one that he presented in May, six months ago. The minister is engaging in parlour games while forces are massing which can shake this country to its roots. Yet the minister picks this very time to enter into a constitutional debate with the provinces, the consequences of which no one can foresee, with perhaps a battle in the courts that will take years to resolve. Instead of getting together with the provinces in order to work out an agreement to share revenue collected by the federal government as a result of the sharp increase in oil prices, the Minister of Finance makes a unilateral decision which in my view is constitutionally not permissible.
Instead of the government dealing with the real economic problems facing the country, this parliament, the press, radio and television as well as the public are to become engaged in the battle between the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Finance with all the provinces. I do not intend to spend much time on this question since members from all parties will be discussing it. I simply say I find it strange that the Minister of Finance is proposing to adopt a policy that will permit Imperial Oil to pay royalties to Canadian Pacific Railway if it drills wells on CPR land, and will permit Shell to pay royalties to American owners of land or to Indonesian owners of land if Shell drills well on the soil of those two countries, yet will not permit those companies to deduct royalties paid as a business expense if they drill wells on land belonging to the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. This seems a strange way for the Government of Canada to do business.
In his budget the Minister of Finance is assuming that Canada can avoid the recession that is plaguing other countries. In the little pamphlet issued by the minister entitled "Budget... in Brief", we read the following at pages 4 and 5:
With the benefit of measures in this budget, and with no unforeseen deterioration of the economic environment abroad or unforeseen shocks at home, the Canadian economy is expected to grow at a rate of about 4 per cent in 1975.
That is a completely unrealistic estimate. The OECD has estimated that Canadian growth in 1975 will not be 4 per cent but will be in the neighbourhood of 1 per cent. As a matter of fact, in a report that appeared in the Montreal
The Budget-Mr. Orlikow
Gazette a day or two ago, based on statistics issued by Statistics Canada we are told the following:
The government yesterday issued sombre figures on the economy suggesting there was little or no growth in the year's third quarter, and the economy may even have gone into reverse.
With economists forecasting a still poorer performance in the final quarter of 1974, the Canadian economy could face two quarters of negative growth-which would technically qualify as a recession-this year.
What is happening in fact, Mr. Speaker? A couple of days ago Chrysler of Canada announced that 1,700 Chrysler workers in Canada will face lay-offs as a result of the six weeks' cutback in production by the Chrysler Corporation of the United States. If auto sales in the United States do not pick up-as I have already indicated, they have dropped by over 30 per cent-these lay-offs are likely to be extended. At the time when this is happening in Ontario, the number of workers laid off in the forestry industry in British Columbia rose to over 15,000 last week, an increase from 14,719 unemployed at the beginning of the month. The Council of Forest Industries, in releasing these figures, said that the unemployment rate in the industry had reached 17 per cent of the total work force.
This is not surprising, Mr. Speaker, because housing starts in Japan, the United States and Canada have fallen disastrously. The Minister of Finance proposes to do very little about this. What plans does he have to deal with this growing cancer of unemployment and recession? As far as we can tell from his confident, ebullient budget, he has none. Five months have already been lost since his May budget, and I suggest that six months from now we will be presented with another budget which will attempt to deal with the recession into which we are heading.
I suggest that the Minister of Finance should have come before the House this week and said that his department, the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the department that deals with housing, are calling on the provincial governments to prepare, now, the detailed plans that are required to be put in effect next March and April to deal with the situation if unemployment continues to grow in Canada. I believe unemployment will increase, and most economists say it will if the recession in the United States, Japan, Great Britain and Italy continues to grow worse, and every indication is that it will.
What the minister should be saying is that he is not prepared to encourage the private sector of the economy by tax concessions, of which it has already had too much, to take up the slack, but if necessary he is prepared to implement plans, which should have been prepared by the provincial governments, to pour into the Canadian economy a sum of money, which economists have estimated should be in the neighbourhood of $2 billion, for direct projects to put people to work doing things and creating facilities required in the form of houses, roads, recreational centres and community projects. These are the things we need.
What has the minister done? He has placed emphasis on expansion of the private enterprise system. He proposes to continue giving massive tax concessions to the corporations of this country whose profits have been and continue to be high. Just a few days ago the Toronto Globe and Mail
1542

November 21, 1974
The Budget-Mr. Orlikow
carried a story, the headline on which was "Profit of Industrial Corporations Shows Smaller Year-to-Year Gain". However, if we read the story we see:
After-tax profit of industrial corporations in the third quarter amounted to $2.31 million, up 27.5 per cent from a year earlier, Statistics Canada reports.
The minister called on workers who will be receiving a $50 tax rebate in the coming year to be moderate in their wage demands. What did he do for the corporations whose profits have increased by 27 lA per cent in the third quarter of this year as compared to the third quarter of last year? He gave them more tax concessions. Mineral fuels, which I presume means the oil and gas corporations, had increased profits of 45.9 per cent in the third quarter of 1974 compared to the third quarter of 1973. For the first nine months of 1974 their profits were up by 37.7 per cent. The minister gives them more tax concessions, but tells the provinces he intends to squeeze them when they try to increase their royalties from oil companies. Then if the oil companies cannot pay more money, the minister says the government will squeeze the provinces rather than the oil companies.
What about the individual? The personal tax reduction and exemptions the minister is proposing are regressive. They provide greater benefit for the higher income groups and will only exacerbate the existing standards in respect of income. The combined effect of tax indexing, the reduction in the rate on the first $500 of taxable income from 12 per cent in 1974 to 9 per cent in 1975, and the general tax rate reduction in 1975 mean that for a single taxpayer with an income of $6,000 the tax saving in 1975 will be $183. For a single taxpayer with an income of $30,000 the saving will be $651. Where is the equity in such a proposal?
In the case of a married taxpayer, with two children under 16 years of age, who has an income of $6,000 the saving will be $214 in 1975. For a similar person with an income of $30,000 the saving will be $622. I wish that the Minister of Finance, when he was thinking about his budget, had read a speech made by his colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), because in a speech which that minister made to the Empire Club in Toronto he showed how badly we have dealt with the people of this country. He showed how great the disparity in income still is in this country after all these years of Liberal and Conservative, but mostly Liberal, governments.
Let me summarize what the Minister of National Health and Welfare said in his speech to the Empire Club in Toronto. He noted that in 1972 there were one million families with incomes under $5,500 a year in this country. Those people live in what has been classified by the Senate Committee, headed by a Liberal, Senator Croll, by the Economic Council of Canada and by Statistics Canada, as poverty. Those families, which represent 20 per cent of all the families in Canada, received just 6 per cent of total family income that year. At the same time the 20 per cent of families at the upper end of the income scale, with earnings over $15,400 a year, received 39 per cent of all family income.
The one-fifth of the families at the top of the income scale had incomes which were six and one-half times as large on average as the one-fifth of the families at the

bottom of the scale. These are national totals which do not reveal the even more serious income distribution inequities among people in various regions. However, these figures show clear evidence of the problem which must be faced.
How did the Minister of Finance face this problem? He faced it by increasing the disparity between people at the bottom fifth of the income scale in favour of the top 40 per cent. This is what we have come to expect from Liberal governments and from this Liberal Minister of Finance. In the so-called just society-a phrase I think the Prime Minister wishes he had never picked up from his speech writers-this is the kind of tax proposals we get from the Minister of Finance at a time when we face tremendous inflation.
When people in the bottom 40 per cent of the income scale find it increasingly difficult to pay for the bare necessities of life, the minister comes forward with a budget which will give the greatest benefit to the people in the top income brackets and which will give the least benefit to those at the bottom. It is for these reasons I, and members of this party, certainly intend to oppose the budget, vote against it, and will continue to call on the Minister of Finance to face the real problems of this country which are increasing unemployment, increasing inflation, and increasing poverty for most of the people.


Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I think every member of this House has a commitment to all the people of this country. I believe we differ only in the method of achieving the desired ends.
Let me state first of all that I have a great deal of respect and admiration for some hon. members on the other side of the House, especially the hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), the hon. members for Halifax, Oshawa, Nanaimo, and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I think they will go down in our parliamentary history, as I believe the great progress the Government of Canada has made in past years is due in part to their contributions in this House. However, I cannot understand anyone who suggests that the budget presented the other day is not a good, sound document designed to benefit the majority of the people in Canada.
The people of Canada knew this government would present this kind of budget, and that is why they returned this government to power with a majority. But each one of us here, both on the government side and in opposition, has his own ideas about what is best for Canada and what should be done in the future, and it is during this debate that we make our views known.
So that you, Mr. Speaker, will more fully understand the general content of my remarks, let me first state that I represent the district of Gander-Twillingate in Newfoundland. My district has 88 communities on the map. In actual fact it comprises 146 smaller entities; in some cases three and four separate communities exist under one name on the electoral district map. There are only a dozen of these communities that have any form of industry other than
November 21, 1974

the fishery. In the majority of instances there is no real industry.
All of us here in this chamber look upon the budget in the framework of how it applies to the majority of the people we represent. Within this framework I am concerned about the underprivileged, the primary producers, those on fixed incomes, those who in many cases have not a hope in the world of improving their lot under existing circumstances. For even while we can legislate changes in taxation, income and social benefits, there is no real assurance that the benefits are passed on to the people. There exist the business community and provincial governments which sometimes operate in direct opposition to our legislation.
Let me state first of all that I have been concerned that, mainly because of a vicious taxation structure in some provinces over the past several decades, we have had a regressive tax structure in this country. What does a regressive tax structure mean? On a graph it says that those who make the least, pay the most in real income through taxes in one form or another. I, like other members, have wrestled with this problem for some time. I have conjured up visions of negative income tax and guaranteed annual income structures that would correct this grave injustice.
We must remember, Sir, that while we sit in this chamber a vast minority of our people sit at home wondering where their next dollar will come from; in fact many of these homes have large families and they face a never ending struggle for survival. The real crime respecting their situation rests in the fact that many are primary producers.
On the other end of the scale we have seen, over the past decades, the emergence of the newly rich, those who hold, because of their position in society, monopolies of one form or another. They have become rich because of our system. How did they get their money? Was it by the sweat of their brow? Was it by making two blades of grass grow where one grew before? No, as far as actual production is concerned they do not toil, neither do they spin. They sit in their stylish offices and watch the money roll in, Mr. Speaker.
More people want more. The selfishness of one class of our people must be checked by government. To see the starving millions in this world, for me, as a member of this House, to visit homes in my district where parents and children sit around the table with only bread and tea on it, not even any butter, that is a crime. It makes an even greater crime when, 100 feet away, is the ocean where there are tons upon tons of fish, such as herring, mackerel and capelin. But because private enterprise does not see fit, there are no fish processing plants. In some communities where those fish are being caught, we still operate on the feudal system, as is the case in my district. That is, the boats come in from Norway and other parts of the world, including other parts of Canada, load up the raw material, and send it back to us the next year, canned, charging sometimes 100 times more per pound than it cost the processors.
This government, in two budgets, has tried to right some wrongs. It has attempted to cope with the critical situation of world inflation. It has been among the more successful
The Budget-Mr. G. Baker
governments in doing so. In two budgets it has said, "We will try to correct inequality, we will offer greater social benefits, we will decrease taxation for the majority of our people, and we will try to increase production."
Our course is in the right direction. A guaranteed annual income for all Canadians in some form appears possible in the future.
This is a vast country with a multiplicity of problems, and we cannot always achieve justice. The Treasury Board knows that regional rates of pay for federal employees in Gander do not go over big with me, whereas they are a great thing for western Canada. The Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) is aware of the fact that to place the same stiff rules on unemployment insurance recipients in Alberta, where 30,000 jobs are vacant, and on recipients in Gander-Twillingate, where no jobs are vacant, is simply not fair play.
The Minister of State in charge of Fisheries (Mr. LeBlanc) realizes that when money was paid for loss of time due to ice last year, those fishermen unfortunate enough to be on welfare because of the ice conditions had that federal money deducted from their provincial welfare cheques.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) knows that family allowances given to those on welfare in Newfoundland are deducted from their welfare cheques, and that the new increase in January will mean nothing to those on the welfare rolls because of provincial regulations.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) knew when he proposed income tax cuts on the federal level that our provincial income tax went up four months ago by 11 per cent.
So, while the federal government is doing its best to equalize opportunity in this nation, the provincial governments have a role to play as well. The position that we hold, of trying to equalize opportunity federally, means that certain provinces have to give more to help other provinces, that certain groups in Canadian society must give more to help others less fortunate than themselves, and that we as a nation must, in the name of humanitari-anism, be prepared to offer our food surpluses to those who are dying of starvation, and the problem of who gets what, when and how, must be dealt with in our method of distributing foreign aid.
What then does this budget do for the long run? We should never be accused of treating the symptoms and not the disease. All governments, for too long, have been blaming the mirror for not being a window when they see such inequalities in this country. The Minister of State (Fisheries) is looking at the income stabilization program for fishermen, and the Minister of National Health and Welfare is looking at some form of guaranteed annual income for Canadians.
The government, in this budget speech, has clearly stated its concern to deal with the real problems. The tax cuts on production equipment, the continual use of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion to encourage production, the continuing funding of AHOP, the shifting of the tax burden on to the shoulders of those who can afford to pay, all this augurs well for the future.
28543-29%

November 21, 1974
The Budget-Mr. C. Smith
In the case of my district my duty here in the House, in committees and behind the scenes, will be to try to impress on everyone the importance of the government playing a greater role in initiating industry, looking for the potential resource development areas, and then actively doing what private enterprise will not do. The provincial government of Newfoundland and the federal government have? come together in a co-operative effort to create secondary industry without the immediate rip-off of profit going into someone's pocket.
All the rotten eggs of the Egg Marketing Board do not amount to the value of fish that go untouched in the waters of any one of the outport communities in my riding. The relative importance of many things must find new perspectives. The value of an individual, and his stake in this country, should not be determined by how much money he has in the bank, but better by how many children he has-what is the size of his family.
The 100 per cent write-off for exploration expenditures, the 50 per cent national tax rate for resource industries, the sales tax on building and construction materials reduced to 5 per cent, the capital cost allowance on new, multiple unit residential buildings for rent, to be claimed against any source of income, the federal sales tax on construction equipment and on materials used in municipal water distribution systems eliminated, the new registered home ownership savings plan, the $500 grants for new moderately price homes, the federal sales tax on transportation equipment removed, the two year write-off of new machinery for manufacturing and processing, the first $1,000 of private pension income exempt from tax, a 10 per cent surtax on corporate profits, special excise taxes on high energy consuming vehicles, the elimination of the sales tax on clothing and footwear, new tax incentives for small businesses, and tariff reductions on consumer goods-all will benefit the majority of Canadians, and will go far to eliminate the inequality within and between provinces.


Mr. Cecil Smith (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak in the budget debate. While the budget may be of some help to certain areas in Canada I feel it is of little or no help to the people of the Churchill constituency which I represent.
The constituency of Churchill covers some 200,000 square miles of central and northern Manitoba. The population is in excess of 85,000 people spread out over 75 communities. The physical make-up of the communities is as varied as you will find in any part of Canada. The one seaport is the port of Churchill located on Hudson Bay. I say this for the benefit of those members who have not yet visited our area.
The federal and provincial governments are in the process of rebuilding that entire community, with improvements in housing and recreational facilities. This revamping of the community, however, has put a burden on the people in that they are now unable to meet the high taxes and rents required for new housing and recreational facilities.

The town of Churchill has undergone drastic change, but the people there claim they had no part in the planning. This is what happens when governments take over and try to improve facilities and communities; the people are pushed aside. They were given no opportunity to participate in decision-making, nor is there any evidence that they will be given this role in the future as Churchill is now classed as a government-owned and government-run town.
The port of Churchill is the only bright spot in the economic future of this community, but the government is not planning fully to develop and utilize this port. At present it is capable of handling some 40,000,000 bushels of grain during the shipping season, which runs from July 20 to October 20. Due to poor planning by the Wheat Board, however, only 22,000,000 bushels of grain were shipped through the port during the past year.
When grain is sold to a specific country by the Wheat Board I believe that the Wheat Board at that time should designate a date on which the grain is to be taken from the port of Churchill. During last year there were sometimes as many as eight boats in the port of Churchill waiting to be loaded, and at other times there was not a boat in sight for eight or ten days. I think the government should ensure that the facility is used to its full capacity.
A sound economic base must be developed so that people can work for a wage on which they can live. During the election campaign I said that people who live in the north should be given a northern allowance to offset the high cost of living there. An allowance of this nature would be an incentive to attract and keep people in the north.
The budget provisions announced on Monday night will be of little or no benefit to the average wage earner in the Churchill constituency. During the election campaign we heard promises to the effect that the eligibility age for old age pension benefits would be lowered. The budget has come and gone, however, and our senior citizens still have to face those difficult years when they must depend on benefits.
There are some 20 Indians reserves in the Churchill riding, ranging in population from 200 to 2,500. Many of these reserves have no sound economic base. Even though the chiefs and councils have been pleading with the government to help the bands develop industry, meaningful training programs and self-government on the reserves, it appears that most of these requests have fallen on deaf ears, or are tied up in the bureaucratic system. The Indian people are fed up with study upon study-they want action. I would suggest that the government should start to listen to and learn from the various Indian organizations that have made formal presentations.
In 1972 the federal government granted the province of Manitoba-namely, Manitoba Hydro-permission to divert the Churchill River and to control the water levels on Lake Winnipeg and the Nelson River. When the licence was issued, little or no thought was given to the project's detrimental effects on the environment and, most important, the flooding and immersion that will be caused to Indian reserve lands along the Churchill diversion, Lake Winnipeg and the Nelson River. Mr. Speaker, the chiefs of those reserves that are and will be affected are now involved in a legal battle with the province of Manitoba. I
November 21, 1974

feel that the federal government was irresponsible in issuing this licence to the province without considering the effects that such changes in water levels would have on reserves and other communities in the north.
The Indian people affected have not taken this lying down but have formed a committee, called the Northern Flood Committee, to deal with the province of Manitoba concerning the flooding of reserve lands and other problems relating to their fishing and trapping rights. The former minister of Indian affairs and northern development granted funds to the committee, but these are now depleted. The committee has submitted a proposal for further funds to fight the flooding of the reservations. The chairman of the flood committee is in Ottawa today, trying to get funds which were originally promised so that he could continue with his job. As I say, these funds were promised during the campaign. They were to be approved last week, but that approval is still pending.
Let me now deal with mining in the constituency of Churchill. Really, mining is the backbone, the economic base of my constituency. We must always remember that mines are not discovered and developed overnight. The abortive budget of May 6 would have put the small prospector or small mining developer out of business. The budget of November 18 has not changed this situation. Large mining companies in my riding are now as vulnerable as the small prospector or developer.
The high cost of living, together with actions of provincial and federal governments, has squeezed mining companies to the point where they feel they are not getting a reasonable return on invested dollars, and will be forced to cut back. Cities and towns have been built around mines. Many communities are one-industry towns and depend completely on the mining industry. In excess of
35,000	people in northern Manitoba and in the riding of Churchill live in mining towns. These people, I feel, live in such communities because they like living there and because they enjoy a feeling of security.
After the May 6 budget many people living in mining communities became uneasy. They felt insecure and were uncertain about the future. This uncertainty caused many people this past summer to leave mining communities and seek employment in other fields. The result has been a shortage of miners in my riding. The budget of November 18 has further aggravated the sense of insecurity of people working in the mining field.
Governments say they want a fair share of the national pie. Considering the high cost of living, we must ask what is a fair share of the pie? Let me put some figures on record to show what I mean. Both federal and provincial governments in Canada received substantial net benefits from mining development, especially from development in the constituency of Churchill.
The federal government, during a 12-year period, received accumulated revenues of $407 million and spent only $7.8 million, receiving a net benefit of $339 million. Is that what you call fair sharing of pie? The province of Manitoba, during the same period received accumulated revenues of $78.5 million, and incurred expenditures of $13.4 million. The province's net benefit was thus $65.1
The Budget-Mr. C. Smith
million. Provinces other than Manitoba also received benefits from mining development in my constituency although they did not incur expenditures. The accumulated total of these benefits reached $81 million by the end of 1971. From the foregoing figures it is easy to see how important mining is to northern Manitoba, especially Churchill, and that mining is indeed the economic base of the region.
May I now deal with northern Manitoba's fresh water fishery. I feel that such a fishery could easily employ an additional 150 to 200 Manitoba residents. That is the potential. Many lakes in northern Manitoba are stocked with fresh water fish such as trout, pickerel, whitefish and so on. The federal government has become involved in the marketing of fresh water fish in Manitoba. I am not convinced that the board is doing the job for which it was established, for the simple reason that a bureaucracy has become involved in the handling, processing and sale of this fish. I feel that the government should establish a standing committee of this House on the fresh water fisheries of Canada, which should be separate and distinct from the committee which deals with the salt water fisheries, as I do not think the fresh water fishery of Canada has been given adequate attention.
May I now touch on transportation in Churchill. I do not think any part of the country can be developed properly unless it is served by a good transport system. Northern Manitoba at present is served by a railway and a form of road. Our overland transport systems are limited. Basically, the area is served by aircraft. Aircraft are the only means of transport for isolated communities.
The airport at Thompson, Manitoba, is being used beyond capacity because of overcrowding to the point at which it is unsafe to land aircraft or fly passengers out from there. In July, the airport handled 5,200 landings; it is handling, on average, 4,000 landings per month. We acquired a new control tower at the airport, however, as air transport is vitally important to my constituency, I feel that the expanded facilities requested by municipal authorities and the town fathers should be made available. I submit that the government should consider expanding these facilities immediately.
I wish to register a complaint concerning the Air Transport Board. As aircraft are so important in meeting our transport needs, I suggest that changes in procedure are required if we are to licence aircraft properly so that they may carry passengers and freight. In some cases carriers have had to wait up to eight months to have their applications processed by the Air Transport Board. Such delays constitute gross neglect on the part of the government, especially as aircraft are so important in developing northern areas which rely almost totally on aircraft as a means of transport.
I also wish to voice a complaint concerning television in the riding I represent, and I do not intend to make anyone feel that I have anything against French-speaking people. Lastt week in Flin Flon a notice appeared stating that the CRTC would hold a hearing in Montreal on December 10 to have a second television channel in The Pas and Flin Flon. This second channel will be French. It will be a rebroadcast from CBWFT St. Boniface. The people in Flin Flon were appalled at the notice appearing in the paper

The Budget-Mr. Raines
with no consultation whatsoever with the people of Flin Flon or The Pas, especially when Flin Flon and The Pas combined have a population of only 8 per cent whose mother tongue is French. There are many people whose mother tongue is French; however, their children neither speak nor understand French.
I understand the cost is to be an initial $78,000, plus operating and rental costs. I wonder whether it would be possible to put this toward a second English channel in my constituency or, with 15,000 Cree Indians in the constituency of Churchill, possibly we could have a second channel in Cree. This would probably make a little more sense.
When talking about inflation, cutting government costs and so on, I wonder how we can justify an expenditure of -this amount for such a small portion of the population. Perhaps this is a policy that has to go ahead and maybe I have no way of stopping it, but there are many people in my constituency who would support a second English channel. I do not believe many will be watching the French network.
The forest resources of the constituency of Churchill are also a very important aspect of our economy. I am sure all members have heard of Churchill Forest Industries. Perhaps everything they have heard has been bad. However, if you visit The Pas, Manitoba, you do not hear too many bad things about it because it has created a lot of jobs for people in northern Manitoba. This is what we have been pressing for, more jobs for the people of the north. We want the people of the north not only to have a place to live, but we want them to call it their home. You cannot develop a home by just coming up there, trying to make a fast buck and leaving. We want people to come there and stay.
The forest resources are going to be depleted if we do not get some help. I plead with the government to provide some help to protect those forest resources. I understand that in Quebec there are several CL 215 water bombers to protect the forests. In Manitoba we have a couple of old Canso aircraft that are not in very good shape. They have been through a few wars. I believe there is now an application from the province of Manitoba to have two CL 215's for forest protection during the summer. I have worked for the forestry department for years, and I certainly support the request for the two CL 215's.


Mr. Marke Raines (Burnaby-Seymour):: Mr. Speaker, on the occasion of my first speech as a member of this distinguished assembly allow me, at the outset, to express appreciation for your role. It is, as we all know, a most difficult one.
I also congratulate the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) for presenting a most commendable budget. I am particularly pleased by the minister's commitment to restrain growth in government expenditures and his proposals to reduce personal income tax, protect savings and sustain capital investments. I am sure these proposals are welcomed not only by my constituents, but by all Canadians.
I wish to pay tribute to those who represented Burnaby-Seymour in past parliaments, most notably the Hon. Ray Perrault who served so well as the federal representative

of this riding from 1968 to 1972. He set high standards, and a tradition of service which I will do my best to live up to, Mr. Speaker.
There is much to be done in Burnaby-Seymour. This is a riding where we see the need for many essential services. Railway overpasses and rapid transit are yet to be provided. We are part of a metropolitan area. There is one point I would like to stress. Our LIP allocations in Burnaby-Seymour are serving two significant purposes, taking people off welfare and unemployment insurance, and providing aid to a great number of noteworthy social and environmental projects. There is much yet to be done in Burnaby-Seymour and in Canada, and I share the expressed eagerness to get on with the job.
In the House of Commons on October 2 of this year the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) called for a major reform of parliamentary procedure if liberty and democracy are to survive. I would also like to see a major reform in order that I may survive.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marke Raines: To say that I have been appalled at the time-consuming procedures this parliament must go through to accomplish anything is putting it mildly. While I, perhaps, could accustom myself to juggling my time so that I may be in three or four different places at one time for a 10, 12 or 14 hour day, and in many cases a seven day week, I agree that there must be a better way.
It was suggested that we abandon outmoded ideas so that parliament could express the will of the people efficiently and completely. The proposals for reform included, among other things, strict limits on debates of non-controversial bills, television cameras in parliament, and the exploration of other modern ideas such as electronic voting. I hope that since we are now living in a very fast-paced world, my colleagues will not wish to remain saddled with government machinery of a bygone age.
There is one change that gives me great hope and optimism. That is the fact that television cameras will be allowed in the House of Commons early next year. Once the public gets a picture of the procedures under which the government of Canada must labour-the unwieldy, cumbersome and time-consuming procedures-I think there will be no problem in getting public approval for reform, indeed, public demand for reform.
The Prime Minister outlined a series of proposals to speed legislation through parliament, and he hoped that "members of parliament would give at least an expression of support". Today I want to go on record in wholehearted support of these proposals.
It is in the exploration of other modern ideas that I am most interested, especially in the matter of using some of our communication machinery, with the co-operation of parliament and the public, to help unite Canada, to expedite the business of governments, to keep Ottawa in touch with the people and to bring together in matters of mutur-al interest the municipal, provincial and federal governments.
It is for this reason that I feel it is urgent in the extreme that the federal authorities retain full control of the communications systems in Canada. Some provinces have
November 21, 1974

been asking for jurisdiction over cable television, but I feel most strongly that to ensure that broadcasting remains in the national interest, control must remain a federal concern.
If federal control of cable television is lost it could mean the balkanization and fragmentation of Canada. The BNA Act has already separated us in many ways, but I believe that with a strong federal authority to guarantee the national interest, and with good communication and good will between the various levels of government and the people, many difficulties can be overcome.
To illustrate the need for a direct link of communication and co-operation between Ottawa and the provinces let me mention one problem now in the field of education. Because of the BNA Act education is a provincial matter, and each province has its own standards and requirements. In our extremely mobile society many students face difficulty in moving from one province to another, and university students generally lose credits if they transfer from one Canadian university to another. I feel that students should be able to transfer freely across Canada from one accredited university to another without losing credits.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marke Raines: If anything, it is my opinion that because they are experiencing and learning in new environments and coping with new ways and cultures they should gain credits. This is a question which would require co-operation between all the provinces, and a strong link of communication between Ottawa and the provinces could expedite the matter.
Communication is the key. The complexity of modern problems and the need to solve them quickly is going to require parliament to have a forum in a communications system which will receive and send information to the provinces, a system which will strengthen Canadian unity, a system which will not only seek and find answers from a limitless fund of information, from the most enlightened minds, but will receive and distribute vital information to every part of Canada.
These are only a few things that cable television could do, and because cable could become the principal vehicle of broadcasting to Canadians it is vital to keep it in federal hands. Meanwhile Canada has a national system of broadcasting-the CBC. And with some prodding, the CBC may, like Rip Van Winkle, waken to find itself in today's world. I would like to see the CBC gear itself to new and high demands, because the CBC could be a bridge to unite Canada more than the Canadian Pacific Railway lines united Canada in the past. The CBC could educate, stimulate, create understanding and appreciation of different cultures, places and problems.
The potential of the CBC is boundless, but it must come out of its torpor, its housekeeping bureaucracy. It needs, like any creative enterprise, constant changes and infusions and nourishment. I do not think the CBC has had many changes, infusions or nourishment to speak of for a long time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
The Budget-Mr. Ritchie


Marke Raines: In the past the CBC has had its moments of brilliance. But it has a great deal to answer for, Mr. Speaker. British Columbia and the other provinces-I might say, all of Canada except Toronto-have been shamefully neglected on the national scene. It is a fact that Canadian talent generally has had to go south of the border, or to England or Europe, to gain any recognition or have a chance to perform.
The CBC has failed to create mutual understanding of the French and English viewpoints, when it should have been obvious that the two cultures could have been introduced to each other gradually with diplomacy, tact and humour.
Today, in spite of the fact that it has been forced to devote a certain percentage of time to Canadian content, the CBC seems unable to provide Canadians with the creative outlet we so badly need and want. In any Canadian city, any Canadian small town, any rural community, you will find talent that should be on radio or television. Yet the picture I receive on my set consists of reruns, empty and soul-less movies from the United States, and sports.
Where is there any suggestion of a search for a better world? Where is the vision that should be expressing itself in songs and plays? Where is the attempt to explain and interpret British Columbia to the rest of Canada, the west to the east, and the north to the south? The CBC has a lot of catching up to do. It must become a dynamic outlet for Canadian talent and energies, a force for making things better in Canada.
Summing up, Mr. Speaker, I repeat my support for parliamentary reform. I believe it was Nietzsche who said, "Any truth lasts for only 20 years". And governments, like people, should be continually appraising and rethinking ways and means of achieving their priorities and goals. I urge this parliament to retain jurisdiction over the Canadian communications system, including cable television, and to make new and high demands of our national broadcasting system.
I ask all hon. members to consider the brave new world that our new miracles of communication could bring about. The potential for useful exchange of information, carried across Canada and with other countries, is boundless. We have the machinery, we have the hardware. Now, all we must do is to remember the philosophy which admonishes us "to make no small plans-they have no power to stir men's minds."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Ritchie:: Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
William Gordon Ritchie: Madam Speaker, the timing of this budget is somewhat different from those of the past six years that I have been here. I do not think it is

November 21, 1974
The Budget-Mr. Ritchie
an anti-climax to suggest that we are now facing a real recession for the first time in six years, though many other countries in the world may be facing a depression.
In Washington, President Ford has finally agreed that the United States economy is winding down and a recession is present. It is interesting to compare President Ford's policy with the policy brought in by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), which is entirely different from the measures taken in the United States as well as different from what the British, under the Labour government, have introduced for their country.
President Ford appears to be sitting tight, with no basic change in policy for the present. His policy is to let business run flat, even to take a slight downturn, so as to cool off prices. He wants to squeeze inflation out of the economy even if it means a recession; he is afraid that unless inflation is conquered it could well double when business recovers. The assessment of business in the United States seems to be for a continued slowdown for the rest of this year, and perhaps into May and June of next year. There is substantial evidence in the United States that prices are rising less quickly.
The budget of the Minister of Finance is quite inflationary. He claimed the other night that he was avoiding the risk of uncontrollable inflation and, at the other end of the stick, the risk of a serious recession and massive unemployment, which he assured us was inhuman. Thus he told us he would take a middle course in order to assure a good economic performance.
What do some of the people who make economic forecasts say about this budget? Mr. Beigie of the C. D. Howe Research Institute says that he is increasingly skeptical and concerned about Canadian policies dealing with inflation, especially now that Canadian inflation has become cost-push, caused, with a few important exceptions, by higher costs rather than by a situation of too much money chasing too few goods. He says that Canada seems to be adopting the view that its inflation problem will be cured by the United States exporting the anti-inflationary effects of a United States recession.
Mr. Beigie went on to say that such an approach assumes fairly close parallels between the economies of our two countries, especially as regards wages, but that those parallels do not in fact exist. The United States labour movement has accepted wage increases so low as to result in an actual decline in the real income of workers. Canadian labour, he says, has not done this. Canadian wages have risen faster, and the wage gap has narrowed between our countries without corresponding changes in productivity.
What has the minister done to control inflation? He has had some flattering suggestions, such as that the government "reconcile the various competing interests in our society," that there be a "national consensus comprising self-discipline" and a "good measure of political courage." The minister is courageously going to have a deficit on national accounts of $1.5 billion in 1975-76. The forecast in May was for a deficit of $160 million. The inflationary gains made by the government now show there is a $250 million surplus. Surely this indicates that through the government's inflation-generating tax collection agencies there will be much more money put into the economy than

was the case six months ago. Even the Minister of Finance admitted this when he stated last May that his 1974-75 financial requirements were estimated at more than $2 billion. These requirements are now only $1 billion, which is a reflection of increased government revenues derived through inflation. This is the effect inflation has had on the government. Government costs have increased. The government, however, is the big winner in the inflation lottery.
While there has been unemployment of over 5 per cent there is a great increase in job vacancies. The government is unwilling to look at the effect unemployment insurance and other measures have had on the number of applicants for positions in the labour force. There is no doubt that there is a need to examine the effect of the Unemployment Insurance Commission and other agencies in order to discern whether the fairly high unemployment rate and the large number of job vacancies are an indication of malfunctioning of the labour market.
There is one aspect of the budget which, while in itself it is not large, yet it is part of what I believe to be an unhealthy way of creating savings. I refer to the possibility of saving $1,000 a year before tax, in respect of buying a house if the money is used for this purpose. This is a laudable objective but it certainly creates distortions with regard to savings. It is agreed that savings are necessary if our economy is to function. However, it has become increasingly obvious that our economy is not functioning well when provision must be made for pre-tax savings in order to generate enough capital. That is one of the great difficulties concerning our economy.
Long ago the government introduced the retirement savings plan and pre-tax deductions with regard to employee pension plans. The government now intends to introduce the home ownership assistance plan, as well as the exemption of tax on the first $1,000 of interest and dividend income. We have had the indexing of many of our pension plans. All of this is creating what I think will be quite an intolerable situation.
We continue to accept a tax system which is basically pitched against savings and in favour of spending. The most revealing aspect of this situation is to be found in the extent to which the generation of savings, employment, financing and economic growth is becoming dependent on the government's willingness to defer taxes. The economy should be capable of generating sufficient savings after taxes to finance both continued renewal and continued growth. By this standard the Canadian economy is in trouble and inflation exacerbates the condition.
Much of inflation is directly attributable to the rapid rise in government spending, and the capacity of the tax system to generate government revenues at rates consistently in excess of what was projected. The long-term implications of a system whereby savings for investment are becoming realizeable only to the extent which our government is prepared to defer taxes on current income, registered retirement and savings plans, a plan of this type of home ownership and equity investment, are admissions that the tax system is too onerous. It can be said that Canadians have cause to worry over the budget. It is now
November 21, 1974

generally conceded that Canada will be lucky to reach 4 per cent real growth in the next year.
There is nothing in the budget to contain inflation. The government apparently is content to allow the United States recession to spill over and act as a restraining influence on Canadian influence. We now have real cost-push inflation. United States unions are accepting much lower increases than are Canadian unions. They are even accepting increases which represent less than the actual cost of living so that the workers receive less real income than previously.
In Canada, on the other hand, we had a settlement in the neighbourhood of 60 per cent in respect of the grainhan-dlers' dispute, and similarly at the Lakehead the grainhan-dlers are asking all that was received in Vancouver, plus a good deal more. Government spending is out of hand. There is no evidence in this budget that the government is involved in any kind of curtailment of its own cash requirements. In the next year it is widely forecast that food costs will rise and will be one of the main inflationary factors, but there is absolutely nothing in the budget to help the farmers produce more food.
Mr. Bruce Whitestone, writing in the Kitchener-Water-loo Herald Record had this to say:
... there is increasing awareness of the likelihood of a business slump. Both rhetorically and actually, thus, anti-inflation policies have been accorded a secondary position.
The main aims of the budget, stimulating the economy to resume its growth and produce jobs and to convince the nation, especially the business community, that it is being done responsibly, are unlikely to be achieved.
A great deal of emphasis is placed on increasing supply as a means to combat inflation. Aside from the dubious validity of this approach, the food sector has been all but ignored by this budget.
Vet, food costs have risen more than any other sector of our economy with the exception of energy prices, and there is every prospect that food prices will be the single biggest inflationary factor in 1975.
No steps were proposed to assist farmers with easier credit or to encourage them to cultivate new land. Similarly, livestock producers received no encouragement from this budget.
At the political level, Mr. Turner is up against a central question of contemporary political economy. The commitment to full or nearly-full employment entails inflation sooner rather than later to a rate which erodes purchasing power faster than the government can augment increases. This time around, the budget does not grapple with this key question.
I think this is one of the great problems in respect of this budget.
Now I wish to turn the subject of the taxation of the resource industries of this country, particularly oil and gas. It is perhaps fortunate, at least for western Canada, that there happens to be oil and gas in that part of Canada. I think the treatment of these resources is of paramount importance to the unity of this country and to the form of Confederation.
If this taxation is mishandled we may well see serious if not fatal strains on the confederate structure of Canada. Western Canada has always felt alienated from the rest of the country, but since the days of Louis Riel strong forces have been at work to tie the west to central Canada, and to make it desirable, if at times unpleasant and unremunerative, for western Canada to be a part of the country's confederation.
The Budget-Mr. Ritchie
Western Canada is not old in the settled sense. It was settled in the beginning by people from Ontario and people from the United Kingdom in the early years, followed by the massive immigration of central Europeans. The single common element which bound together this heterogenous group of people was the British tradition of government, institutions and the Crown. However, in recent years these British institutions have all but disappeared as Ottawa has attempted to establish a sort of distinctly Canadian identity. But western Canadians are not able to take part in this identity. They feel estranged from the symbols and the institutions of central Canada. I think the adoption of the maple leaf in Canada's flag is an example. The maple, as such, is not present in the largest part of the land mass of Canada, certainly not in western Canada. It is a peculiarly central and southern Canadian symbol.
Similarly the attempt to disassociate the British symbols of the Crown and the royal attachment has tended to cut adrift the traditional symbols of the west with which westerners could identify. Up until a few years ago while westerners may have been dissatisfied with confederation largely they regarded themselves as protestors. They hoped that by making their voices heard by blocs of votes they would rectify some of their grievances. This was the main motivation behind the agrarian revolt of 1921, the rise of the Progressive Party, followed in the depression years of the 1930's with the splinter parties, the CCF and Social Credit. But until recent years those who might have favoured some sort of independence or remoteness from the government of Ottawa were not many and were considered local autonomists. Recently there has grown up a great doubt on the part of many western Canadians concerning the value of association with confederation. They cannot be dismissed as crackpots or irresponsible people.
In recent years the finding of natural resources in the west, and the fact that through much of the world small countries are as happy or happier than their largest neighbours all have given rise to a desire for more independence for the west, and at least for a variation of the structure of confederation. I think if we should ignore this, we would do so at our peril. The imposition of the taxes on the oil and gas industries will have a horrendous effect on the economy of the west and its future development.
The desire of the government to have a much lower price for oil within Canada than the world price, for an undetermined length of time, is placing great strains on western credibility. It is all the more senseless when it is realized that the cheap supply of oil and gas in western Canada is very limited and will last a few years at the most. Not only will this action of the federal government make for extremely bad relations with the provinces and with the west, but almost certainly it will lead to a shortage of gas and oil that will make us more dependent on offshore oil. Gone now are the halcyon days when we could expect cheap oil and gas from the tar sands in Alberta.
The minister stated that Ottawa would reduce its share of the tax by his abatement of 10 per cent of the provincial tax, and would further reduce it by a resource profit abatement which, for 1974, would be 10 per cent, for 1975,
1550

November 21, 1974
The Budget-Mr. Beaudoin
12 per cent, and for 1976 and the year thereafter, 15 per cent. This means that the net 1976 federal tax rate will amount to 25 per cent. In the oil economics of today, this means that in 1976 the federal tax rate would be 25 cents a barrel less than it is today.
The minister also lessened the tax for exploration expenditure and depletion allowance. But in not allowing royalties to be a traditional deductible business expense he has reversed a principle of confederation. If Ottawa is to move in such a wholesale fashion with regard to one provincial jurisdiction, what about all the provincial jurisdictions?
This headlong confrontation with the provinces can only spur the provinces to protect their rights as best they can. They could use provincial Crown corporations which have traditionally been exempt from taxation at the federal level. The Minister of Finance stated in his budget that any province which sought to nationalize industry and thereby capture the revenues for itself should think about it carefully, because in such cases the federal government would have to consider the taxation of such Crown corporations.
This statement smacks of a direct desire of the administration to club the Conservative government of Alberta in particular, to conquer the westerners once more and take their resources from them. It is all the more important to westerners considering the great troubles they encountered, to assume control of resources in the 1920s, since on joining confederation they were not allowed to consider their resources as being under their own jurisdiction but had to bargain for them.
The hydro industry has been taken over by the different provincial governments. The minister could have attempted another approach. He could have attempted to work out with the provinces what the definition of royalties should be, and how much they should be taxed. He should have worked out with the provinces at what level royalties could remain deductible for income tax purposes. The government can take that matter to the Supreme Court, but it seems likely that in view of the makeup of the Supreme Court and the appointment of the Chief Justice, the decision will be favourable to the federal government. But, in the long run, the provinces will have to throttle back oil and gas production and in that way eventually natural shortages will force prices up to world levels.
There is another part of the resource industry which has not been touched upon, and that is mining. The mining people are caught in the dispute between Ottawa and Alberta, and this affects all provincial jurisdictions. This budget is dangerous because, for the first time, it has led to a collision between our two main forms of government. The existence of confederation is at stake, and this problem must be resolved if peace in this country is to be achieved.


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I take part in this budget debate and this, for a number of reasons. One of the main reasons is that it is taking place in historical circumstances, when world events are steeped in uncertainty. In view of these circumstances, this may very well be the
most important budget speech in the history of Canada. Besides, the minister himself indicated nearly openly his concern for and helplessness about our economy which is deteriorating due to increasingly stronger pressures. Moreover, as a desperate shift, he seems to attribute to international forces the responsibility for the future of the Canadian people.
Madam Speaker, I shall explain myself later on this matter, but I want to emphasize first of all that my remarks will be bearing the stamp of objectivity, while setting out as equitably as possible everything which appears to me to be abnormal or inconsistent in the measures proposed by the minister.
First of all, I intend to discuss the main points of the budget speech and, in particular, some of the minister's proposals. Later on, I shall discuss the international situation, to which the minister addresses the thrust of the current debate. I want to show that the picture he has drawn up is far from complete, and that the minister has failed to mention some extremely important factors.
As a whole, the present budget contains proposals which are sound basically. One might, at first glance, be tempted to endorse them. Still, those measures must be analyzed carefully, and criticized in the light of the imperatives dictated by the context in which we now live. Only on that condition can we really judge, in the final analysis, of the value of the budget.
With regard to the minister's proposals on personal income tax, I must say that they are sound generally, and I recognize that they are well founded. Madam Speaker, I even congratulate the minister in this regard. Still, I can reproach him one small thing: they come too late for us to hope for any marked beneficial effects.
As we know, Madam Speaker, when a sick person has urgent need of a doctor, the latter's arrival is beyond value. But when the patient is already dead, or when he has reached the point of no return, the doctor's arrival is really of very little importance. This is how the personal income tax measures strike me.
As the very moment when those measures are announced the benefits provided by them are already reduced by the increase in the cost of living and the inflation now facing this country.
The minister is perfectly right in also taking credit for reducing to 5 per cent the tax on building materials. We have been urging him to do just that for already a couple of years. Three or four years ago I was saying: let us do away completely with that tax to ensure a true respite in construction, but nothing was done. Now, after the situation has deteriorated, the minister accepts in part our proposal. That step will provide some help but a lot less effectively in the present context. Had it been adopted when we proposed it it would have its full effect today. Construction would have been a lot more active. That is a sector that affects a very large number of workers from the lumberjack, the trades, and others, without forgetting all the industries that participate in the construction industry.

November 21, 1974

On the one hand, there would have been less unemployment and, on the other, Canadians would have been better prepared financially to meet the inflationary increase that we had and have to meet. That would have been seeing ahead, and at the same time the government would have prevented the drop that now worries it about the number of housing starts. But it seems clearly to me now that those measures which would have been fine before are now quite secondary because they come too late.
Personal income tax reductions, the lowering of the sales tax on building materials, the $500 grant for a year by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to any new owner of a new house, all those measures and most of the others mentioned in the budget all have the same flaw in that they come too late. If those important steps had been taken earlier Canadians would have found themselves in a position where they could get out of it, as will do in the months to come our big oil and mining companies that the minister did everything to protect. The minister himself said in his budget that he had gone out to meet those big companies and examine the situation.
He then wanted to include in the budget some measures allowing big companies to buckle themselves against market conditions while, to use his own words, providing a fair return to their shareholders. If the minister is doing such a good thing in granting special measures to large corporations, so that they can make profits, would it not have been also advisable for him to give farmers, old people, low income citizens and rental housing builders, before inflation shaves their savings, a chance to lighten their tax burden before tonight or the budget speech, to help them keep afloat and provide their budget with a fair return?
Madam Speaker, as far as the aged are concerned, the minister proposed measures aimed, as he said, at protecting savings from the effects of inflation. At first glance, it seems an excellent and comprehensive measure. However, on closer examination, the picture changes completely. It might well be that the minister wants to protect savings and indeed that could help some people.
But such is not the real problem for most aged persons, but it is rather the need of a minimum vital income. This is not a true but rather a negative form of assistance. It is not bad, but it only affects the people who already enjoy some security. But the others, majority, those who have little more than the old age pension, what do they become? Indeed, in many cases, only one spouse old age security due to the age difference. The minister does not refer to them. It is very well to protect the savings of the aged, but who will protect those who are penniless? Such is the question. This is why we say that we can consider with derision those measures meant to help the elderly. There would be much to say about the matter, but I will come back to it later.
There is another point, Madam Speaker, which I must raise. Alone, it would justify a bitter objection against that budget and it is the fact that nowhere in the minister's speech reference is made to agriculture. This is most serious in my opinion. I am against it not only because I represent a strongly rural constituency, but also because I know full well that strong agricultural action was expect-
The Budget-Mr. Beaudoin
ed at this time by all Canadians that share a real awareness of the situation.
A number of countries around the world are hit by starvation. Our grain reserves are almost nonexistent. We face serious problems concerning our egg, poultry and beef producers. Our people leave their farms while population is growing. A growing number of farmers have to go bankrupt or leave their farms. They realize more than ever their production costs are not even covered by the price at which they sell their goods. And finally, if they sell their farms to others than their sons, in comes federal income tax that takes almost everything they get for their farms, animals machinery, chattels and what have you.
At the same time our gracious and smiling Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) proposes in this House a budget almost completely devoid of anything for our farmers, as if they were non-entities.
Some things are not clear to me. Consumers know that food prices now reach astronomical levels. Farmers know they cannot make ends meet and produce at normal costs. Finally, everyone knows from the budget speech that the Canadian government cares nothing about it.
On the other hand, the minister places much hope in international relations based on the goodwill of the countries to solve the current economic crisis. I am tempted to say to him, "Mr. Minister, you should take immediate steps to prevent your budget speech from being known to other countries." If he does not, he simply risks losing their confidence, and even being considered blind.
The minister says in his speech he has much hope on close international consultation. He even points to sharing with nations in trouble, and further states:
Do we not have an even greater duty to conserve food in a starving world?
And during all that time in his budget he does not say a word about the farmer. And in the same speech, there is not a word about agriculture which is slowly going down the drain in front of everybody's eyes. Where is the logic? Where do we find responsibility in that? I would even go so far as to say: Where is the goodwill so necessary to correct the world situation for those who are hungry, for those who are hungry even in our country?
Canada, through its Minister of Finance, has made certain commitments to help other countries, in the agricultural field for example, and at the same time we are letting our own agricultural situation deteriorate without making a move. How will that be considered by the nation's concerned? They will have proof positive that Canada is ready to promise them anything without ever intending to deliver. Won't that just be one more good old example in humanity's history where everybody talks while nothing is done to correct an already rotten situation.
Madam Speaker, I would now like to say a word about the international situation that the Minister of Finance considers of the utmost importance to correct a situation.
With the economic corridor the government and its Minister of Finance are now entering, and for months to come, the Canadian nation is being exposed to taking on the immediate colour that very short-term world events will give it. On the other hand, this turn of events on the international stage is very closely related to the world
28543-30%

November 21, 1974
The Budget-Mr. Condon
energy crisis and the minister indicates that the uncertainty he feels towards the future is linked to the burning and explosive question of oil.
But we may very shortly have, to take into account another factor, just as important as oil, if not more, and I would like the minister to pay attention to it, for I noticed he made no mention of it in his speech. If he did so on purpose, then he was simply confessing that he knows of no better solution. On the other hand, if he does not take it into account, we might have a whale of a surprise. I am talking about an element which possibly vouches for an even worse world situation than the oil conflict, I mean the raw materials rush.
The budget speech may be the most dramatic ever heard, not so much because of what it says, as because of some disputable points and the serious situation it hints at, and above all because it is an acknowledgment by our government of its inability to cope-even timidly-with our present difficulties. The objective outlined in it is simply to keep the country afloat and wait. Several of the suggested measures are worthwhile, but they have come too late to be successful. This is not a creative, dynamic budget which aims at initiating things, but rather a feedback budget. It is therefore an indication that the government is holding up any initiative, taking a defensive stand, and waiting for developments before it moves, and that it is relying to a considerable extent on positive changes in the world situation.
The government has already waited too long, in my opinion, to take national measures. It is waking up now, but it is too late. And the only possible solution, as we have seen, is a status quo budget which betrays a form of weakness, even if at first sight it may appear as a form of administrative flexibility.
What will now happen in Canada depends no longer on what we do according to the minister himself, but on whether or not the international situation changes for the better. But past experience as concerns the results achieved by international organizations makes us wonder what will happen. I do not wish to be an alarmist, but we must be realistic. The opening attitude of the minister, as the rest of his budget speech, shows that he no longer has any choice. All depends on the possibility of changes on an international or national level. He has little or no control over our future.
The control that we expected the minister to announce, the control of our economy, either has been forgotten or is beyond the minister's capacity. He feels that the government is unable to establish this control. The Speech from the Throne already gave indication of a strongly anticipated crisis because of the international economic situation, and the budget speech now confirms this.


Mr. J. Larry Condon (Middlesex-London-Lambton):: Madam Speaker, a great honour has been done me. I am speaking for the first time in parliament, and I have been asked to speak on the budget. To be honest, I am overwhelmed to see the tremendous crowds everywhere, to see all those members of parliament who are diligently paying attention, listening, and hanging on my every word.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Lawrence (Larry) Condon: Their attentiveness is the criterion of Canadian people in action. It is important for the people of this country to know just how diligently members of parliament work in the interests of those whom they represent. Frankly, I was surprised to note how much work members do. I do not think the people back in our constituencies realize just how hard members work, how many hours they put in when they are away from home. They can only know this if they come to Ottawa and perhaps follow a member around for one day.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Just during the daytime.


Joseph Lawrence (Larry) Condon: I am grateful for the way new members have been accepted in Ottawa. The attentiveness and helpfulness of staffs, including the staff of this House, cannot be praised too highly. All have been kind to the boy away from home in the big city.
We belong to a special club, and the honour of belonging to it is something no one can take away from us. Our children, grandchildren and even great grandchildren will cherish the knowledge that at one time we, of this House, had our names on the side of a desk in the House of Commons.
I said I come from a small town. I come from Strathroy, where I served as mayor for three terms. But I am not just a small town boy; I come also from that great city which returned three great members to this House, all of whom sit on my side; I come from Verdun, Quebec.
I am fortunate to be here, being the third Liberal member since confederation to be given the honour of representing the riding now known as Middlesex-London-Lambton. I follow in the footsteps of impressive men, Mr. Robert McCubbin and Mr. Jim Lind, who have set an example I shall try to follow in the next several years.
We must remember that the budget affects people. Too often we forget that the politician who is closest to the people is not the one at the federal or provincial level, but the one at the local level. I shall try to be as close to my people now that I am a member of parliament as I was when I was mayor of Strathroy.
The budget contains important provisions which will affect sewers and storm sewers. Of course one does not go around shouting how happy one is to see storm sewers. Nevertheless, they are important for the growth of Canada, important for the growth of towns, and important for housing developments. We need more houses. The federal government has said, through the medium of the budget, that it will make money available to municipalities and enable them to push ahead with sewer programs. I am sure municipalities will be grateful for this help, as it is difficult for municipalities to use their own financial resources and accumulate enough to pay for these services.
All this shows that the federal government is aware of municipal problems. Too often governments in the past have forgotten about them. I make this point as a former mayor of Strathroy who hopes to grow, through experience, into an effective member of parliament and representative of Middlesex-London-Lambton.
November 21, 1974

Before coming here I was concerned about municipal matters; now, as a member of parliament, I must consider the wider picture which affects all Canada. That is why I say that the budget affects all Canadians. It is not designed for separate groups. It is time Canadians forgot regionalism. If we want to grow into a respected world power under the leadership of our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), we must forget regionalism. I see some young people in the gallery; they know what I am talking about. They think of themselves first as Canadians, and they know the correctness of what I say more than some others in this chamber.
The budget, as I say, is for the benefit of all Canadians, including those who were not given the opportunities which you and I were given, Madam Speaker. We are obligated to help unfortunate people. If we do not, we shall not fulfil our obligations to those who are not as fortunate as ourselves. We must send food to the needy. Again, we are obligated to do this, not because we are Canadians, or politicians, but because we owe unfortunate people something-and because we have had it so damned good ourselves. This obligation, as I am sure the opposition will agree, is an ongoing one. So, let us get on with the job. Let us pass the budget, because we have work to do on behalf of the people of Canada.


Mr. Boulanger:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have listened very carefully to the remarks of the previous speaker and he stated that the constituency of Verdun has had three representatives from the government party. However, we must not forget that the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) has also been the representative of Verdun, and I would not want the hon. member to forget it as he was a Liberal at that time.


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to make a few comments this evening in relation to the budget, as well as to other matters occurring in the country which are of much concern to me. I think it would be fair to say that at this time the most obvious concern to me and all Canadians is the question of national unity. It is more than a coincidence that since this administration has been in power, unity within the country has been suffering in one way or another.
We started in 1968 with what appeared to be a tremendous strain on unity as a result of the method by which this administration was carrying out its bilingualism policies. It did so in a very insensitive way without concern for the various regions of the country.
Even though the intention may have been to increase unity, it in fact spread much disunity in the country. The record since that time has not improved. It has been very much the same. I can quite easily point out many examples where unity has been very much strained by this particular administration.
Let us take a look at government policies concerning relations between the federal and provincial governments, particularly relations between the federal government and some western provinces. I can be even more specific and say Alberta. About a year or so ago, when it appeared-
The Budget-Mr. Yewchuk


An hon. Member:: You should speak on the budget.


Paul Yewchuk: My friend has not been here very long. If he has, he has been sleeping most of the time. He is one of those Quebec members who sleep most of the time. If he had been awake, he would realize that during the budget debate the subjects can be very far ranging simply because the budget speech touches on almost every aspect of Canadian life. Therefore in the debate it is quite reasonable to touch on a number of subjects. I am sure Your Honour is aware of all this, but I say it for the edification of the hon. member who is new to the game and needs to be educated on procedure.
I want to deal with some of the other things that are creating disunity in this country. These factors of disunity are not occurring by accident. They are occurring by design. For example, a year ago the federal government decided to bring in an export tax on oil. We all know the result of that. There was a strain on the relations between Alberta and this government, simply because there was no consultation with that provincial government prior to that move being instituted.
There was then an allocations bill which tramped over provincial rights. It was conceived and put forward without any consultation with the provinces involved. We now have before the House the petroleum administration bill which does essentially the same. It tramps over provincial rights. It was conceived, produced and put forward without any significant consultation with the provinces involved.
During the recent election campaign there was a blatant and open attack on the province of Alberta by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald). He committed something like 17 per cent of Alberta's petroleum supply to a particular plant in Ontario without even so much as a telephone call to Alberta, the province which, under the constitution, is responsible for the development of these resources and, indeed, is the owner of them.
We can look at the relationship between the federal government and the maritime provinces insofar as provincial rights are concerned, with regard to offshore minerals. The same has happened there. In short, what we are seeing is a federal government that is involving itself in an open power struggle to take more and more authority unto itself.
We should look for the reasons why the government feels it must have all this authority.


An hon. Member:: They were elected by the people.


Paul Yewchuk: I do not think we can come up with a reasonable answer. I heard a comment from the member opposite, who seems to be still awake, that they were elected by the people. I ask him who he thinks elected the provincial governments? I ask him what is the meaning of the constitution? Why have a constitution which delineates quite clearly provincial authority and federal authority? Why do we have a federal government encroaching on areas which the constitution gives to the provinces? It

November 21, 1974
The Budget-Mr. Yewchuk
must be because the government is power hungry. It has a greed for power.
I am particularly concerned because this power struggle is being led by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I see him as a person who would have done very well as a dictator in the days of old when dictatorships were commonplace. They still are in some places, but they are not commonplace or acceptable in this country. That is something the federal administration fails to realize.
What we are seeing is the result of a failure on the part of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the government to achieve constitutional change through the accepted legal channels. In spite of repeated efforts over the past six years there has not been any success in changing the constitution through acceptable channels. Therefore, what we have is a slow but progressive change through the back door. It is a slow but progressive erosion, and invasion into areas which have traditionally been known to be provincial jurisdiction.
I am quite concerned about the technique that is being used in this power struggle, a technique of continuously provoking confrontation. It is rather interesting that last year about this time when we were faced with winter, an effort was made to provoke a confrontation between the province of Alberta and the federal government.
The federal government wanted to pit Alberta against the rest of the country. It tried to provoke Alberta into saying it would cut off oil for the rest of the country. The federal government could then run around the country saying it was the great saviour of the nation-"support us or you will freeze in the dark". That was the attitude the government took last fall and last winter. When spring rolled around the weather improved and there was not such a great hazard. The whole thing subsided. There was not much mention about it. We are now coming into another winter, and the whole thing is being started again through open and repeated provocation in the same manner as before.
If the intention is to provoke Alberta into shutting off supplies of energy I do not think it will succeed, because I believe Alberta is showing greater concern over the national interest than is the federal government. The result of the federal government's attitude is a widening sense of alienation in the west. Westerners are beginning to wonder what will come next-is the federal government planning to end the Crowsnest rates? Is it trying to punish the west for sending back so many Conservatives after the last election?


An hon. Member:: The same number.


Paul Yewchuk: There is a statement commonly made by federal Liberals after the election campaign of July 8. They say to westerners, "You will find out now what it is like to have no representation in the government". Then we find that a man from the other place, a Senator, has been appointed as spokesman for Alberta.


An hon. Member:: He is a member of parliament.


Paul Yewchuk: Yes, he is a member of parliament but he happens to be an appointed member, a former bagman for the Liberal party. He did a good job in that capacity, and maybe he can do a good job of advising the government on the feeling in Alberta. However, I think it is fair to say that elected members are in closer contact with their constituents, and therefore in a better position to give advice which would make the government sensitive to the needs of particular segments of our society. This is a correction which should be made forthwith.
Faced with the government's continuing efforts to alter the constitution by the back door rather than through legal means, Canadians are at a crossroads. They have to decide whether they really want this kind of constitutional change or not. In making such a decision they will have to make up their minds whether they believe the present administration, under the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and his colleagues, can do a better job of developing the Canadian petroleum industry than the provincial governments which have been entrusted with this task under the constitution. Can they be sure that if the constitution is changed, either by direct or by indirect methods, so as to give the federal government this power, the security of supply we have enjoyed in the past will continue, or that there will be a more effective development of our natural resources?
On the basis of the government's record I am not convinced that it can do a better job of developing these resources than we have seen so far. The result of the federal government's incursions into the energy field so far has simply been the slowing down of exploration and development.
Only this morning we saw a report in the national press concerning a report produced by the National Energy Board which predicts that within four to seven years Canada will no longer be self-sufficient in oil. Mr. Speaker, that is a very short period. Yet in the past year, as a result of federal intervention, we find that important sections of the oil industry are leaving the country and that exploration has been severely restricted.
The development of the tar sands is being retarded; there is a lack of interest because the oil industry is unable to make long term plans, due to the continuing vacillation of the administration in Ottawa. We should consider the possible long term consequences of this interference with the petroleum industry. It may well be we shall be dependent on oil from the Middle East, Venezuela or some other country. I do not think we should get ourselves into such a situation, particularly when we have the capacity to be self-sufficient.
I also wish to comment on the subject of multi-cultural-ism which has been my responsibility recently. Following the 1972 campaign we saw what appeared to be a genuine interest in this subject expressed by the federal government, to the point at which a minister was assigned to the portfolio and a budget was placed at his disposal. This was an occasion for hope among one third of Canada's population. At that period the administration held office only through the support of a shaky minority, and I believe it was more sensitive to the needs of Canadians than either the previous government or the government whose members sit on the treasury benches today.
November 21, 1974

In any case, between 1972 and 1974 some progress appeared to be made and ethnic groups began to believe there was some hope for their survival as identifiable groups. However, after the 1974 campaign one of the first actions to be taken was the removal from office of the minister responsible for this particular area, the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz). His post was obliterated as a separate entity.


Mr. Paproski:: The demise of the program. Shame!


Paul Yewchuk: Responsibility was transferred to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro)-the relationship is difficult to explain. The Prime Minister is now trying to convince us that the Minister of Labour is able to do more for multi-culturalism by devoting 5 per cent of his time to it than the hon. member for Parkdale was able to do by devoting his full time to it. I don't know whether the Prime Minister feels the Minister of Labour is a superman, or whether he has a low opinion of the ability of the hon. member for Parkdale. I hope it is not the latter.
I was quite concerned when the throne speech was read, and even more concerned when the budget speech was read, to find absolutely no mention of the subject of rr ulticulturalism or of any plans to change direction. What we heard was a reiteration that greater priority would be placed on bilingualism. I have no objection to that; I think bilingualism is fine. I am not saying that bilingualism and multiculturalism are not compatible. But I am saying that the failure of the government to make any mention of multiculturalism, while placing a lot of stress on other topics, might lead some Canadians to feel they are once again being suppressed.
I just want to make a few general comments about Canada's ethnic groups and on why we must ensure that we do not suppress multiculturalism. I think it is fair to say that a lot of people came to this country seeking freedom. Whether it be political freedom or economic freedom, generally this was the goal they were seeking; and I think it is also fair to say that these two freedoms were provided them in abundance.
Let me just examine what has happened to these people generally since they arrived in this country. I want to look at them as individuals. These people did well economically, they did well politically, but what happened to them socially? Hon. members can examine any group-Italians, Germans, Ukrainians, Poles. Some have had to change their names for one reason or another; they have changed their original name to an English name. Some of them changed their religion. Others became ashamed to speak their own language, and in some cases refused to acknowledge publicly the language group from which they came.
What does that mean to you, Mr. Speaker? I suggest it means they have experienced very much a lack of freedom in one area, namely, the area of social freedom. These people have been facing all kinds of prejudices in this country, prejudices against their name, their religion and their language. As a result they felt they could not survive or compete in this country unless they became Anglicized or Francophonized. The policies of the government have
The Budget-Mr. Anderson
been reinforcing this feeling. If we want to extend hope to these people-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret I must interrupt the hon. member. I have tried to allow him a little extra time to permit him to make his point, but I think he would need more than a few seconds.


Mr. Hugh A. Anderson (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker,
I am glad to see this budget back before the House again after a long wait since May. It is like the return of the prodigal child-very welcome. I congratulate the minister for the level headed approach that his budget takes toward Canada's economic situation in November of 1974.
Canada's economy is a sound economy. We have withstood the economic unrest that is sweeping the world better than many of our fellow members in the world community. For this reason I am glad to support a budget that pursues a reasonable path between the extremes of excessive government stimulation of the economy on the one hand, and creating a deliberate economic slowdown to combat inflation, on the other hand.
This is not a time for extreme measures but a time for sensible, stable, economic measures. I am equally glad that this is a budget which seeks to protect the most vulnerable of our citizens, those least able to bear the effects of world wide inflation, from erosion of their limited incomes by rising prices. While the amount of the tax cuts proposed in this budget for 1974 and 1975 may seem small to some members of the House, I can assure them that there are many people in the constituency of Comox-Alberni to whom that extra income in the pay envelope means a great deal.
The people of Comox-Alberni are not the wealthiest in Canada, by and large they are hard working folk who put in their shifts in mills and factories, in fishing boats or logging camps, in mines or on farms. They are the strong and enduring foundation of this country's economy, people who work hard for their pay. They do not want a strictly controlled economy. They want to earn their living, to earn enough to maintain a respectable standard of living, and to put by a little from each pay cheque towards their future.
I believe that the proposals contained in this budget will help the people of Comox-Alberni lead the kind of life they want to lead. The tax cuts will enable them to see more of the income they earn go toward providing them with the things that make up a good life. The proposed exemptions of $1,000 in income from their savings will make it that much easier for them to look ahead to the future for which they plan.
One of the problems the people of Comox-Alberni face, a problem faced most by young couples beginning their lives together, is the high cost of housing. For many the cost of purchasing a modest home in which to raise their families is prohibitive. That is why I am pleased to see the proposed reduction of the federal sales tax on building and construction materials. If there is such a thing as the Canadian dream, one of its most primary elements is the desire of each family to own its own home. Any steps taken by the government to help make this wish a reality will not be lightly dismissed. And to make sure that this reduction in the federal sales tax benefits those who most need it, I hope that the government through the proper

November 21, 1974
The Budget-Mr. Anderson
agency will ensure that the resulting reduction in the cost of housing is passed on to the consumer.
Comox-Alberni is an island riding, surrounded on three sides by straits and inlets of the Pacific Ocean. Communications and transportation in such a riding, separated as it is by 30 miles of water from the mainland, are of vital concern to its people. For that reason I welcome the budget's proposed elimination of the federal sales tax on transportation equipment. If the elimination of that tax results in lower shipping costs and resultant power prices of consumer goods, as I am sure the government intends, the people of Comox-Alberni will not take it amiss.
As an example, Mr. Speaker, let me describe to you the situation facing the city of Port Alberni, one of the three major centres of population in the northern half of Vancouver Island. Port Alberni is connected to the rest of Canada by one narrow strip of two lane blacktop. A city of nearly 25,000, Port Alberni must import almost every consumer item, from can openers to heavy machinery, by way of that road. And almost everything Port Alberni imports must come by truck along that single highway.
Port Alberni is one of many similar cases in Comox-Alberni constituency. Transportation and communications in such isolated areas as these, despite the fact that they are bustling, growing cities, are matters of great concern to the people who live there. In many of the smaller settlements, however, boat transportation is the only means of moving people and goods. Further 1o the proposed elimination of the sales tax on transportation equipment, I would urge upon the government similar measures for boats and ships where these craft are used as transporters of goods to areas unreachable by roads.
Recently it was reported in the press that people in the Mount Waddington region, the northern part of my constituency, wished to secede from Canada and unite with Alaska. The residents of that area felt that they were not enjoying the full benefits of being Canadians. To relieve the doubts of the people of northern Vancouver Island as to their welcome place among the rest of Canada, and in order to unite this country from coast to coast by one continuous highway, I would urge the government to extend the trans-Canada highway northwards from its present end in Nanaimo to the town of Port Hardy, and from there onwards to the west coast of Vancouver Island.
Not only would this extension of the highway restore the people of the Mount Waddington district to the Canadian fold, it would bring a better quality of life to the more isolated areas through an increased input of goods and materials, along with lower prices because of easier transportation processes. In the same vein, I w ould like to see in the near future the extension of the Canadian Pacific Railway lines northward from their present terminus in the city of Courtenay to the people of the northern end of Vancouver Island.
In villages like Port Alice and Port McNeill the recent announcement that television service will be extended to the people there in 1976 has been received with great happiness. We of the southern regions of Canada, surrounded by the technological wonders of the urban centres, cannot, I believe, truly understand how much a seem-

ingly small thing as television reception can mean to those who are denied it by virtue of their isolation from the mainstream of the country.
Being able to announce that television service would soon be a reality in the northern end of Vancouver Island has been one of the most enjoyable acts I have performed in my short time as a new member of this House. I know that, for those people up there, to be able to sit down and watch the Grey Cup or the Stanley Cup playoffs is not something they take for granted.
Still on the subject of transportation, I would urge the government to examine closely the prospect of improving and developing small craft harbours along the coastline that borders three quarters of the constituency of Comox-Alberni. To many of the people in that riding, boats must take the place of automobiles as the primary means of transportation. To people who must rely on boats to make the weekly shopping trip, to visit a neighbour, even to bus their children to school, proper and well maintained wharves and harbours are as necessary as roads and parking lots are to mainland residents.
Vancouver Island is ready to grow. It has the resources; it has the people; it has the Pacific Ocean, with all the markets of the Pacific Rim, at its doorstep. What Vancouver Island needs is better transportation facilities, in the areas I have outlined, and the establishment of deep sea ports to handle the trade in natural resources that could be emanating from Canada's most westerly territory. The excellent natural harbour in the city of Campbell River, for example, could become an outlet on the Pacific that would help keep Canada's exports steadily on the increase.
Another matter of primary importance to Comox-Alberni is the maintenance of a strong and viable fishing industry on the west coast. Such policies as the establishment of a territorial limit of 200 miles, or to the edge of the continental shelf, can have a real and profound effect on the future of that industry. I would urge the government to pursue strongly this policy of extending Canada's territorial limit, taking into consideration traditional fishing rights of our neighbours, to protect our fishermen from encroachment on their waters.
Another matter which I would very much like to see the government become involved in is the question of establishing a strong coastguard presence on the west coast. If, as is government policy, we are to have the 200-mile limit, the Canadian presence in our territorial waters must be augmented so that our claim to these waters is not just theory but fact.
Additionally, a well established coastguard force, with bases all along the British Columbia coast, would raise the level of protection we can offer to men on the water. A fast, efficient search and rescue capability would seem sufficient reason for creating a coastguard, without taking into account the IR duties in fisheries patrol and customs law enforcement. Another advantage to having a coastguard service on the west coast would be to raise the general level of competence in navigation and seamanship among the men who make their living from the sea. When, as would most likely be the case, members of the coast guard leave the service to work in the fishing industry,
November 21, 1974

their knowledge and experience would serve to make it a safer and more professional enterprise than ever.
I would like to turn to the subject of national defence, a subject that has been commented on in relation to the budget, both here in this House and in the media. From 1956 to 1962 I was proud to wear the uniform of the Royal Canadian Air Force. I was proud to have been adjudged worthy to serve Canada as a member of its armed forces. I am still proud today of having had that distinction.
I urge the government to ensure that those men and women who wear the uniform of the Canadian armed forces today can continue to share my pride. I ask that those people who are willing to lay down their lives for this nation receive the consideration they most assuredly deserve. Let their equipment be the best we can give them, and let their pay be equal to the task we ask of them. The Bible reminds us that the labourer is worthy of his hire; the soldier is no less worthy.
The armed forces of Canada have a reputation all across the world as powerful fighting troops and efficient peacekeepers. I believe that these two roles, so seemingly in contradiction and yet related to each other like two arms of one body, have brought the Canadian armed forces the respect and admiration not only of the military establishments of other nations, but of foreign civilian populations as well. Few nations have matched Canada's forces' reputation both in the field and in the buffer zones, a reputation which I count as a privilege to uphold. I urge the government to give present and future members of our armed forces the opportunity to live up to that reputation.
One other matter I would like to put before this House is a question that concerns not only the people of Comox-Alberni, but all women across Canada. I am referring to the plight of women who through divorce, separation, or widowhood are left with the responsibilities of supporting and caring for a family all by themselves. For many women in this unhappy situation the only course open to them is to rely on social assistance for the support of their families. For many, the cost of day care facilities for their children takes too large a bite out of their incomes, so that they would actually be financially better off on welfare than out earning a living with their skills.
I think it a tragedy that women who want to work, perhaps at jobs that they find worthwhile and fulfilling, must leave the work force in order to give their children a decent standard of living. I ask the government to consider a complete tax exemption for women in these circumstances who are earning a moderate income. Although this measure would admittedly reduce government revenues by some lost taxes, I am certain that the loss would be more than equally offset by the reduction in the cost of maintaining these women and their children through social assistance. Such a measure would also reduce the numbers of the unemployed as well as provide the social benefit of putting skilled people, who want to work, back into the labour force.
I would like to go on record that as a western member I am in agreement with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) on his position regarding royalties. It is my sincere opinion that in the province of British Columbia the mining royalties will drive the mining industry out of the province. Already exploration has drastically declined and
The Budget-Mr. McCleave
speculative capital for mining investment has left the province for healthier climates.
The present government of British Columbia can only be called a disaster looking for a catastrophe to happen. It is hard for members of parliament who come from provinces which, I assume, have sane governments, to realize the insanity taking place in la plus belle province.


Prosper Boulanger: Listen to a true Canadian speaking.


Hugh Alan Anderson: I must apologize for my lack of French. However, in my constituency of Comox-Alberni my constituents have told me that first I should learn to speak English before I learn how to speak French.
B.C. is a part of Canada, although at times it is hard to determine.


Some hon. Members:: Explain!


Hugh Alan Anderson: Personally I pledge my support for the federal concept which, I believe, is ultimately in the best interest of western Canada and of B.C. in particular.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thought the name of the province was British Columbia.


Hugh Alan Anderson: In closing, Mr. Speaker, allow me to say again that I congratulate the Minister of Finance on the sensible approach he is taking toward resolving Canada's economic problems in the light of worldwide inflation. I believe that the course the government is pursuing to combat inflation and prevent an economic slump will spare Canada further economic unrest, while at the same time allowing this country to progress to heights that not even we as members of parliament can imagine in our wildest dreams, and this includes of course the province of Alberta.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, it is probably appropriate that I have only ten minutes in which to make my speech since part of my argument tonight, later on when I deal with the matter of the reform of parliamentary procedures, is to suggest that the House limit itself to ten minute speeches henceforth. I only hope, Sir, that time will permit me to get to that part of my argument, because now I have other things to say.
The first thing I would like to note, out of deference to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) who is here this evening, and who has been here to listen to participants in the debate on his budget, is that I will say something about it, although not very much. I think it was an attempt by the minister to adjust to the pressures of inflation by easing the burden on some who suffer from inflation. With the exception perhaps of measures such as the partial removal of the sales tax on construction materials, I do not think that there were many measures in the budget that dealt with the root causes of inflation or tried to take some strong corrective measures.
I think also that it is pretty horrifying when we have two such budget presentations in the year, and suddenly figures that the minister forecasts are seven or eight

November 21, 1974
The Budget-Mr. McCleave
figures apart from the same forecast made a few months earlier. If that does not indicate how deeply the fangs of inflation are biting, then nothing else does.
I am a native of Moncton, New Brunswick, and one of the proud things that happened to that city this summer was when a group of young singers-an Acadian group- went to the United Kingdom and, in competition with some of the great choirs from all over the world, gained not one prize but four international prizes.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Jardine McCleave: I think that is an event that is worthy of being put on the record in the House. It is one of the things that make me proud of having been born in Moncton.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I can deal with many things here this evening. I am a philosophical fellow. When I come here in the morning and look down the corridor, and see that the other place has a different floor wax than the one that is used here, I am inclined to ask whether there could not be some saving in combining the services in this House and the other place. God knows, sir, what battles are fought in the middle of the night, jurisdictional battles by the ladies armed with wax mops, as to who draws the other place's wax line and who does the waxing for this part of the building. Anyway, there is room for savings here and I hope both Mr. Speaker and Madam Speaker of the other place can get together and perhaps work out some joint services.
During the election campaign something different happened to me, something that was a challenge. I asked the deaf community in Halifax and East Hants to attend one of my political rallies. It is quite something to stand up and try to tell a joke, as perfectly as I tell them, and to have it translated by a person through sign language with her hands. Yet these people enjoyed being brought into the political swim. If any member in his or her next campaign wants to have a different type of experience, and a satisfying one, just ask the deaf community to attend meetings and they will find there is a great deal of enjoyment in it.
I would like to make one plea for people who are disabled in this way. I would like to see every deaf person have the right to a special machine that can be attached to the telephone. I think its cost is $200 or less. It lights up to indicate that someone is trying to contact that person. There is also a special typing apparatus that is able to transmit messages back and forth. I think that is a small amount of money for a very substantial help to disadvantaged citizens.
Later on in the session I will be dealing with some of the local issues, but now my time is running out and I would like to turn to some of the affairs as they concern the Chair of the House of Commons. I would ask you, Sir, to compliment Mr. Speaker on his selection. On election night, given the realities as they existed in the province of Ontario, I turned to my wife and said: "I bet that when parliament opens, the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Jerome) will be the Speaker of the House of Commons." This was long before Margaret had told Pierre, or anything like that. I think that the hon. member will do a tremendous job for us here.

Sir, I already complimented you because I held your position once and I know the dangers of being deputy speaker. There are more dangers in being deputy speaker than there are in being Speaker, and perhaps, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will allow me to tell the rest of the members what those dangers are. Consider the following: in 1957, the deputy speaker, a Mr. Robinson, was defeated in his attempt for re-election. The next deputy speaker was Mr. Courtemanche, and where is he today? The next one was Mr. Sevigny, followed by Jacques Flynn, now opposition leader in the Senate, followed by Mr. Paul Martineau and then Gordon C. Chown. All those gentleman were defeated.
Then comes the honourable exception to this litany of gloom, Mr. Lucien Lamoureux, who was deputy speaker from 1963 to 1965, and who defied the curse upon deputy speakers. But then behold Mr. Batten. The next one, the present Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) had sense enough to escape while escape was still good, and went into the ministry after a decent interval between deputy speaker and being a parliamentary secretary. Then came Mr. Honey, my immediate predecessor, now Judge Honey.
So now it behooves a person who walked down this death valley, like myself, and came through, to become a backbencher. But it was not easy, and a legitimate question was raised in the campaign: why vote for somebody who is not apt to be able to speak in the House of Commons? This has mixed blessings. He may get another position of greater worth, and so they would get some satisfaction that way.
I did not like to tell them what I thought was likely to happen, that I would be a backbencher after the election was over. I was caught between the devil and the deep blue sea.
The problem is that no great minds such as those of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) concentrated on the problem of the Deputy Speaker-that his hands are literally tied once he takes the chair.
In this House the practice has been to keep the Speaker in that position or, when he decides to go, to give him some recognition. But you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are in a different category entirely. You suffer the handicap I did, that of not being able to participate in debate, and to a lesser extent your assistants suffer the same disability. The only way I can see to overcome this is to take some new step for the Deputy Speaker and his assistants, such as setting aside time in which they could make short speeches-I presume they would be of a non-partisan nature. In that way their constituents would feel that their concerns were being looked after in parliament. That is the only solution I can see for yourself and others, before you who take that march down Death Valley that I had to come through in my time.
There is another matter which is personal. On the defeat of the government on the vote last spring, at that moment the rights and privileges, pay and allowances of Deputy Speakers ceased. I am not making a plea for myself but for you, Sir. You have headed the Canadian delegation to Cuba and you are undoubtedly finding now that you have
November 21, 1974

to carry out a quasi-diploma tic function. You are receiving visitors from abroad.
I led a delegation to South Korea, and the business of that delegation did not end the night the government was defeated. I had to come back to Ottawa to complete the work. It was a labour of love, but it was not paid labour. I think the supposition that the Deputy Speaker's duties end when a session of parliament ends should be examined with a view to making redress. I do not ask it for myself, and I would refuse it if it were offered, but I ask it in light of your particular circumstances.
There is much more I could say, Mr. Speaker. I never did get around to talking about the ten minute speech as the cornerstone of parliamentary debate, but perhaps I will have an opportunity to do so later in the session.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure hon. members will allow me to say how thankful I am to the hon. member for his remarks.
It being 9.45 p.m. it is my duty, pursuant to section 6 of Standing Order 60>
to interrupt these proceedings and forthwith put the question on the subamendment now before the House.
All those in favour of the amendment to the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it. And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the subamendment defeated.
Amendment (Mr. Nystrom) negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: It being after ten o'clock, this House stands adjourned until 11 a.m. tomorrow, according to Standing Order.
At 10.15 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Friday, November 22, 1974