1974-10-15

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, as agreed in the House on Friday, I am pleased to table, in English and in French, a message from the chief of the defence staff, General Dextraze, to the Canadian armed forces, dated September 1974.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Speaker:: May I refer to the practice which has been followed with regard to the introduction and first reading of private members' public bills. On today's order paper there are listed some 158 bills standing in the names of various hon. members. It was neither practical nor possible for the Chair to review the provisions of each of these bills. May I therefore suggest to the House that we adopt the procedure agreed upon in the past several sessions, namely that we proceed to the introduction and first reading of those bills so that each may be scrutinized between now and its being called for second reading in order to allow the Chair to consider whether there is any defect in the bills in respect of the practices and usages of the House.
I suggest that by unanimous consent all public bills listed in the names of private members for introduction on today's order paper be deemed to have been introduced, given first reading and ordered to be printed, and to stand for second reading at the next sitting of the House, subject of course to a subsequent examination as to the regularity of each bill. Is the procedure to which I have referred agreed to by the House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


PRIVATE MEMBERS PUBLIC BILLS
[Stage Direction]
Bill C-201, to amend the Bank of Canada Act-Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue).
Bill C-202, to amend the Canada Pension Plan (housewives' contributions and benefits)-Mr. Saltsman.
Bill C-203, to amend the Criminal Code (loan sharking)-Mr. Robinson.
Bill C-204, to establish the Office of Ombudsman-Mr. Reid.
Bill C-205, to amend the British North America Act, 1867 (abolition of the Senate)-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).
Bill C-206, to amend the Inquiries Act (publications of reports)-Mr. Alexander.
Bill C-207, to amend the British North America Act, 1867 (tenure of place of Senators)-Mr. McKinnon.
Bill C-208, respecting Heritage Day-Mr. MacGuigan.
Bill C-209, to amend the Canadian Citizenship Act (minimum residence requirement)-Mr. Prud'homme.
Bill C-210, to provide for the protection of domestic animals while in transit-Mr. O'Sullivan.
Bill C-211, to amend the Broadcasting Act (advertising on children's programs)-Mr. McGrath.
Bill C-212, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971-Mr. Oberle.
Bill C-213, to amend the Canada Elections Act (publication of the result of opinion polls)-Mr. Coates.
Bill C-214, to amend the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act-Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West).
Bill C-215, respecting the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act-Mr. Fleming.
Bill C-216, respecting Crown corporations (not agents of Her Majesty)-Mr. Fortin.
Bill C-217, to amend the National Trade Mark and True Labelling Act (octane rating of gasoline)-Mr. Francis.
Bill C-218, to provide for the establishment of an Indian-Eskimo Employment Authority-Mr. Watson.
Bill C-219, to amend the Criminal Code (abortion)-Mr. Beatty.
Bill C-220, to amend the Criminal Records Act-Mr. Rynard.
Bill C-221, respecting National Youth Appreciation Week-Mr. Reynolds.
Bill C-222, to amend the Canada Elections Act (prisoners enfranchised)-Mr. MacDonald (Egmont).
[Stage Direction]
October 15, 1974
Public Bills
Bill C-223, to amend the Criminal Code (domestic and foreign flags)-Mr. Hopkins.
Bill C-224, to amend the British North America Act, 1867 (National Capital of Canada)-Mr. Isabelle.
Bill C-225, respecting the right of the public to information concerning the public business-Mr. Baldwin.
Bill C-226, to provide for the constitution of a Federal Transport Commission of Inquiry (impartial investigation of transport accidents)-Mr. Forrestall.
Bill C-227, to amend the National Housing Act-Mr. Carter.
Bill C-228, respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act-Mr. Douglas (Bruce).
Bill C-229, respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act-Mr. Lachance.
Bill C-230, to amend the Criminal Code (obscene broadcasting)-Mr. Towers.
Bill C-231, to amend the Holidays Act-Mr. Herbert.
Bill C-232, to amend the Canada Elections Act (proxy voting)-Mr. Horner.
Bill C-233, to amend the Canada Evidence Act (incriminating statements)-Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-234, to amend the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1965 (Yukon and Northwest Territories Senate Representation)-Mr. Nielsen.
Bill C-235, to amend the Old Age Security Act-Mr. Whittaker.
Bill C-236, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act- Mr. Rodriguez.
Bill C-237, to amend the Canada Labour Code (fair employment practices)-Miss Nicholson.
Bill C-238, to amend the Identification of Criminals Act-Mr. Blais.
Bill C-239, to amend the Supreme Court Act (private citizen's reference)-Mr. MacKay.
Bill C-240, respecting Sir John A. Macdonald Day-Mr. Macquarrie.
Bill C-241, to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals)-Mr. Robinson.
Bill C-242, respecting relief to non-smokers in transit- Mr. Robinson.
Bill C-243, to amend the Canada Pension Plan-Mr. Saltsman.
Bill C-244, to amend the Interest Act-Mr. Robinson.
Bill C-245, to amend the Criminal Code (cautionary label on alcoholic beverages container)-Mr. Robinson.
Bill C-246, to amend the Criminal Code (tire safety)- Mr. Robinson.
Bill C-247, respecting noise in factories-Mr. Robinson.
Bill C-248, respecting the control of lobbying-Mr. Robinson.
Bill C-249, to amend the Canada Labour Code (provision for ten general holidays with pay)-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).
[Mr. Speaker.)
Bill C-250, respecting the designation of the Speaker of the House of Commons as the Member for the Electoral District of Parliament Hill-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).
Bill C-251, to amend the Department of the Environment Act (fisheries)-Mr. McGrath.
Bill C-252, to establish a universal emergency telephone number-Mr. Robinson.
Bill C-253, to provide for the establishment of a Canada Sea Coasts Conservation Authority-Mr. Watson.
Bill C-254, respecting the control of lobbying-Mr. Reynolds.
Bill C-255, to establish a universal emergency telephone number-Mr. Reynolds.
Bill C-256, to amend the Canada Labour Code (increased minimum hourly wage)-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).
Bill C-257, to amend the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1965, with respect to the quorum of the House of Commons-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).
Bill C-258, to amend the Narcotic Control Act-Mr. Reynolds.
Bill C-259, to provide for a national plebiscite on the removal of the abortion provisions from the Criminal Code of Canada-Mr. Reynolds.
Bill C-260, to amend the Canadian Citizenship Act (child born to a Canadian citizen residing outside of Canada)-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).
Bill C-261, to amend the British North America Act, 1867 (appointment of Senators)-Mr. McKinnon.
Bill C-262, respecting the labelling of hazardous household products-Mr. Robinson.
Bill C-263, respecting packaged perishable food-Mr. Robinson.
Bill C-264, to provide for the establishment of the Alas-ka-Yukon Highway Authority (Alaska Highway)-Mr. Oberle.
Bill C-265, to amend the Canada Pension Plan-Mr. Coates.
Bill C-266, to amend the Old Age Security Act-Mr. Reynolds.
Bill C-267, respecting employment with the Government of Canada not covered by the Public Service Employment Act-Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-268, to amend the Department of Justice Act (annual report)-Mr. Fortin.
Bill C-269, respecting a proposed association between Canada and the Caribbean Turks and Caicos Islands-Mr. Saltsman.
Bill C-270, respecting packaged perishable food-Mr. Reynolds.
Bill C-271, to amend the Criminal Records Act-Mr. Robinson.
Bill C-272, to provide for the establishment of a Canada-Alaska and Maine Corridors Authority-Mr. Watson.
October 15, 1974
[Stage Direction]
Bill C-273, to amend the Department of Manpower and Immigration Act (handicapped persons)-Mr. Reynolds.
Bill C-274, to amend the Public Service Employment Act (age discrimination)-Mr. Forrestall.
Bill C-275, to amend the Canadian Citizenship Act-Mr. Andre (Calgary Centre).
Bill C-276, to amend the Canada Advertising Council- Mr. Francis.	*
Bill C-277, to provide for the prohibition of the killing of polar bears in Canada-Mr. Reynolds.
Bill C-278, to amend the Veterans' Land Act-Mr. Marshall.
Bill C-279, to amend the Canada Elections Act (permanent voters list)-Mr. Reynolds.
Bill C-280, to amend the Canada Labour Code-Mr. Herbert.
Bill C-281, to amend the Bank Act (regulation of excess of loan interest rate over rate of interest on debts payable by bank)-Mr. Saltsman.
Bill C-282, to amend the British North America Act, 1867 (tenure of Senators)-Mr. Herbert.
Bill C-283, to amend the Canadian Citizenship Act (minimum residence requirement)-Mr. Benjamin.
Bill C-284, respecting the continental shelf-Mr. McGrath.
Bill C-285, to amend the Criminal Records Act-Mr. Reynolds.
Bill C-286, respecting trafficking in exotic pets-Mr. Watson.
Bill C-287, to amend the Canada Elections Act-Mr. O'Sullivan.
Bill C-288, to amend the Railway Act (half-fare railway tickets for senior citizens)-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).
Bill C-289, to amend the National Energy Board Act- Mr. Andre (Calgary Centre).
Bill C-290, to amend the Canada Elections Act (permanent voters list)-Mr. Fleming.
Bill C-291, to amend the Broadcasting Act-Mr. McKenzie.
Bill C-292, to amend the Canada Elections Act (advance poll for the handicapped)-Mr. Fleming.
Bill C-293, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act- Mr. Robinson.
Bill C-294, to amend the Indian Act (voting age)-Mr. Foster.
Bill C-295, to amend the Canada Labour Code (age or sex discrimination)-Mr. Forrestall.
Bill C-296, to amend the British North America Act-Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue).
Bill C-297, respecting National Hire the Handicapped Week-Mr. Reynolds.
Bill C-298, to amend the Broadcasting Act (equal time to opposition parties)-Mr. Orlikow.
Public Bills
Bill C-299, respecting increased representation for the Northwest Territories-Mr. Firth.
Bill C-300, to amend the Public Service Employment Act-Mr. Francis.
Bill C-301, respecting National Hire the Handicapped Week-Mr. Holmes.
Bill C-302, respecting the presence of the Flags of Canada in both Houses of Parliament-Mr. Schumacher.
Bill C-303, to amend the Immigration Act-Mr. Benjamin.
Bill C-304, to amend the Canada Elections Act-Mr. O'Connell.
Bill C-305, respecting disclosure of credit rating records-Mr. McGrath.
Bill C-306, to amend the Department of Manpower and Immigration Act (handicapped persons)-Mr. Holmes.
Bill C-307, to amend the Canada Elections Act (leave of absence)-Mr. Reynolds.
Bill C-308, to amend the Canada Labour Code-Mr. Oberle.
Bill C-309, to amend the Immigration Act-Mr. Herbert.
Bill C-310, to amend the Canadian Citizenship Act-Mr. Robinson.
Bill C-311, to amend the Canadian Citizenship Act (time off without loss of pay for appearance in Citizenship Court)-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).
Bill C-312, to amend the Railway Act-Mr. Schumacher.
Bill C-313, to amend the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act-Mr. Francis.
Bill C-314, to amend the Broadcasting Act-Mr. Francis.
Bill C-315, to amend the Prisons and Reformatories Act-Mr. Dick.
Bill C-316, to amend the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act (rules)-Mr. Reid.
Bill C-317, to amend the Canadian Citizenship Act (application of equal residence requirement to alien spouses of Canadian citizens)-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).
Bill C-318, to amend the Criminal Code (preventive detention)-Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-319, to amend the Canadian Citizenship Act-Mr. Benjamin.
Bill C-320, to amend the Holidays Act-Mr. Reynolds.
Bill C-321, to provide for a national plebiscite on the abolition of capital punishment-Mr. Reynolds.
Bill C-322, respecting the international airport at Ottawa-Mr. Isabelle.
Bill C-323, to amend the Harbour Commissions Act-Mr. Reynolds
Bill C-324, respecting the disclosure of financial interests by Senators, Members of the House of Commons and certain other persons-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).
Bill C-325, to amend the Pension Benefits Standards Act-Mr. Guay (St. Boniface).
[Stage Direction]
October 15, 1974
Public Bills
Bill C-326, to amend the Public Service Employment Act (discrimination as to age or physical handicap or health)-Mr. Herbert.
Bill C-327, to amend the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act-Mr. Baldwin.
Bill C-328, to provide for emergency measures to deal with the inflation of prices-Mr. Caouette (Temis-camingue).
Bill C-329, to provide for the establishment of the Office of Archeological Curator for Canada-Mr. Watson.
Bill C-330, to amend the Criminal Code-Mr. Woolliams.
Bill C-331, to provide for a National Emblem for Canada-Mr. Darling.
Bill C-332, to establish the Office of Parliamentary Commissioner-Mr. Reynolds.
Bill C-333, respecting subliminal and similar advertising techniques-Mr. Francis.
Bill C-334, to amend the Criminal Code (young offenders)-Mr. Woolliams.
Bill C-335, proclaiming the Canadian Flag Day a national holiday-Mr. Haidasz.
Bill C-336, to amend the Canada Elections Act (mobile polling stations)-Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich).
Bill C-337, to amend the Criminal Code (penalty for cattle rustling)-Mr. Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo).
Bill C-338, to amend the Criminal Code (abortion)-Mr. Robinson.
Bill C-339, to amend the House of Commons Act (Internal Economy Autonomy)-Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West).
Bill C-340, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971-Mr. Rodriguez.
Bill C-341, to provide for the establishment of an authority to conserve for public use all abandoned railway lines in Canada-Mr. Watson.
Bill C-342, to establish a Newfoundland Crossing Authority-Mr. Marshall.
Bill C-343, to amend the Canada Labour Code (three weeks annual vacation)-Mr. Herbert.
Bill C-344, to amend the Canadian Citizenship Act-Mr. Jarvis.
Bill C-345, to regulate Trade and Commerce-Mr. Saltsman.
Bill C-346, to amend the Criminal Code (laundering of funds)-Mr. Saltsman.
Bill C-347, to amend the Immigration Act (mental retardation)-Mr. Reynolds.
Bill C-348, to extend the Western terminus of the Trans-Canada Highway-Mr. Anderson.
Bill C-349, to amend the Bail Reform Act-Mr. O'Connell.
Bill C-350, to amend the Canada Labour Code (three weeks annual vacation after three years)-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).
Bill C-351, to amend the Criminal Code-Mr. Ellis.

Bill C-352, to amend the National Housing Act-Mr. Fleming.
Bill C-353, to amend the Broadcasting Act (review of policy decision of C.R.T.C. by Governor in Council)-Mr. Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo).
Bill C-354, to amend the Canada Labour Code (discrimination as to age or physical handicap or health)-Mr. Herbert.
Bill C-355, respecting the sale of firecrackers to minors-Mr. McGrath.
Bill C-356, to provide for the establishment of the Office of Parliament Hill Curator-Mr. Watson.
Bill C-357, to amend the Public Service Staff Relations Act-Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-358, to amend the Canadian Citizenship Act-Mr. Fairweather.

Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-26, to amend the Civil Service Insurance Act.


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

Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave under the provisions of Standing Order 26 to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely the continuing transfer of production from the United Aircraft Corporation in Lon-gueuil, Quebec, to the United States, such continuing action putting into jeopardy all future production in Lon-gueuil and the wasting, therefore of over $70 million of federal grants to that corporation.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member was good enough to give the Chair the notice required by the rule two hours prior to the beginning of this morning's session. This has given the Chair the opportunity to consider whether the proposed motion comes within the provisions of Standing Order 26.
There can be no doubt, of course, of the importance of the subject matter of the motion. However, in addition to its urgency and importance hon. members will know that
October 15, 1974

sub-section (5) of Standing Order 26 requires-perhaps it might be worthwhile to quote it as follows:
In determining whether a matter should have urgent consideration, Mr. Speaker shall have regard to the extent to which it concerns the administrative responsibilities of the government or could come within the scope of ministerial action-
The sub-section goes on to state, and I think these are the important words:
-he also shall have regard to the probability of the matter being brought before the House within reasonable time by other means.
In view of that language it has become a rather strong practice of the House-and specific reference has been made to this in the past-that only under the most exceptional circumstances should a motion be allowed under Standing Order 26 during the currency of the Throne Speech debate because of the ample opportunity provided during that debate for hon. members or other hon. members of their party to raise subjects of special importance in whatever manner they see fit. Accordingly, I might refer to earlier references, one of January 11, 1956 in which the subject of cash advances on farm stored grain was raised and reported in Hansard of that day. This was a motion under Standing Order 26 in which the Speaker of the day made the following comment:
In my experience it has never happened in the House that while the Speech from the Throne was being currently debated a motion for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance under the new Standing Order 26 was agreed to.
The subject was similarly discussed on February 18, 1972 by the previous Speaker. Without going into the details I would simply give members that reference so that they might look at it. In this situation, the fact that the Throne Speech debate has two more days to run and the fact that although this subject is of a continuing nature and the problem has gone on for some time in the past, would lead me to the conclusion that the remaining days in the address should provide an opportunity to bring the matter to the attention of the government, in addition to which of course there will be available soon opposition days. There is, of course, the availability of today or tomorrow for the hon. member or other hon. members to raise the matter again.
As I say it is a matter of extreme importance. However, under the circumstances I feel the final words in subsection (5) of Standing Order 26 would make it impossible for the Chair to give the hon. member the right to proceed at this time.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime
Oral Questions
Minister with regard to his visit to Brussels and the Europe Economic Community. I wish to ask him whether there is any change to be proposed in the relationship between Canada and the European Economic Community, and whether he will be presenting any set of specific proposals with regard to the trading and commercial relationships between Canada and the community.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is known that the Canadian government has made proposals to the community. They are in the form of an aide-memoire, a proposed type of trade agreement between the community and Canada. Discussions have been going on for many months now. I believe the proposal was made earlier in the year, in February if my memory is correct or perhaps even before that, discussions were proceeding.
The present attitude of the government is to try to keep in balance our desire to enter into relations with the community as a whole but also to keep advancing our bilateral relations with various member countries of the community.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it the intention of the Prime Minister while he is in Brussels to discuss with the European Economic Community and its representatives any methods of aiding the developing countries in their present crisis which was underlined by the head of the World Bank, for example? Does the Prime Minister intend to take up with the European Economic Community any common approach to this problem that is creating such a crisis in the world?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In my bilateral discussions which I will have, and already have had, with the heads of state this is always a subject matter which I insist upon being on the agenda. I have not yet seen the final agenda with the community itself. I would think it most likely that since I would be discussing it bilaterally that I would also discuss this matter with the community itself.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, is the Prime Minister making specific proposals or simply having a discussion about this subject?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the specific proposals vary with the subjects. There is of course, as the Leader of the Opposition knows, going forward under the Group of Twenty, headed by the Canadian Minister of Finance, an attempt to work out some mechanism of recycling of funds which are accumulated as a result of the petroleum crisis. We are looking at possible proposals in the area of food which might be made at the World Food Conference. There is no specific proposal that I can put before the House at this time.


EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY-PURPOSE OF VISIT BY PRIME MINISTER
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. He will learn when he gets to Brussels that any chances that Canada once may have had for obtaining special consideration from the European Economic Community have been

October 15, 1974
Oral Questions
dissipated because of his government's attitude toward NATO which is largely made up of the same countries. Is the purpose of his visit not really a public relations exercise to try to divert attention away from the economic problems which the government is facing at home and unable to solve?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Do I understand the hon. member to suggest that I should not make this trip to the Community?


George Harris Hees: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not suggesting that at all. I have suggested for the past two years that the Prime Minister should try to repair the perhaps irreparable damage which his government did with NATO in 1968.


INDUSTRY
John Edward Broadbent: I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that the federal government has provided anywhere from $70 million to $130 million in various forms of assistance to United Aircraft in the last decade, could the minister inform the House whether his department was aware of the work being transferred from Longueuil to the United States during the past nine months by that company and, if so, could he also tell the House if such a transfer violated any agreements with the federal government and tell the House what the government intends?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had followed these events as closely as did the hon. member for Longueuil, he would have known that' the situation had developed last May. Last May he asked me a question in the House and at that time I told him that, yes, I was aware that on a temporary basis certain work had been transferred to the U.S. suppliers, and secondly, that I had obtained assurances from the company that the work would be repatriated to Canada as soon as the strike was over.


UNITED AIRCRAFT-CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS IN RELATION TO WORK DONE IN UNITED STATES
John Edward Broadbent: In view of the fact that the company had transferred roughly 40 per cent of its work to the U.S. plant and planned to transfer some 35 per cent of next year's scheduled production, which seems to me to indicate that they really do not anticipate settling this strike, I ask the minister in all seriousness whether, in the event that the company really plans to shut down its Longueuil operation, do the contractual arrangements made by the government with the company make it possible for the production of that engine, which was developed in a highly successful way in Canada, to take place in the United States independently of the will of the government of Canada?


Alastair William Gillespie: I indicated last week in answer to a question from the hon. member that I hoped to be able to make a further statement to the House with respect to the assurances that I was seeking from the company on both the repatriation of work from both the East Hartford plant and the other suppliers in the United States, and further assurances with respect to the expansion of the Longueuil plant.
I have a letter which I would be pleased to table from the president of the Canadian company which sets out the company's position that the repatriation has been already started, that the company has already taken steps by way of investment in the expansion of facilities, and that it would expect this coming year to be doing more work in that plant than it did in 1973 which was the biggest year ever.


John Edward Broadbent: A final supplementary to the minister, Mr. Speaker. In view of the assertion of the president of that company in Canada that under no circumstances will it accept the Rand formula on labour negotiations, which has been accepted by 90 per cent of the other companies in Canada, could the minister inform the House how he expects the company to carry out its obligation when that would mean there would be no settlement at all in the plant?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, the whole question of the continuing labour difficulties in this plant is of very considerable concern to the government as it is to all members, particularly the hon. member for Longueuil who seldom lets a day go by without bringing it to my attention. I might say, Mr. Speaker, that employment at this plant has been increasing in recent months. This is the reason why the company can give undertakings with respect to the repatriation of the work and the expansion of the plant.
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to table a copy of the letter from the president of the United Aircraft Company of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Standing Order 41 allows the minister to table the document at this time, and in fact it is deemed to be tabled at this time.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Can he tell the House whether discussions are now under way with the provincial governments with a view to improving welfare legislation and helping more efficiently the handicapped and mentally retarded who until now have been rather sadly neglected?
October 15, 1974


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I thank the hon. member for his question. I must say that indeed this matter has top priority in present discussions on the revision of social welfare legislation in Canada. We hope the work will be completed for the month of April next year.


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Can the minister advise the House if the government, in consultation with the provinces, will give consideration to raising the national minimum allowance for the blind as well as the disabled? This has not been raised for years.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the work being done with the provinces at this time concerns all those in need. We are endeavouring to do away, as much as possible, with the categories known in the past in the field of social welfare, and to introduce a guaranteed income and an income supplement program to be applied as widely as possible without encumbering ourselves with those artificial divisions that created so many problems in the past.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, when the liberty of the subject is in any way interfered with, parliament has a pre-eminent duty to act. I want to ask first, why Robert Samson, a mounted police officer who has now been held for 74 or 75 days one way or another in custody, has not been charged if there is any evidence against him?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, the matter on which Mr. Samson was held and brought before the fire commissioner's inquiry in Quebec was the responsibility of the Attorney General of Quebec and the investigating police force which is the Montreal Urban Community Police Force. The Attorney General of Quebec and the Montreal Urban Community Police Force decided to proceed in that way. We have no responsibility or jurisdiction in the matter. I might say that on other grounds the RCMP dismissed Mr. Samson from the force. He had a delay in which to appeal his dismissal but he did not take advantage of that delay.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, does not the minister know that he, as minister, and the government of Canada, should assure that a member of the force, as Mr. Samson was when these proceedings began, shall be protected from what is now apparently a perversion of justice. This has arisen in his being made to give evidence under the Fire Protection Act. This course, incidentally, is followed in other provinces but the accused has the right to ask for protection in respect of anything he says. Have the Mounted Police protested against this conduct which places a
Oral Questions
fellow Canadian in an impossible position and which is detrimental to the discipline and morale of the Mounted Police.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I have personally discussed this question with the Attorney General of Quebec and this question comes completely within his jurisdiction. The RCMP is put in a difficult position when a member of the force is suspected of committing an offence. If it takes measures which seem to protect the man, it can be accused of trying unduly to protect a member of the force. On the other hand if it does not, it is open to the sort of criticism which has been raised here today. The matter was completely within the jurisdiction of the Attorney General of Quebec. I discussed the matter with him and he said that he had decided to proceed in this way. That was his response to me. He told me that proceedings will take place in the weeks to come which will justify his action. I will wait to see what is to happen, but he has taken that position.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, does the minister approve of the kind of drum-head procedure that has been followed to the detriment of justice and the ordinary dignity of an individual.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to comment on this case now because it is still before the Fire Commissioner and will proceed before the courts. But I have made my views known personally to the Attorney General of Quebec.


John George Diefenbaker: Tell us what they are.


William Warren Allmand: I will make further views known on the subject once the case before the courts has been concluded.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It arises from his earlier reference to the world food conference in Rome, in March. As the World Food Conference to be held in Rome this November will be the first such conference held at a political and ministerial level specifically so that its recommendations will reflect the policies of the governments concerned, can the Prime Minister assure this House that Canada will be prepared to give the kind of creative support to third world initiatives for long-term rather than emergency solutions which we so badly failed to give at the World Congress on Population in Bucharest. Can he also assure the House that, this time, the Canadian delegation will be led by a minister throughout the proceedings.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the composition of the delegation and its terms of reference will be made public and the delegation will be led by a minister.
382

Oral Questions TRANSPORT


REPORT ON PLANE CRASH NEAR FROBISHER BAY-DATE OF PUBLICATION
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of Transport. When will he table the report on Frobisher Bay for which we have waited so long?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I hope to have the report this week.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It arises from a reply he gave on Thursday, as reported at page 277 of Hansard. On that occasion he said the House was well aware of the attitude consistently taken by the government. We knew as long ago as July, 1973, that the government was just beginning to fight. We also knew that certain conversations were being opened up with the United States.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member please ask his question.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, are the conversations merely exploratory, to determine if there are sufficient clean-up materials in areas likely to be affected, or are they negotiations designed to keep tankers out of Puget Sound and the Straits of Juan de Fuca.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 
PROPOSAL TO ESTABLISH NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS IN NOVA SCOTIA-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I have a short but very important question I wish to address to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. What is the status of negotiations between the federal government and the government of Nova Scotia on the establishment of nuclear power in Nova Scotia?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, our original hope was that

we could have achieved a regional expansion of nuclear power systems by a second unit to be located in New Brunswick. The first unit would have been for New Brunswick purposes and the second unit for purposes of other provinces, including Nova Scotia. Regrettably, it was not possible to come to agreement on the second unit. I intend to have some discussions with the premier in the relatively near future in relation to the interest that has been expressed both in the press and elsewhere with regard to the possibility of a nuclear unit in Nova Scotia. Of course, the federal policy still remains, the offer of 50 per cent of the capital cost of the first nuclear unit in each province. Nova Scotia would be entitled to the benefit of that. Of course, it also remains federal policy to try to shift thermal power units from fossil fuels, particularly imported oil, to nuclear wherever possible.


EFFECT OF PROPOSED ESTABLISHMENT OF NUCLEAR POWER STATIONS ON DEVELOPMENT OF FUNDY TIDAL POWER AND COAL RESOURCES
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Will the minister indicate whether the negotiations that have taken place with Nova Scotia in connection with nuclear power are in any way endangering the negotiations that have been going on with regard to the establishment of Fundy tidal power as well as the development of our coal resources in the mainland of Nova Scotia which are there and have only to be used to produce additional electrical capacity for the province.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the Fundy tidal power, that would in fact be interruptable power because of its nature. It would not be as effective in a firm base as would a coal-fueled or nuclear station. With regard to the possible use of coal resources, particularly in the hon. member's constituency, I think it remains an important option for Nova Scotia as to whether to proceed the coal route at this time rather than proceeding with nuclear power. This is an important choice to be made.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. As it is now more than two weeks since the four western premiers called for a crash economic aid program to help small and medium sized beef producers, since many will possibly be going out of business, is the Prime Minister in a position to announce programs that will aid these beef producers in western Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing to be added to what we have already done.
October 15, 1974


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: In view of the fact the four premiers said that if something is not done almost immediately, thousands may go out of business resulting in higher prices for consumers, will the Prime Minister consider at least one of the proposals, a cash advance program similar to that already in effect in this country for grains?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I always consider proposals made to me by premiers very seriously.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the producers of this country will tolerate that type of answer. I want to know whether the Prime Minister will be coming forward with specific programs and, if so, when will he do this? If something is not done, many producers will be going out of business within the next two weeks.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there is really no announcement I can make this morning beyond saying that the matter is being considered in cabinet.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Jacques Olivier (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Labour.
Would he agree to meet the main representatives of the United Aircraft employees union to discuss problems caused by the establishment of multinational companies in Canada?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to meet with them if they are desirous of meeting with me to find out what merit there would be in the involvement of the federal government at this time.


INCREASE IN INITIAL PRICE OF WHEAT-INQUIRY AS TO DATE AND AMOUNT
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. As the minister has already stated there will be an increase in the initial price of wheat board grain, probably before Christmas, will he now indicate how much of an increase he or the wheat board is contemplating and when that increase will be made.


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. member is referring quite accurately to anything I have said. He may be referring to a remark in which I said, while I had earlier thought that consideration of an increase after January might be the most desirable time, I was giving further consideration to the
Oral Questions
timing of it. However, the question is now more when rather than whether the increase will be made.


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, I was under the assumption the minister stated in Winnipeg there would be an increase before Christmas. In any event, the minister has not answered my question which is relatively straight forward. When is he contemplating an increase and what amount will it be?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, my answer made it obvious that the when has not yet been decided. Obviously, the amounts have not yet been decided either.


WHEAT-GOVERNMENT POSITION ON MODIFICATION OF TWO PRICE SYSTEM
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. Having regard to the fact that wheat production in Canada will be down by some 13 per cent and this year the quality of the wheat will be of low grade variety, having the overall affect of reducing gross receipts to the prairie wheat producers, and given the fact that milling wheat for export purposes is now selling at $6 a bushel while that for domestic consumption is being sold at $5 a bushel, is the government giving consideration to modifying the two price wheat structure? If not, why not?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, this is a long-term structure which ensures a floor as well as a ceiling. I think it is a very reasonable arrangement in terms of grain. This year there is a lot of lower quality and out of condition grain being produced. The challenge at the moment is to ensure that drying equipment is there to dry that which comes off damp. It is also a fact that world market conditions are such that the grain of lower quality which is coming off is actually selling at a very high price.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Inasmuch as a differential of $1 per bushel could result in a loss of something in the order of $50 million to $60 million to the prairie wheat producers, does it remain the intention of this government to carry on this wrestling match against inflation on the backs of the farmers?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member fails to note that the overall arrangement, a seven-year program with a guaranteed minimum as well as a guaranteed ceiling, means there can be periods during which the producer receives a little less because of the fixed maximum. However, there are other times, just as there were from 1969 to 1972, when the producer receives more from the consumer because of the higher price which is being paid.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Jack Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Because of the uncertainty in the cattle industry and the fact that the fall run
2 8305-2 5*/!

October 15, 1974
Oral Questions
is about to start, is the minister prepared to go to the United States to discuss the on-again off-again quota on imports and embargoes between Canada and the United States so the market might know what is going to happen between these two countries? This is very important to the fall run of cattle.


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, a meeting is taking place in Washington today with beef producers from all countries concerned, Australia, New Zealand, Argentina, the United States and others. We have representatives at that meeting. As far as our quota program is concerned, it is set for a year. We do not know what the United States is going to do. If the hon. member has any further information on what they are going to do, I would be pleased to receive it.
[DOT] (U40)


John (Jack) Henry Horner: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister posed a question to me, but he is Minister of Agriculture. Does he not think that he can do some good for the Canadian cattle industry by going down to the United States and talking with Secretary Butz of the United States so as to ascertain exactly what is the intention of the United States government regarding the export of Canadian cattle to that country?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member well knows, the United States government passed a law-I forget the number of the bill passed-back in 1962 by the U.S.A. which allowed them to hold hearings concerning the controlling of imports of any country that introduced controls that are liable to hurt American exports. The United States government has not said what it is going to do. I thought the hon. member had some knowledge that he was going to pass on to me.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Eugene Whelan: I point out, Mr. Speaker, that a week ago today I met with the United States undersecretary of agriculture in Boise, Idaho.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister.
In view of the fact that Quebec Premier Bourassa has emphasized, ever since he has been elected as head of the Quebec government in 1970, the profitability of cooperative and consultative federalism, can the right hon. Prime Minister tell the House whether the government of Quebec has consulted or at least informed him before putting into effect the language policy contained in Bill 22?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I already had the opportunity to tell the House Mr. Bourassa has discussed his projects with me in a rather general way, and I think some information has also

been given at the ministerial level. Besides that, Mr. Speaker, I can only remind the hon. member that the government of Quebec retains its autonomy in fields of its jurisdiction. There has been some discussion but no comprehensive efforts to take action directly in a provincial jurisdiction area.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, there has been political discussion rather than-I can see the right hon. member for Prince Albert is mumbling. He should feel free to speak up.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister says that Bill 22 is a matter of provincial jurisdiction. I thought that during the election campaign he expressed grave doubts as to its constitutionality when he was trying to get votes from other parts of Canada.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As usual, Mr. Speaker, with this type of subject, the right hon. gentleman is wrong.


FINANCE
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Will the minister be making, or has he made, concrete proposals to the provinces in the present round of consultations regarding the taxation of resource industries before presenting his next budget?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have been visiting the provinces, and will be again this week or early next week, to discuss with them the implications of proposals that I brought before the House on May 6. I will be reviewing options and hearing what options they have in mind. I want to say to the hon. member that these are not negotiations; these are discussions to put me and the government in a better position to review the budgetary posture before the budget is brought down later in this parliament.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Has the minister appointed a commissioner for the grain handlers dispute?


John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of the question. The fact of the matter is that Mr. Justice Bayda of the Queen's Bench court of Saskatchewan has been appointed industrial commissioner in this particular dispute.
October 15, 1974



MULTICULTURALISM


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question having to do with another topic. Would the minister release the evaluation study of the use in Canada of languages other than English and French, and in particular Italian, Ukranian and German?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member will be indulgent enough to let me have a look at it. Before doing so, I do not think I can answer the hon. member's question.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, we can see there has been a demise of the multicultural program since Dr. Stanley Haidasz has been fired.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Elmer MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour concerning problems that seem to be developing in Air Canada with the walkout of assistant air traffic controllers, continuing negotiations with CALPA, and there are reports that other personnel may be considering strikes or walk-outs. Has the minister any report to give us, or are we faced with another disruption of our country's air services?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, with reference to this particular dispute, since employees of the federal government are involved I think the hon. member's question should more appropriately be directed to the President of the Treasury Board.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I will be glad to accept the minister's suggestion, though I keep in mind that on another occasion when I asked him a question concerning the CALPA negotiations he said I had the wrong department, and later on he had to recant and say that I was right in the first place. I ask the President of the Treasury Board what reports he has for the House and the country concerning the very serious situation that seems to be developing in Air Canada.


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, as far as I am concerned, negotiations are progressing well at this time and I have nothing special to announce to the House.



POSSIBLE STRIKE OF ASSISTANT AIR TRAFFIC


Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question which I will
Oral Questions
direct to the President of the Treasury Board. It deals with statements made during the last illegal postal strike by the minister's predecessor regarding the possible prosecution of those taking part in illegal strikes in this country, and that, to use his own words, they would not be tolerated any longer. Now, we are faced once again with a disruptive walk-out by the assistant air traffic controllers, would the minister therefore indicate to the House what positive steps will be taken to deal with those taking part in these and any future illegal strikes as a result of the former minister's promise, or is the government changing its mind on the matter as well?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to see that the hon. member agrees on the statement made by my predecessor. We intend to put this policy in practice while using proper judgment according to the various circumstances we will have to face.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. In view of the shortage of housing in Toronto, does the government intend to give up excess land at Downsview air base so that some land can be made available for this purpose?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, the Department of National Defence is aware of the need for housing property in North York. Several years ago it released some 70 acres of land to Crown Assets Disposal Corporation, but we have no plans to release any other part of Downsview as it is needed for operational purposes.



HOUSING


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. In view of the reduction in the rate of housing starts on an annual basis by some 70,000 units, is the government giving consideration to increasing the budget of the assisted home ownership program to $1 billion?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, without accepting the hon. member's figure, may I say we are considering every possible alternative so as to increase housing stock and reduce the decline in housing starts in the coming year.


David Orlikow: A supplementary question. In view of the fact that most mortgages have been negotiated at 9'/2 per

October 15, 1974
Oral Questions
cent interest rate, and more recently the rate has increased to 1114 per cent, will the minister inform the House as to the average effective rate of these mortgages?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I do not quite get the precise intent of the question, but I will check what the average rate might work out to. This is a matter of rather important concern and I will try and get the hon. member an answer.


David Orlikow: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the statement made by the president of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation that the government will intervene next year if housing starts drop below 200,000 units for the year, does this statement represent a shift from previously announced government policy of completing 250,000 housing units per year?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, the government is always intervening in the housing market, but there has been no shift in policy. Our policy has been to follow the guidance of the Economic Council of Canada and try to produce one million houses every five years. We have exceeded that by some 250,000 houses, and that is almost double the rate. This housing policy will continue.



ALLEGATION QUALIFIED APPLICANTS REFUSED LOANS BY CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION

Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the same minister which results from the fact that constituents have complained to me that although they have qualified for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation funds the corporation has informed them there is no money available. Why is that?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I would have to consider individual cases, but I should like to know about the specific one to which the hon. member referred. It is true that in respect of AHOP, if that is what the hon. member is referring to, funds are being rapidly used up, which proves the great success of this excellent program that was introduced by my predecessor.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration I would ask the Minister of National Revenue whether the more than 1,000 keypunch operators employed in Ottawa at the Taxation Data Centre during the peak four or five months each year are entitled to receive unemployment insurance benefits after being laid off from these seasonal jobs?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I will make an inquiry into that situation.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister would also inquire as to why the Public Service of Canada is directing its advertising campaign for keypunch operators to housewives and students with no experience instead of hiring from the ranks of others who are already drawing unemployment insurance benefits?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, in order to obtain technicians we are hiring them from wherever they can possibly be obtained.



FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS   POSSIBLE RESUMPTION OF DISCUSSIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS-CONSULTATIONS WITH PROVINCES

Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, it seems the Prime Minister has disappeared momentarily and I do not know whether he is allowed to answer by long distance, but my question has to do with his remarks during the Throne Speech debate regarding the establishment of an acceptable amending formula which would allow us to deal with our constitution domestically. Has he conveyed this sentiment to the provinces, or discussed with them the procedures of an earlier conference that broke off two or three years ago in Victoria? Can he tell the House what steps will now be taken to achieve this desirable end?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Not at this time, Mr. Speaker. There are to be consultations which will be on a bilateral basis with the various provinces. There will be no public occasion in the immediate future at which that matter will be discussed.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, in light of the importance of this to all Canadians is the Prime Minister prepared to tell the House what proposals he will put forward to the provinces in order that Canadians might understand and accept those procedures to be followed in this regard? In addition, and in light of the difficulties at Victoria, does the Prime Minister propose to place any amendment on the table for the provinces to consider?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, and as I indicated in my speech on leaders' day, these discussions have been going on since 1926 and there are literally thousands of proposals and variations which can be discussed. My mind is open to any of them. At this stage I have indicated that discussions will be bilateral. These discussions will probably take place over quite a period of time before I will be in a position to indicate what the general direction will be, and that will eventually be made public.
October 15, 1974

The Address-Mr. M. Dionne ENERGY



COAL-PROPOSALS FROM NOVA SCOTIA FOR DEVELOPMENT OF MINES

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to questions posed by the hon. member for South Shore and the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North. Has the minister of Energy, Mines and Resources received any proposals from the government of Nova Scotia regarding further development of coal mining in that province as a result of the minister's statement last winter that he would be prepared to entertain specific proposals from the provinces?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I should like to check the record before responding to that question, but I will undertake to do so and advise the Leader of the Opposition.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence which arises partially from comments made yesterday by the Maritime commander, as well as during the latter part of last week, regarding his concern in respect of reduced activity. In achieving a 30 per cent cutback in this phase of the current defence budget have the minister and his colleagues given consideration to any reduction in Europe?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I think the first thing that must be clarified is that the defence budget is not being cut, but is being increased. It is up at least $150 million this year over last year. It will continue to be increased. As we attempt to make allocations as between personnel costs, equipment costs and operations we must adjust the balance, and, as I explained to the House last week, that process is going on at the present time. Europe is not being considered in our present thinking as being an area where we would make cuts.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, would the minister indicate whether in the requests he has quite apparently sent out for budgeting purposes in relation to a review of our forces' position in Europe for the next fiscal year, has he asked for some suggestion about how an acceptable cutback might be achieved in Europe next year?


James Armstrong Richardson: No, we have not done that, Mr. Speaker.



SARNIA-MONTREAL PIPELINE-NATURE OF POSSIBLE GUARANTEE BY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO ENSURE CONSTRUCTION

Mr. Peter C. Bawden (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the doubt now that the Montreal pipeline will go ahead, will the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources indicate when this interprovincial matter was discussed in Cabinet, and was there any guarantee that the pipeline would be viable? If so, would he divulge that information?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I think the view generally at that time both in the oil industry and the regulatory agencies, that is the Alberta Board and the National Energy Board, was that the supply would be adequate over a period of time to meet the additional demands of the Montreal market.


Peter Colwell Bawden: Mr. Speaker, will the line be built with federal government guarantees if in fact the National Energy Board report on reserves proves there is insufficient oil to fill the line and make it viable?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as I told the House last week, the nature of the guarantees, if any, is something which the company will be putting to us in the near future, and the government will, of course, have to make a decision as to the nature of any financial participation the federal government might undertake.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, October 11, consideration of the motion of Mr. Louis Duclos for an address to His Excellency the Administrator of the Government of Canada in reply to his speech at the opening of the session.
Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, when the allotted time ran out on Friday, I was discussing some of the problems that affect my constituency and constituents, and I should like to continue in that vein for a few minutes.
Let me turn my attention for a moment or two to the matter of police protection in Northumberland County in the province of New Brunswick. We seem to be experiencing a period of increasing crime which must be partially the result of the lack of police protection we have. The County of Northumberland covers an area of 4,720 square miles. To police that area we have a total of 22 RCMP officers and men. They are divided into three detachments, one at Newcastle, one at Doaktown and one at Neguac. I wish again to emphasize that the area which they must cover encompasses 4,720 square miles with a population of approximately 52,000 people. By comparison Parliament Hill is policed by 38 Royal Canadian Mounted Policemen, consisting of 28 constables, four corporals and one staff sergeant, in addition to the protective staff. As I said, the police situation in Northumberland-Miramichi

October 15, 1974
The Address-Mr. Hees
shows very little resemblance to the situation on Parliament Hill. I would respectfully request the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) to look into the situation in North-umberland-Miramichi and carry on discussions with the Minister of Justice for the province of New Brunswick in an effort to increase the number of police officers for the protection of that area of the province of New Brunswick.
Now, I wish to express some of my reactions since becoming a member of parliament. I am impressed, of course, by these buildings which house us and by the various staff people who serve us. I am impressed by the cleanliness of these buildings, and the willingness of the staff people to help and assist us. I have found them without exception, to be industrious, courteous and conscientious, and I am happy to be able to commend them publicly. I am depressed, on the other hand, by all the hand-wringing and pessimism I witness in this chamber. When I listen to the predictions from the other side of the aisle, I have to wonder if this is Canada we are hearing about. I do not wish to pretend we have no problems. Indeed, we have. I believe we should bend every effort to solve our problems. But let us not over-emphasize those problems which agitate us. Of course, we have inflation, but we will not solve these problems by exaggerating them. I believe those who occupy positions of public trust have an obligation to speak with care. The fact is that Canada is having more success and Canadians generally are suffering less from the effects of inflations than any other industrialized nation.
When I consider some of the questions put during the oral question period and some which are placed on the order paper, I do not wonder why our people sometimes have such little respect for politicians. I do not believe we can expect the public to have respect for us unless we show by our actions and our words that we respect the position to which they have elected us.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be here; I am proud to be a Canadian, and I think we should proclaim some of our assets which are continually persuading so many people from many other countries to come here to seek their destinies. By all means, let us take our problems seriously, but let us not become so myopic that we trample ourselves to death getting away from the fire.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, first I should like to congratulate you on your elevation to your high position. Your activities in the House in the preceding six years certainly merited your choice for higher things and I, as one privileged to sit in this House during the first few weeks under your jurisdiction, have nothing but compliments for the way you have handled yourself, for your fairness and for your general conduct as Speaker. The House has benefitted as a result and I congratulate you. I should also like to congratulate the other members of the House who have been appointed your assistants. They are doing their very best. They are doing a good job and I also congratulate them.
One principal reason for the zero growth in real production which took place in this country during the first six months of the year was the $1.2 billion increase in our trade deficit in finished goods which took place during

that period. As we know, finished goods provide the majority of the taxes which are needed to finance the development of an industrial country, the return on industrial investment and the jobs which are needed to employ those who are continually becoming new members of the work force of a country such as Canada. As we know very well complete production of fully manufactured goods is the most important kind of process we can have. It seems strange that at the same time this government was allowing a $1.2 billion deficit in our fully manufactured goods to take place, this government was falling all over itself in an attempt to sell our raw materials to other industrial countries which use these primary products to feed their manufacturing processes.
Every time the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) stands up to answer a question in this House he proudly announces that we have increased our over-all exports. Of course, there are two things which must be taken into consideration when he makes those statements. In the first place, when he says we have increased our exports by 23 per cent this year he seems to forget the fact that inflation connected with those particular exports about which he is speaking has increased not less than 29 per cent and that, according to the figures of the agencies of government, our real exports have decreased this year by 5 per cent. I say that by far the most worrisome matter is the fact that the export of our fully manufactured products has declined very sharply and our imports of fully manufactured products from other countries have increased equally sharply.
As I said before, we have been increasing the export of our raw materials. Specifically during the first six months of the year our exports of crude production increased by $400 million and our exports of fabricated products, those products which have had one stage of manufacturing, increased by no less than $200 million. This steadily deteriorating situation shows clearly that we are now engaged in exporting employment instead of bending all our efforts to sell more finished products in the export market and thereby gain so many advantages for this country, such as additional jobs for our people, additional return on the capital invested in industry and additional taxes required to meet our very heavy expenditures in running our country. To sell more of our finished products in the export market, the federal government must introduce practical incentives to increase substantial improvements in the following fields: First, expanded export trade; second, increased productivity; third, more research and development; fourth, more processing of primary products in this country.
First of all, what must we do to greatly expand sales in the export market? Because of the country's great dependence on the United States market where we make 70 per cent of our sales and the steady move of that country toward protectionism, we must develop additional markets because if we do not we will place ourselves more and more in the hands of the American people. As their tendency toward protectionism increases, it is obvious that we will find ourselves in a more and more difficult position so far as making sales in the export market is concerned.
October 15, 1974

What must we do? Making sales on the export market requires doing four things well: first of all, going overseas and making personal contact with potential buyers; second, while overseas, finding out firsthand what is needed to meet the competition in that market; third, coming back to Canada and producing products which will not only match but beat that competition; and fourth, displaying those products which we produce effectively before potential buyers. The incentive that I suggest would allow producers to write off 200 per cent of all expenses connected with making sales trips abroad, displaying products at foreign trade fairs, and any other expenses incurred in sales promotion in the export market. The kind of incentive that I suggested will greatly encourage the kind of activity that I have described as being very necessary indeed, activity which is needed to increase export sales. Not only would all such expenses be completely written off in the year when they are made, but a considerable cash bonus will accrue to the company undertaking additional export activity.
Another thing which the government should do to help increase the sale of Canadian products abroad is to introduce "fly and buy" missions, whereby the important buyers from the principal foreign markets of the world would be flown to Canada once a year to see Canadian consumer products displayed in giant trade fairs in Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg and Vancouver, and our heavy machinery in the factories across Canada where it is made. These kinds of missions will pay for themselves many times over in the future by way of additional jobs, profits and taxes which these additional sales will make available to Canada.
Next I would like to deal with the need to increase productivity in our country. As we well know, increased productivity makes possible the lowering of costs of production, which in turn makes possible lower selling prices, which produce more sales which result in more production, which produces more jobs. It is as simple as that, but nevertheless is very necessary. Increasing productivity requires the installation of new plant machinery and production systems. These usually cost a great deal of money, and in order to persuade industrialists to undertake a program of increased productivity, we must first convince them that they will be able to get back their costs, and then some, by making these usually heavy investments. To make this possible, the government should introduce a productivity incentive which would, first of all, allow industrialists to write off capital expenditures within two years and, second, which would provide a bonus to industrialists and producers generally at the end of the year based on increased productivity in that plant or in that operation during the past twelve months, compared to the base year which would be the year before the plan goes into operation. This kind of incentive has been very effective in increasing productivity in such countries as Japan and West Germany, where spectacular results have been achieved since the end of the second world war. There is no reason at all why equally satisfactory results cannot be obtained in Canada by a similar process.
Next, I should like to deal with what is needed to increase research and development in this country. One of
The Address-Mr. Hees
the reasons we have had to rely so heavily on foreign capital in the past is that investment brought with it technology which was produced by research done in the country where the capital originated. We need more research and development in our country for two reasons: first of all, so that we will be able to rely less on foreign capital for our industrial development, and second, to win new markets because by means of additional research and development we will be able to lower costs, to produce better design and better quality, and to win new markets by a combination of any of these factors.
The incentive which I believe should be offered is to allow industry to write off 200 per cent of the cost of current and capital expenditures on research and development in excess of those made in the base year, which would be the year before the plan goes into operation. This would once again be attractive to producers and would induce them to undertake such a program because they would not only be able to write off the whole cost of the operation in one year but would receive a substantial cash bonus at the end of the year as well. Where this plan has been adopted, it has been very successful in greatly increasing research and development in the countries concerned. There is no reason why it would not be equally successful here in Canada.
Finally, I should like to deal with the need to process more of our primary products in this country. All of us here, all industrialists and all politicians in this country, have agreed for many years that we export far too large a proportion of our bountiful supply of raw materials. We send them to other countries which turn them into finished products and thereby gain the great advantages of increased employment, taxes and profits, gains which rightly should be ours. What is needed to bring about greater processing in Canada? We have talked about it for a long time but have done nothing in this direction. Thirty years ago the government of Ontario required companies which had been shipping logs to paper mills in the United States to process a far greater proportion of those logs in paper mills in Canada. This led to a spectacular expansion of the pulp and paper industry in Ontario and is the reason that we have such a large and thriving pulp and paper industry in this province.
What has worked so well in the province of Ontario with regard to pulp and paper will work equally well in the case of other primary products which are shipped out of this country in large volume at present to other countries for use in their manufacturing processes. It can apply to all of our raw materials which we produce across Canada. If we apply the same principle that Ontario did regarding the shipping of logs out of the province some 30 years ago and since that time, it can work equally satisfactorily for all raw materials in this country because of the great dependence which other countries have on Canadian raw materials to run their factories and turn out the finished products.
It is obvious that a certain proportion of our primary products should be shipped abroad in their raw state, but not nearly the proportion that is shipped today. I believe that the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce should now undertake an intensive study of what proportion of our primary products should reasonably be
390

October 15, 1974
The Address-Mr. Cafik
required to be processed in Canada, Having decided the proportion of our various primary products which should be further processed in Canada, we must produce an incentive to persuade those who normally export these primary products to process the proportion that is agreed upon in this country.
The Department of Regional Economic Expansion has provided grants which have proved useful in attracting some industry to areas of slow growth, but not nearly enough to reverse the persistent high unemployment tendency in those areas. In addition to DREE grants we need an incentive which I believe should be a graduated system of federal taxation under which in the first year of full operation the company concerned would pay no federal tax and would then start paying gradually increasing amounts until its fifteenth year when it would be paying full taxes. I have discussed this matter at length with producers all across the country who have convinced me that this additional incentive to the DREE grants would produce the results I have in mind.
The incentives I have outlined will pay for themselves many times over in the years ahead in two ways, Mr. Speaker. First of all, if they are applied and industrial production is increased in the way I know it will be, we can provide a greater number of jobs for the work force. By providing more work, the number of people drawing unemployment benefits will be reduced. In this way I am convinced we can save $1 billion per year of the more than $2 billion per year now paid out in unemployment insurance benefits.
The second way we can save money is by greatly increasing tax revenues. By increasing employment in the manner I have outlined, more people would be working and paying income tax instead of drawing unemployment insurance benefits and more commodities would be sold, resulting in additional commodity taxes. Greater production would decrease the unit costs and thereby give greater profits to producers. That would mean more taxable profits.
I believe a program of incentives is necessary and I believe it would do two things, Mr. Speaker. First, it would increase production to the point where it is approximately equal to the demand for products. That action would return inflationary pressures to normal. Second, it would provide the jobs which would reduce unemployment to somewhere around 4 per cent of the work force which I believe to be a reasonable level. That is the aim of all members in this chamber and it must be the aim of this government.
Mr. Speaker, this is a reasonable program and one which I have discussed at length with industrialists in all parts of the country. It is a program which will work and I put it forward for the consideration of this House because I believe it is the only kind of program that will meet the needs of Canada today and will restore our economy to the level which the people of Canada have a right to expect.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to congratulate you most sincerely on your elevation to your high and important

post. I express confidence, along with all members of this House, that you will do a magnificent job, following in the footsteps of your illustrious predecessor and, I am sure, will do as well if not better than everyone who has preceded you.
I should like also to congratulate the mover (Mr. Duclos) and seconder (Mr. Lee) of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. Both performed very very well when giving their maiden addresses in this House.
Third, Mr. Speaker, as is traditional, I should like to thank the electorate of Ontario riding who managed to give me a slightly larger majority than I had after the 1972 election. I appreciate it greatly and will work as hard as I can to be worthy of the confidence they have shown in me.
I should like also to thank the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) for giving me the honour of working with the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) for most of the last two years.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Do you like powdered milk, too?


Norman Augustine Cafik: His was a very important portfolio in the last parliament and dealt with the social needs of the people of Canada. The Health and Welfare ministry did a great job in increasing family allowances and old age pension benefits, and brought in a whole range of programs in the twenty-ninth parliament. I am sure the minister will do an equally good job in the forthcoming sessions of the thirtieth parliament on behalf of those people in this country who are in need or on fixed incomes.
I should like also to thank the Prime Minister for appointing me as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. His department has a lot of legislation to bring forward. A great deal of work has to be done to protect consumers in the marketplace and to make sure that the marketplace functions properly for the protection of the free enterprise system. That can only be done if it functions in such a way that the greatest number of people are served by the free interplay of competition.
The first subject with which I should like to deal is one that is linked to my own riding and that is, the airport that was proposed for Pickering some time ago. As all hon. members know, an independent inquiry was set up to look into the whole matter and I hope a report will be forthcoming in the next month or so. Whatever the recommendation of that independent inquiry, I urge the government to accept it. If the independent inquiry concludes that the airport is not necessary or is not properly located, then the whole proposition should be reconsidered. However, if that independent inquiry commission recommends on the other side of the question, then it seems to me their recommendation should be followed as well. This is a highly controversial matter, and I think if we are to look at it responsibly and objectively, we must give great attention to this report when it comes.


Walter David Baker: You sold your riding out, Cafik.


Norman Augustine Cafik: The second point I want to make in respect of the Pickering airport proposal, Mr. Speaker, is in regard to
October 15, 1974

those people who had land expropriated. Some 18,000 acres of land were expropriated by the federal government for the airport and there have been a series of actions started under the Expropriation Act and outside of the Act in order to arrive at reasonable market values for the land. Obviously, any conclusion will never be satisfactory to all concerned and that is quite natural but it is my job, the job of the Department of Public Works and of this government to ensure that justice is done and that people are adequately compensated for the properties taken from them, reluctantly.
Until now the money paid to those expropriated was based upon market value or the department's judgment of market value. The two outstanding questions that have not been resolved are the valuation date of that market value and the home-for-a-home principle. The payments that have been made or offered to date are based upon market value determined as of January 30, 1973. A lot of water has flowed under the bridge since then. Some people concerned have not replaced their property because the government has held out the possibility that the airport would not be built. That being so, it is unreasonable to expect people whose property has been expropriated to replace it immediately after expropriation, because they have been led to believe that there is a possibility of their being allowed to stay on after the inquiry is over. Therefore, because these circumstances are unique, it is essential that we establish a new valuation date. It should be the date on which a person bought property to replace property he originally held. Or, at the latest, the date should be some day after a decision has been made and a report tabled about the airport inquiry. If it is decided to go ahead at that time, I believe the government will be obligated to state when the new valuation date will be. It should not be before the date of the decision and it could be as much as three months afterwards because, so far, the government has not yet given notice of possession.
My second point concerning justice has to do with the home-for-home principle. This has not been applied in any cases which have arisen so far. It has not been applied because it is presumed by those who interpret the Expropriation Act that market values will be sufficient to enable people to replace one home with another of equivalent premise. That may be all right in many cases but there are clearly exceptions to the rule. I wish to illustrate an exception which must be taken into account by the Department of Public Works. Of course, one can think of more than one exception.
I am speaking of, say, a retired couple living in what might be considered as a substandard dwelling, the market value of which may be $22,000 or $23,000, but which cannot be replaced for less than $60,000 or $70,000. We are obligated to give such people a home in which to live, if we take away the one in which they lived previously. There are other elements to the question which are difficult to resolve. If you give them a higher priced home because there is not one of lower value in the neighbourhood, what shall we do about the increased taxes they must pay? The husband and wife may have retired on a
The Address-Mr. Cafik
fixed income and have well afforded the home which was expropriated, because they had paid for it and the tax rate was low. If they are pushed into a subdivision, into a much more valuable home, who will pay the increased taxes? Their tax bill may rise from $200 a year in their old home to $900 or even $1,000 on the new one. In my view, the Department of Public Works is obligated to make up the difference for that couple during their lifetime.
Many other problems of this type must be considered in an understanding and humane way by those who administer expropriation proceedings, so that we can make sure no one is disadvantaged economically because property is needed for the public good. That is fundamental.
The question of rental rates is also important. In Pickering, in my riding, the province of Ontario began expropriating 25,000 acres of land adjacent to the airport site. It decided to charge those expropriated rent of only $1 per year. I prodded the federal government to do the same and it followed suit. The original agreement made with those expropriated is to expire on December 31, 1974. The province has extended its rent-free arrangement until June, 1975, to allow those who have children in the local schools to stay until that time. I believe that the federal authority should do the same.
However, there is a problem concerning equity. If you extend the rent-free arrangment ad infinitum or until such time as these people are asked to move if the airport is to go forward, some will have been allowed to stay for four or five years and others for only a few months, because some property will be used almost immediately by the Department of Transport. To get over the difficulty which will be caused by the fact that those who stay longest will gain most, I think we ought to establish some new kind of rental rate under which we can recover taxes and the amounts spent by the department in the direct control of the property. I am speaking of maintenance, policing and that sort of thing. I think that this type of rental rate would be reasonable. In doing this, we shall show the people involved that we are genuinely concerned about the difficulties which have been unwittingly inflicted upon them.
Today I shall speak mainly on housing, a subject which concerns me greatly. We have heard a great deal about high interest rates, the availability of mortgages and about land banking as a solution to the problem of housing. I do not think our difficulties fall under those headings. I do not think it is good enough to institute programs using federal, provincial or municipal funds which allow people to buy homes costing far more than they ought to cost. If we are to reduce the price of housing, we can only do this by increasing the supply of houses.
The three components which determine the value of a home are, the cost of land, the cost of building and the cost of services. Right now, the cost of land looms very large in the cost of housing. If we are to solve the problem we must take a long, hard look at it. A few years ago land in the area I come from was worth between $4,000 and $5,000 per building lot. Today one must pay between $30,000 and $35,000, and even more, for a building lot. Mr. Speaker, the land is there, just as it always was. It is no less available. What has given rise to this enormous increase in value? First, there is a lack of supply. Why, Mr. Speaker, when
28305-2 6Vi

October 15, 1974
The Address-Mr. Cafik
there is so much land available? I will tell you why. Our provinces and municipalities have failed to approve building lots in sufficient quantities to allow all who wish to build a home the opportunity to do so. Land is being held back from the market.
Let me illustrate my point with an analogy. If 100,000 people want building lots and the province and municipality only allow 5,000 to come onto the market-and they control how many lots are put on the market-it is obvious that costs will go sky high. Exactly this has happened. We must bring more land onto the building market more quickly. If you consider the enormous amount of red tape builders face and the enormous amount of bureaucracy which is involved in house building, you will realize the magnitude of the problem. If you want to build a house on a lot, it can take you from six months to six years to get approval. That is ridiculous. That, really, is the primary problem with which we must deal, so that everyone who wants to build a home may have the opportunity of so doing.
We are so caught up in planners, the OMB and all kinds of municipal and provincial boards that it takes years to get through, if you get through it at all. I believe we must have a tri-level conference to work our way through the strangling red tape which saps the life out of the potential home-owners in this country, particularly those who want to buy new homes.
A few months ago I set up a housing committee in my constituency. It included a number of experts and people who are concerned. We looked at this problem. When we started, everyone had the ordinary kinds of solutions. However, when I put it to them that the real question is this excessive delay, the need to open up the land, they unanimously agreed that if we could get a handle on that, solve that question and open up land in sufficient quantity, the price of a house would drop dramatically.
There is another problem in terms of land supply. That is the monopolies. Around our major cities, and Toronto is no exception, the vast majority of available land is held by a small number of speculators or builders. The percentage of land in this area is very high. I have heard that the figures are as high as 70 or 80 per cent. We need some teeth in our laws to allow us to bring that kind of monopolistic situation to an end so that the people are properly served rather than those trying to gouge the public.
There is another question in this regard which is important. Last May the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) introduced a budget. In that budget he proposed doing away with the tax reductions for carrying costs on undeveloped land such as municipal taxes, carrying charges and interest rates. That sounded very good. However, what is the effect of that? Providing that kind of legislation is directed toward the speculator and not the legitimate builder, it is good. However, if it is directed toward the legitimate builder, particularly the small builder, it will drive him out of the building business. We will have less competition in the housing sector a month from today than we have now. I know that is a fact. I strongly urge the Minister of Finance to carefully review that provision before introducing the next budget. What

we must do is get to the speculator who is driving up the price of land. However, let us not at the same time throw the baby out with the bath water by driving the legitimate small builder out of business.
We must change our attitude toward development. We in this country are inundated with planners. One would think that when driving down our streets, we would see the most beautifully planned and organized municipalities on God's green earth. However, you do not see much evidence of the great planning that is causing so much delay to everything everyone wants to do. Therefore, we must change our attitude to some extent. We must be less concerned with all the bureaucratic red tape. We must look at this situation as it relates to human beings who want to build a few homes at reasonable prices. That should be the paramount consideration. In terms of planning, we are hooked on the idea that everyone wants to live on serviced land. We think everyone needs sewers, piped-in water, streets, curbs and so on. However, all people want is a roof over their heads, a home of their own which they can afford.
We ought to carefully consider the possibility of opening up strip development. There are rural areas where farmers can hardly afford to farm because they do not have enough capital for all the equipment they need. There are parts of their property along ravines and so on that do not lend themselves to agricultural use. I cannot for the life of me understand why we will not allow these people to build on this non-agricultural land if it is on agricultural property. It could have a septic tank and a well. People lived under those conditions for years; I suppose for thousands of years. I do not see any reason why we can not have that kind of development in this country. It will give people a better quality of life. They can have a home at a better price. If you opened up that kind of land for development, it would drive down the price of land dramatically. It would also be of help to the farmer. We should look at this proposal as well as all the expensive services. I agree they are needed in certain areas, but not all. If we opened up this kind of land for strip development, did away with the red tape and so on, the situation would be very much improved.
With regard to rural homes that are not on serviced land, we should take another look at the National Housing Act. Moneys are not available in the same quantities, with the same rules and regulations or as easily for people who want to build with septic tanks and wells. It is easier for those who want to build in a subdivision. The National Housing Act should be adjusted or the regulations changed to allow that kind of development.
To solve these problems in terms of land use and getting through the bureaucracy and because of the urgent nature of this matter, I suggest there should be a tri-level conference. The municipal, provincial and federal governments should get together and establish as a top priority the desire to provide homes at reasonable prices. The $30,000 to $40,000 range is high enough. This could be done if we were to cut the bottom out of the price of land and reduce the price of a lot from $35,000 to $4,000 or $5,000. With the right kind of approach by the three levels of government, I believe this could be done overnight.
October 15, 1974

As a result of the housing shortage, we have an opportunity to achieve another social objective. We can concentrate on the development of new homes away from the big cities. By building them around smaller existing communities, we will take the pressure off the big cities. This would not only have the beneficial effect of redistribution of the population across this country and away from our major cities which are now too large, but also in terms of quality of life.
Many seem to think that land banking is a solution to our housing problems. I do not agree. I do not think that land banking, at least what I have heard about it, is a very positive step forward. What frightens me is that the large cities like Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver will take advantage of it. They will buy all the land around them. By the way, this land has already been bought by speculators. What are we going to do, buy it back and give them a high profit or go beyond that area and bank the land? All we will do is drive up the price of land and the concentration of people more and more into the large metropolitan areas. I think if land banking is any kind of solution, we must attach to it the rider that it is really primarily designed to enable small municipalities to find land immediately around their outskirts for housing needs, and prohibit such land being tied up by the speculator and developer.
I have talked about land costs and I could go on and on, but the second component in the price of housing is building costs. Building costs have risen, but they are not unmanageable. The point I want to address myself to at the moment is the real hidden cost which is not understood by too many people in this country. I refer to impost costs, costs levied on builders and on individuals who want to build a home in a municipality.
To give an example of these hidden taxes, if you want to build a home in the largest city in my area, then without adding the cost of servicing and roads within the site, and so on, the cost, exclusive of acquisition of land, servicing costs and carrying charges on the land, is approximately $4,000 per unit. Municipal authorities and the provinces all declare that the cost of housing is too high, yet they themselves are charging $4,000 before you can even dig a hole in the ground. And you still have to pay for services. It seems to me that that sort of cost must become much more reasonable. For every one bedroom apartment in an apartment building in that municipality you pay $1,200 in the form of impost costs, which is a direct tax, without including cost of services. In the second largest community in my area the impost cost is $2,711 per lot, and I could go on and on.
It seems to me that when you take into account the impost cost at the municipal level, regional costs in our particular area of regional government, and over and above that the amount of bureaucratic red tape you have to wade through before you can get approval, you have an awful mess when you add them all together. That is the kind of thing we have to face. It is no solution to come forward and say we should subsidize interest rates, provide more money, and do a lot of other things. What we must do is to cut down the price of a house, and one place to start is right here.
The Address-Mr. Cafik
I do not think it is fair or reasonable for a municipality to put the entire tax burden for all services extraneous to the site directly on to the shoulders of a handful of people who are trying to buy a new house in that municipality.


Walter David Baker: They do not, not the whole load.


Norman Augustine Cafik: They put on a good part of it.


Walter David Baker: Well, that is different from saying the whole load.


Norman Augustine Cafik: I do not think it is reasonable to put the whole of this impost cost on their shoulders.
I think we have also to give consideration to package sewage plants, upstream sewage plants and so on, so as to cut down costs. We should also open up more serviced land where it is needed. In addition to that, I think we need, on an urgent basis, to conduct a great deal of research into ways of disposing of sewage by electrolysis.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's time has expired.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I may have permission to go on till one o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Norman Augustine Cafik: I think if we do the right amount of research, since we were able to put people on the moon, it will be possible for us to develop better ways of treating sewage, such as treating it on the site rather than through centralized sewage disposal units. This is a far better way of treating sewage from an environmental standpoint.
We need a real sense of urgent priority on the part of all levels of government in order to grapple with the problems to which I have only briefly alluded this morning. There is no doubt there are literally of hundreds of thousands of people in this country who are now paying more than they can afford for a home. I do not know how we will solve this problem, but we as a federal government, in conjunction with the other levels of government, ought to do what we can to see that the situation is corrected rather than aggravated.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the first and following sessions of the thirtieth parliament in the hope and expectation that we as a body will be able to provide some kind of leadership to the other levels of government in Canada in order to see that we cope with the housing problem in an effective way and overcome one of the very great and burdensome social evils of our time, namely the excessive cost of a home for Canadians.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member would permit a question before one o'clock?


Norman Augustine Cafik: Certainly.


Walter David Baker: I thank the hon. member. I must say at the outset that I completely agree with much of what the hon. member said, but in terms of the responsibility of the federal government is he aware

October 15, 1974
The Address-Mr. Wagner
that during the last session of the twenty-ninth parliament an invitation was given to the federal government by the minister of housing of Ontario to participate in housing programs then being considered, and now being implemented, by the provincial government, so that provincial and federal schemes, which in many cases were parallel, could be integrated? There has been no positive response yet from the federal government. That is my first question.
Secondly, would the hon. member not agree with me that one of the difficulties that municipalities face in terms of the impost charges about which the hon. member spoke so eloquently is the presently existing inequitable positions of revenue sharing between the provinces and the federal government? Can the hon. member tell me whether or not the federal government is proposing any new initiatives to right the inequities in the revenue sharing positions?


Norman Augustine Cafik: Firstly in connection with the second point, the impost costs and the inequitable sharing of the tax burden, I draw to the hon. member's attention that so far as I am concerned the inequity rests primarily at the provincial level. The province of Ontario has criteria that demand a certain balancing of industrial assessment, residential assessment and so on, which falls very hard on bedroom communities. They should resolve that question firstly with the municipalities.
The first question had to do with consultation at the federal and provincial levels. Obviously, my answer has already been given in my speech; I think we need a lot of consultation about the whole broad question of housing. The hon. member talked about co-operating with some existing provincial housing schemes, but it seems to me they ought to put their own house in order in that respect and open up more land, as well as get rid of the bureaucratic red tape which is causing the problem in the first place.


Walter David Baker: Hardly an answer to my question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do now leave the chair until two o'clock.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Madam Speaker, I was eager to intervene in this debate. I know that the House understands my well-founded eagerness since it goes back to July 8 last.
Before sending special greetings to my fellow-citizens of Saint-Hyacinthe and replying directly to some comments made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in this House, I would first like to congratulate you, Madam Speaker, on your appointment and assure you, as do my colleagues in the House, of my co-operation in the carrying out of your new duties.	*

I also congratulate the Speaker of the House and would like to tell him that he will not have an easy task during this Parliament. It is not an easy challenge to take up, mainly because the people outside of this House are restless and demand solutions to their more and more agonizing problems. There will be clashes in the House too. The opposition will have to stand firmly on its guard. It will have to show its sincerity in supporting fair measures, but it will prove responsible in fighting ruthlessly in case the government remains as inert as during the first ninety days following the election.
Madam Speaker, I hope the Speaker of the House will set to work with objectivity and fairness. I hope the day will come when we will have an independent speaker free of any political allegiance.
Madam Speaker, I mentioned a while ago how eager I was to participate in this debate and you guessed, from my broad smile, that my eagerness stemmed first of all from the results obtained in that marvelous riding of Saint-Hyacinthe in the last election. That the population should renew the mandate of its representative by suddenly metamorphosing his previous majority of 698 into 5,478 is no every day occurrence.
Those people therefore deserve that I express to them today my gratitude and appreciation, and that I assure them that I shall live up to my promises.
Those commitments, more specifically those dealing with agriculture, the golden age and the industrial development in my riding, will be respected to the letter; during this Parliament I shall intervene when need be, as often as necessary, so that the people I represent are kept informed of the work accomplished and get satisfaction.
In agriculture, especially, the government will have to launch a "green operation"; as the saying goes, the time has come to give it all we've got. When one considers the proliferation of auction sales in Quebec especially, one soon realized why the farmers are growing angrier.
Recently, 2,000 of them, in front of the Quebec Parliament, exposed their grievances. Madam Speaker, let us not wait till those people, who rightly hope the governments will solve their problems, grow so impatient that they go beyond the bounds of reasons and are led perhaps into even more difficult situations.
Answers are available to agriculture's problems. I am not among those simply decrying the government on acting negatively in this House. The eastern region should first be guaranteed feed grain supplies at a fair price. Production costs should be controlled, prices and markets stabilized. As requested by industrial milk producers, their legitimate demands should be considered and met with.
Above all, Madam Speaker, the problem of seasonal labour should be eased, the change to younger generations made easier, and producers and their families ensured of a fair return, a reasonable profit and more fitting standards of living. This in itself would be quite an achievement!
We know what the aged request, and I expect the payment, starting from October 1975, of benefits to the beneficiary's spouse between 60 and 65 years of age is but a first step toward gradual and volontary lowering of pensionable age to 60.
October 15, 1974

As for regional development, I dare hope that the intention formulated in the Speech from the Throne to extend the application of the Regional Development Incentives Act will be reflected in one of the amendments to the "Ottawa-Quebec" general law, so that the area of Rouville within my constituency, like those of Saint-Hyacinthe and Bagot, will become eligible in all fairness to the grants from the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. The "Ottawa-Quebec" agreement must also be reconsidered to meet the expectations of the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region.
As for community transportation, I trust that the rapid transit system through Saint-Hyacinthe, Saint-Hilaire, Beloeil and Montreal which the Liberals were so keen in promising during the last election campaign and even before will finally become a reality in the near future.
These are some of the economic and social questions whose merit the constituents of my riding of Saint-Hyacinthe have asked their federal representative to plead and on which I shall strongly return very soon.
Like a great many other constituencies in Quebec and throughout Canada, Madam Speaker, Saint-Hyacinthe is suffering from the present economic climate which, should it last, would lead us straight to social chaos.
In my riding as elsewhere, the people are suffering from inflation through erosion of their purchasing power. Inflation has just been recognized as a disease in this country. All of a sudden in the Speech from the Throne this government realized that it existed, and required immediate solutions. Inflation suddenly became public enemy number one. So this government must act and deal with the effects and causes of inflation, those that can in any case be controlled within Canada.
Mr. Lucien Saulnier was quite right a few weeks ago when he stated in his report as special investigator in the MUCTC conflict, and I quote:
Non-intervention policies in the complex situation of a drifting economy can only be disastrous for the weak, the non-organized, management as well as workers and the retired-it is a stupid policy.
Unless inflation is curbed, and unless it is dealt with with lucidity and courage, the gap between the rich and the poor will only widen, and one day the delayed intervention of governments in power will only be more costly than all they may venture to do right away.
For the moment, Madam Speaker, since the question can be asked, how is the leadership of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) felt in this area?
I will come back in a few moments to that famous leadership that was indeed proclaimed from all housetops during the election campaign, and even on the station platforms waiting for the arrival of that train that used to boast about its substantiality and that is now filled with emptiness.
I hear the Minister of Environment (Mrs. Sauve), who laughs at those things, who laughs when the inaction of this government is raised and who during the election campaign was running around not her own riding of Ahuntsic or the riding of Outremont where she lives, but the riding of Saint-Hyacinthe talking to farmers about farming problems and explaining that she had a farm in Saint-Charles in Saint-Hyacinthe, that she was affected
The Address-Mr. Wagner
by the fact that her alfalfa was completely burnt and realized all of a sudden that she rented her farm and that other people were farming it. She was concerned about this, but today it amuses her, as we talk about inflation.
I wish she would go back today to Saint-Hyacinthe and tell people there where we are with inflation. Perhaps she would go back with the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) who was chief organizer in Saint-Hyacinthe, the big sponsor of the whole campaign. He talked to farmers and today, in order to get over their defeat, the Minister of Environment and the Minister of National Health and Welfare would perhaps want to go back and drink powdered milk and say so to the farmers, unless they want to follow the suggestion of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) who advocated putting vitamins in beer or promoting wine production. It makes quite a lot of projects.

This government we now have-I say that with reluctance, because I am sure it is not a government-these people in front of us, went to the people in July and indicated that the problem was inflation and the issue was leadership. Clearly, many Canadians endorsed that view. While it is fair to say that over 50 per cent did not, this government now has an opportunity to justify its mandate with the leadership it has promised.
I was touched by the rather naive reference in the Speech from the Throne to the lack of social unrest in Canada. I know all members of this House would join me in hoping that the facts justify that statement. I am sorry to see the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Sauve) leaving the chamber, because I have a few words to say which might interest her greatly. I see she is now coming back.
I am glad the House is consulting the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) to find out whether it is true that powdered milk should be used to combat inflation. When the type of violence that surrounds the United Aircraft dispute in Quebec, the disruption of services brought about by the grain handlers' strike, the metro strike in Montreal and the transportation strike in Toronto can occur in a period of only a few months, it is only those who refuse to see the world as it is who can believe everything is well in Canada, that there is not the beginning of social unrest and that we can continue in the same way.
I remember when inflation was not as it is today, when railwaymen broke through the doors of parliament and postal workers walked for months on Parliament Hill. I remember when this House has been brought back to settle disputes which normal arbitration could not settle. Canadians have a right to know whether we have a government and parliament that is now prepared to face the continuing demands which must emerge when a free economy is saddled with an effective rate of inflation which attacks everybody's earnings, everybody's savings and everybody's future.
We must ask ourselves if this is the time for government and parliament to say only that things could be worse. We on all sides of the House have a responsibility to all the

October 15, 1974
The Address-Mr. Wagner
people of this country to say that things need not get any worse, and that we are prepared to take the measures necessary to ensure that they do not. It is the gap between those who have and those who have not that poses the greatest threat to the stability of our society. This government faces real, concrete challenges to the economic and social stability of this country.

If, as I mentioned earlier, inflation has become the major concern of this session, if leadership has become the main subject of discussion, as it was during the election campaign and during the past two years of minority government, this problem which most concerns us is not the only one. There are other problems for which the leadership of the right hon. Prime Minister is lacking.
I would now like to deal one by one with the remarks of the right hon. Prime Minister who, in his wisdom, his omniscience, decided not to talk about inflation in his first speech. I notice that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Corriveau) is applauding because the right hon. Prime Minister did not talk about inflation in his first speech in this House. However, the farmers will think about it.
Very suavely and with obvious intelligence, astuteness and brilliance, the right hon. Prime Minister mentioned problems which could be used as a diversion, which could be used as a cotton pad drenched in chloroform to be applied on Parliament and the Canadian people. He thought he could put the members of Parliament and the country to sleep by not mentioning the number 1 problem and by talking instead about related problems which are also important, but which certainly do not have the priority that the problem of inflation should have.
Madam Speaker, the question of parliamentary reform was mentioned by the right honourable Prime Minister. What did he say about this? On October 2, he said, as is reported in Hansard:
-this institution must express the collective will effectively and completely.
And what is the right honourable Prime Minister suggesting to achieve this? Does he really attack the problem in depth or does he deal only with procedural issues, with the superficial? We heard him say that it would be a good idea for the opposition to give him questions in advance so that he may have the time to prepare his answers. In a way, this would make some sense. We would not get the silly and frivolous answers we are getting every day. But he says questions should be made in advance. Perhaps we should broadcast the debates in this House over television and radio.
Maybe the opposition members should limit themselves to two of three speeches, whereas they are the people's spokesmen in important debates. We should proceed quickly, as if speed meant efficiency. We should always be filled with wonder at what is going on in Westminster. And there is the Prime Minister, back in Westminster where he applauds all debates in the House. And half an hour later, we shall hear him coming back from Westminster from where he wants to repatriate the Canadian constitution. To me, those are inconsistencies in the mind of the Prime Minister.

[DOT]	(1420)

Mr. Speaker, I hear them; they are as impressive here today as they were when they were travelling in Saint-Hyacinthe this summer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Claude Wagner: Instead of encouraging superficial
"procedurizing", the Prime Minister should have told the parliamentarians: first, let us proceed to give a completely new value to Canadian parliamentarianism. Second, let us do away with these abusive privileges of the executive which consist in hiding from the parliamentarians and the population certain things which should normally be known to all, as we have recently seen in the Supreme Court of Canada. Third, for example, he could have addressed himself to the problems facing the government which hides behind the pretext of state security whenever it does not want to disclose relevant facts to the federal administration. Fourth, the estimates could be considered spenly instead of being subject to the guillotine as is now the case. That would be a real reform in depth. Fifth, Parliament could be allowed to take part in decision-making affecting the national interest.
I am thinking, for example, of the debate on the Vietnam war; if, instead of being faced with of a unilateral decision, Parliament had been taken into the government's confidence, and if during out, we could openly discuss in this House the external relations of our country, the strategy that the government intends take, if the government could take the House in its confidence always evading the issue, then it could be said to be a parliamentary reform in depth which would go much further than simply requiring that members give notice of their questions or that our proceedings be televised.
There is another question on which the Prime Minister was evasive in an attempt to draw a red herring. He talked about repatriating the constitution. In his speech of October 3 that could be called his constitution repatriation speech, the Prime Minister said, as reported on page 46 of Hansard:
But I think it will be fairly easy to convince-
Oh, what paternalism! How things change when you have a majority! the people in Quebec-
Now he is talking to the people in Quebec! He is going over the head of the Quebec premier, of the Quebec government. He is addressing himself directly to the citizens of Quebec. In a way, I can understand that he should bypass the premier of Quebec, but there are formalities one cannot do away with.
He goes on to say that:
-they no longer need to seek the help of Great Britain, that they no longer need to hide behind Great Britain's skirts when we discuss among ourselves political issues affecting us all.
[DOT]	(1430)
It is our duty, Mr. Speaker, to be outspoken and let people know about Quebeckers' deep feeling in this
October 15, 1974

matter. There is much more here than an amendment formula. We must get to the bottom of the matter and not delude ourselves. People should know that Quebec, the home of French Canadians, has always believed for the last 20 years or so that the insertion in the constitution of an amendment formula could make Quebec's political evolution totally dependent upon the will of a few provinces, and that before any agreement as to an acceptable sharing of powers between Ottawa and Quebec. Always fearful of a possible constitutional iron collar, Quebec up to now, thought it was more realistic to demand an agreement on redistribution of jurisdictions, so as to know first the content of Canada's new constitution, even if it meant having to study afterwards an amendment formula, but we should not proceed in the opposite way.
If Mr. Bourassa did not make it as clear in Victoria in June 1970, he nevertheless, like all his predecessors, colleagues and advisers, had in mind the support and continuation of that stand of Quebec on that matter. And, as a deeper analysis reveals, the matter is not and does not look as simple as the Prime Minister gave it to understand last October 2nd.
Acting as the leader of this House and of the government means that the Prime Minister must be daring and courageous, and may I say honest enough to speak up his mind thoroughly, to present this House with every aspect of the problem, to dare and deal with every serious hypothesis. That means raising again every constitutional matter, which the provinces as a whole, and especially Quebec, are not in a position to indulge in on many accounts. The head of the government should give federal-provincial relations a better image than is conveyed by the kind of relationship now prevailing between the Minister of Communications (Mr. Pelletier), for instance, and his Quebec counterpart or the long delay in dealing with pertinent problems in the west of the country on matters of transportation and establishment of secondary industries. By the way, the estrangement of the western part of this country by the present federal government is a most serious matter which has to be thoroughly gone into.
National unity, Madam Speaker, implies setting priorities, and can only be built by answering daily problems; "structurizing" will follow, and "procedurizing" will come next. As for bilingualism, one is left wondering when the Prime Minister is speaking the truth. We do not know anymore. When is his policy on bilingualism a true one? Is it when he or his representatives set forth attenuating principles as they did during the first session of the last Parliament, or else today when it has a majority? Would he have lucidly and rationally reduced the rate of application of the "operation bilingualism" in the civil service following arguments but by insiders or else by Members of Parliament on both sides of this House, or did he resign himself to accepting the challenge, for electoral purposes, knowing full well that during an election campaign he could review his position? Is that what you call leadership, Madam Speaker?
I, for one, had accepted the nine points announced as attenuating principles in a spirit of justice towards the English-speaking people already working in the federal civil service, and also to avoid, in undue haste, questioning the ultimate objective of "operation bilingualism" in the
The Address-Mr. Wagner
federal civil service. I feel particularly at ease especially since I am a member of a party that has supported in the past and still supports the official languages policy, since I am serving under the authority of a leader whose tremendous efforts are not sufficiently recognized, the efforts he has made to familiarize himself with the French language and the Quebecois fact. I am all the more at ease because I sit with remarkable men, like the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) whose merits are not sufficiently recognized in Quebec, whose contribution to this country where the two founding groups of the Canadian community-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but the time allowed him has now expired. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) has the floor.


Claude Wagner: As my hon. colleagues suggest, perhaps I could be allowed to finish my remarks: I have very little else to add.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Do all hon. members agree that the hon. member should be allowed to finish his remarks?


An hon. Member:: Two minutes.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Claude Wagner: I thank you, Madam Speaker, and I thank my colleagues on both sides of the House.
Having touched upon some of the points on which the Prime Minister dwelled, here is how it seems to me we should deal in depth with today's problems.
Bilingualism should not become a question of partisan politics. It seems that, in the province of Quebec especially, the minorities are dealt with equitably and that we are justified in expecting as much in the other provinces. That is all very well, and particularly on the occasion of the adoption of the renowned Bill 22, it was timely to recall that, during the last electoral campaign, in some regards the Prime Minister seemed to be of two minds.
When he was chosen candidate in the riding of Mount Royal, I remember that he said, and I quote:

I trust-I trust the Bourassa government-because they are liberals, they will do the right thing. You can trust us to talk to them to make sure they're doing the right thing.

Those are words at which I applauded wholeheartedly. Now the campaign is over; it changes men surprisingly. Today the Prime Minister says: Concerning Bill-22, if any citizen wishes to bring it before a court, he is welcome to try, but we shall not intervene.
Madam Speaker, I should like to make a last point. I think that the whole issue of leadership that was obviously the stake of the campaign leads me to the following conclusion. A few years ago, I had the opportunity, at the Queen Elizabeth Hotel, to hear the Prime Minister ending his peroration with those memorable words: Finies les foliesl And let us look at the behaviour of this government since the last election, during the last 90 days. When

October 15, 1974
The Address-Mr. Lalonde
listening to the Prime Minister's speech, a speech that shows he is more preoccupied with the form than the substance, I wonder when this foolishness will end. For instance, when shall we see the end of those unfruitful fights between the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) who says to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) that he does not know what he is talking about when the latter says to Mrs. Plumptre: Well done! even though 28 million of eggs are rotten. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) talks about powder milk, when it is not about beer advertisements. When will the folly end? The Prime Minister himself says to everyone: That is solidarity, that is democracy! And the people of Canada wonder where is the actual leadership. When will we finish playing games?
We could continue like that endlessly. I have already exceeded the time I was given. I would have a few more things to say. I hope I shall have other opportunities to do so. However, I am eager to hear the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I wish he would tell us about his policies as well as his campaign in Saint-Hyacinthe because we shall hear it with great pleasure.
Madam Speaker, I thank you for your patience and I hope that during the coming weeks the government of this country will actually try to govern our country.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been some discussions about cutting to 20 minutes the length of speeches for the remainder of this debate. I do not wish to impose that limitation upon the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), and of course it would not happen unless he agreed to it, but I wonder if at some point it would be possible for us to agree to limit speeches to 20 minutes for the balance of this debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. The Chair has not been advised of such agreement. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) has the floor.


Mr. Caccia:: Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, after the Minister of National Health and Welfare has spoken we would be agreeable to the proposal just made, in order that many more backbenchers could make contributions to this fine debate.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Madam Speaker, on the same point of order raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), I would not be so selfish as to say that when I have finished my speech, subsequent speakers should be limited to 20 minutes. However, I think the House rules are pretty clear on this point. In the debate on the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, speeches are of 30 minutes duration, and I think we should proceed in that way.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Who is the House leader over there?


Mr. Baldwin:: We do not believe in mob rule.


Marc Lalonde: same fate he traditionally met every time he was approached for any leadership position.
This having been said, I will turn to what I would like to say in this debate on the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. I will have an opportunity to talk about the steps my department intends to take in the area of health and social security reform on different occasions during this session since we will have an opportunity to debate certain bills which were already introduced for first reading. But I wanted to take this opportunity to participate in the debate on the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne to point out some of my concerns as well as some of the projects I am considering in my new capacity as minister responsible for the status of women.
As you know this government is strongly committed to the principle of equal opportunity and freedom of choice for all Canadians. At the same time we recognize that the current status of women in Canada does not always lend itself to this principle.
I am honoured to be given the responsibility of guiding government policy in this area and I intend to give a great deal of time and effort to bringing about the necessary changes in our laws and in society so that women and men will both be able to participate fully in all activities of life.
As stated in the throne speech, the government is committed to introducing wide-ranging legislation to bring about equality for women before the law. We are also planning a number of initiatives for International Women's Year in 1975.
During the last session of Parliament, my predecessor as minister responsible for the status of women, outlined the steps we were planning to take at that time. Unfortunately, we were not able to complete our program before that session came to a sudden end. Those measures which we had begun, namely, the amendment of the Canada Pension Plan to provide equal treatment of men and women and the correction of discriminatory provisions in a number of other acts through the omnibus bill on the status of women, have already been re-introduced. It is my hope that these two bills will be speedily passed.
In addition, a new Citizenship Act has been introduced. This bill, among other things will enable children to derive Canadian citizenship from either their mother or father. Under the present law, Madam Speaker, children in most cases take their citizenship from their father only. Other changes providing for equal treatment of men and women will also be made.
Of great importance in our attempts to bring about an end to discrimination will be the establishment of a human rights commission. My colleague, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) will be introducing a bill to this effect before the end of this year. The legislation will set out the principles and procedures under which the commission will operate and will provide the necessary powers of enforcement. I am also pleased to announce that the government intends to recognize on this commission a large representation drawn from women.
The Minister of Justice will also be introducing amendments to the criminal code regarding trials for rape and
The Address-Mr. Lalonde
other sexual offenses. We are all aware that the present law needs changing and updating to provide more protection for the innocent victim of rape. The amendments planned by my colleague would ensure that the details of an alleged sex crime and the name of the victim would not be used in the public press; encourage the greater use of the change of venue or location of the trail. In addition, they would also encourage exclusion of the public from the preliminary inquiry and the trial or portions thereof, and prevent, except in certain limited circumstances, the defense from attacking the moral integrity of the victim.
I should like to take this opportunity to bring you up to date on two other items that were mentioned in the previous Speech from the Throne. As these did not require legislative action, the government was able to carry out its intentions as outlined at that time. Specifically, the various regulations setting out the terms and conditions of employment in the public service have now been amended so that all discriminatory provisions have been removed. Moreover, I am pleased also to announce that a cabinet directive was sent by the Prime Minister to all Crown corporations last May requesting them to undertake positive action to encourage the assignment and advancement of more women into responsible positions and to inform the minister responsible for the status of women of their progress in this respect. We have already received replies from many of the corporations and they indicate a very favourable response. In this respect, it was learned last week that a task force on the status of women which has been set up by the management of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation would table a preliminary report as early as October 18. It is my intention to get in touch shortly with other Crown corporations to assess what progress has been made as a result of the Prime Minister's letter of last spring.
Another item I should like to refer to is the question of coverage under the Canada and Quebec Pension Plans for spouses who are not in the labour force. This matter is presently being studied by the Canada Pension Plan Advisory Board and the Advisory Council on the Status of Women. I hope to have their reports this fall and will then want to discuss their proposals with my colleagues, the provincial ministers of welfare. I am sure the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs will also be interested in studying these reports. I can assure the house that it is a problem which has my close attention and I am working hard to find a solution that is acceptable to all.
I am also very concerned about the provision of child care services. As Minister of National Health and Welfare, even before I assumed the added responsibility of directing the thrust of government policy concerning the status of women, I was very pleased to announce that as a result of amendments to the Canada Assistance Plan Regulations in 1972, the full operating costs of day care services became shareable, including costs of equipment and supplies, and rent or depreciation on capital.
For all other welfare services, shareable costs are restricted to salaries and related staff costs. Thus, we participate further in the provision of day care than we do for any other social service that we cost-share with the provinces. We have also approved policy guidelines for

October 15, 1974
The Address-Mr. Lalonde
these services which are designed to ensure that federal sharing is available to low and below average income families who need day care services. These guidelines provide for the establishment of income tested programs in line with the recommendation of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women.
Most of what I have referred to so far involves the intervention of the legislator. However, I am very much aware that in order to bring true equality of opportunity for women we need a wide-spread re-thinking of the roles of men and women in our society. I do not think that many people would still want to deny women the opportunity to work as well as men, in whatever field they wish. We all know of women who have made outstanding contributions as businesswomen, doctors, lawyers, Members of Parliament and many others. This afternoon, a woman presides over our debates.
We have also read of those who are working as loggers, truckdrivers and in other areas traditionally assumed to be only for men. Recently we have seen a certain number of women join the ranks of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for the first time. We congratulate these women, especially since we are aware of the difficulties they have probably had to undergo.
I would like to say here how happy I am to be a member of a party which has succeeded in electing eight female members of parliament in the recent elections. The government party by itself now has three women more than the whole House had in the last Parliament. Knowing the contribution which women have made to previous Parliaments. I have no doubt that the influence on our deliberations of the female members of this House will greatly exceed the influence which their numbers alone would command. And this is a good thing.
I know that other parties also presented female candidates. But it is not enough simply to present female candidates: it is also essential to get them elected. I can say that our party has made a conscious effort not only to recruit female candidates, but also to encourage them to run in constituencies where they have a reasonable chance of winning.
The ever increasing part women are playing in all our political parties is a most encouraging development, and our society should welcome healthy competition among all parties to see who will be the first to give Canadian women their full place. I, for one, am glad to see the Liberal party with a good head start over its rivals, and I know that the members of our party are resolved not only to maintain this lead but to increase it in the coming years. For both at the legislative level, and at the level of social behaviour in general, our society still has a long way to go in recognizing the equality of the sexes in fact as in law.
If there are any who still have any doubts in this regard, I suggest that they take a look at certain earnings statistics published by Statistics Canada. Is it part of the concept of human nature or an inevitable consequence of biology that the average earnings of Canadian women participating full-time in the work force should be about

half that of male workers? We can surely imagine a better organized society in which this gap would not be so great.
Our society in general, continues to assign certain roles to men and certain others to women. For example, from watching T.V., one could get the impression all women were pretty, young housewives who cared only about their waxed floors and sweet-smelling laundry. As long as we continue to assume that the rearing of children and the caring for the home is the only interest of women and their responsibility above and that men do not have to be concerned, we will be denying them complete freedom of choice. It has been said that the reason men are able to succeed in their chosen field is that they have a wife to support and care for them so that they can have time to devote themselves to their work.
But, Madam Speaker, women don't have wives. If they want to succeed in areas outside the home, they usually must take on a double burden.
This stereotyping of sex roles has also deprived men of freedom of choice. The expectation placed on them to succeed in the workplace at any cost, including long hours, has made it difficult for them to participate fully in family life. Our objective must be flexibility and accommodation so that all individuals, both men and women, can assume the role or roles best suited to their personality, regardless of sex. In achieving greater equality for women, we will also be freeing men to share the joys and responsibilities of parenthood.
It is with this in mind that we are planning for International Women's Year in 1975. We recognize that our objectives will not be achieved overnight. The process of changing attitudes is a gradual one and our efforts will continue as long as they are needed. However, we welcome International Women's Year as a time to give special emphasis to the problem.
The government's program has already been outlined in general. It includes an information and educational campaign to bring the issues before the public. There will be both general and specialized regional and national seminars, training sessions and conferences involving people from all walks of life, especially those who have not yet had the opportunity to consider the implications of change.
There will also be special exhibitions and cultural activities, publications and films. An increased amount of funds will be avilable for non-government organizations to undertake a wide variety of activities to mark the year. Legislation will be reviewed with a view to removing any remaining discriminatory provisions. Special efforts will be made to increase the number of women appointed to senior positions and to international meetings and conferences.
We have recently hosted a most successful U.N. Seminar on Machinery to Promote the Integration of Women in Development as part of our contribution on the international level.
The Government has earmarked additional funds in the amount of $5 million for International Women's Year. This amount is over and above funds allocated from within ongoing programs of many departments and agencies.
October 15, 1974

Given the present economic situation and the restraints upon additional government spending, this allocation of funds is an indication of the importance we attach to the activities we have planned for International Women's Year. We have also established a special secretariat in the Privy Council Office to administer some of the special activities. These activities are being planned and implemented in co-operation with the provinces and with members of non-government organizations to ensure that we reach everyone across the country.
Last spring, the Prime Minister wrote to his provincial colleagues asking them to designate someone in their governments as a point of contact. Already two federal-provincial meetings of officials have been held to discuss plans as well as bilateral meetings with a number of the provinces. In addition to taking part in some of our programs, it is my hope that the provincial and municipal authorities will do their share in reviewing legislation and rethinking attitudes in their respective areas of jurisdiction so that discrimination will be attacked at all levels and in all fields. As Minister Responsible for the Status of Women, I will endeavor to convince my provincial colleagues to encourage their respective provinces to participate most energetically in International Women's Year.
However, to make this year a true success, we need the participation of all Canadians. I hope that, as in Canada's Centennial Year, everyone will undertake a project of their own to promote the integration of women in the life of the country. I see the year as a time for all of us, men and women, to assess our attitudes and, where necessary, change them so that in fact, and not in principle, Canada is indeed a country of equal opportunity for all.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Madam Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate I should first like to congratulate you upon appointment to your high office. I know that your respect for debate and your sense of fair play will stand you in good stead as you preside over this House. I might say that I believe the same is true of the Speaker himself; his respect for parliament and for fair play will stand him in good stead in the years ahead.
One can read the Speech from the Throne very closely but will see very little to solve the problems that Canada will face in the remaining years of the seventies, or even in the remaining years of this parliament. There is nothing in it to deal with inflation; there is no real indication of any concern for the difficulties faced by the various regions of Canada. It is suggested that by increasing the food supply we can somehow lower food prices, and I shall be dealing with that in a moment.
There is one sure way to cure inflation, and that is to work a little harder, be a little more productive, save a little more, and for all governments to spend a little less. There is no suggestion in the Speech from the Throne that the government is going to encourage Canadians to work a little harder, allow Canadians to be a little more productive, or that the government is going to curtail its spending one bit. The government says it is going to encourage greater food production and thereby lower food prices. An industry very close to my heart has a surplus of beef today, yet the farmer received approximately $120 a head less for a butchered steer than he received a year ago. The
The Address-Mr. Horner
cost of meat on the counter is about the same. Where did this $120 go, Madam Speaker? Inflation gobbled it up. The packer took $30 and retailing and distribution costs accounted for $80 or $90. Yet although there is a surplus of meat, the price remains the same for the consumer because the government has allowed inflation to run wild.
There has been a great deal of talk in the recent past about eggs. Some people say their price is high, others say it is low. A couple of years ago we had a bill in the House known as the farm marketing bill, which set up CEMA. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) went on the radio in Ottawa and said that one man held up that bill for two years. Some consumers might be pretty annoyed that that man did not hold it up forever. I said that it would not work then, and I say it will not work now.
Why do I say that? I am not against marketing boards, but I do not believe that supply management will work in Canada. I said at the time that it might work in a small country such as Switzerland or Denmark; but who is so all-seeing and all-powerful on earth as to determine what should be produced where, and where the product should be marketed? I am not surprised that man should decide he has the wisdom to ship eggs from Newfoundland to British Columbia and somehow or other satisfy the customer. I am sure that if the matter had been left in the hands of the Lord, there would have been fresh eggs in B.C. at a cheaper price than letting man tinker with them. Why did it take the government two years to come to its senses and to realize this? I think the beef and hog producers are thankful that the bill does not apply to them, because man could have tinkered in their markets and made those markets even worse than they are today.
So far as government spending and a hard line on finance are concerned, thhe money supply has not been increasing in Canada during the last three months. But this, coupled with a wild extravaganza of spending, only creates greater hardship on the individual and the country-and it does not really matter which country it is. The individual has to pay higher interest rates because there is less money available, and the government is grabbing a great percentage of the amount that is available. That is what the government has been doing in the last three months-curtailing the money supply but not curtailing spending.
If the government did take a hard financial line it would improve the bond market, and anybody who has any knowledge of that market knows how bad it is. Perhaps such an attitude would improve the stock market, and anybody with stock other than the four-legged kind knows how bad it is. Perhaps this would improve the short-term interest investment field, allowing millions of Canadians to retain a little more money and thereby increasing the productivity of this nation. This is the only real long-run cure we have for inflation.
There was also mention of a transportation policy in the Speech from the Throne. Apparently the government has come around to thinking there should be greater competition between various modes of transportation. It is nice that it has come to its senses in this regard, but let us remember what happened in January of 1967. From Janu-

October 15, 1974
The Address-Mr. Horner
ary 9 to January 29, 1967, we heard speech after speech about transportation. At that time I suggested the National Transportation Act would not serve those regions of Canada where there is no competition between various modes of transportation. I repeated this fact over and over, but the government of the day plowed blindly ahead, saying that competition was sufficient. At that time I said the National Transportation Act would throw the prairies and the maritimes to the wolves-and history has borne that out. I will certainly be watching to see what action results from the reference to transportation policy in the Speech from the Throne.
I am more concerned about where Canada is going from this point on. In the late 1970s and through the 1980s Canada will be entering a period of unusual potential: we will have a highly mobile and well educated group of young people with a tremendous potential for production. Hopefully, we will not have significantly eroded our natural resources, perhaps mainly because of their abundance. Hopefully, we will have our population growth under relative control, at least to a greater degree than many countries throughout the world. I am sure we will see a keen worldwide demand for our foodstuffs as well as our raw and processed materials.
Perhaps the best thing of all will be our ability to attract capital through bond and debenture borrowings, based on our natural advantages, particularly if we manage to maintain a firm Canadian dollar. I think we can become more capital-intensive and prosperous without losing our equity ownership. I am sure we will be able to borrow on debt financing, but certainly we will not have to borrow for equity ownership if we provide an incentive for Canadians to earn more and to save more. We must ensure that ability to earn without allowing this government to take back all the earnings.
Let us take a real look at the situation in this country compared with countries around us. Many countries possess enormous natural resources and natural assets, but many of those countries have poor standards of living, far below the dignity level of most human beings. Why is it that Canada, with its natural resources, should and can enjoy a quality of life comparable to none? I suggest the answer to that question lies in the fact that our greatest resource is our people, their attitudes, morals, courage and ability. They have done much to appreciate and develop their skills. If we carry on as we have in the past, we will be discouraging these people. They will become reluctant to develop their skills and talents and will be more prepared to sit on their fannies and wait for the government to provide for them.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: An hon. member take exception to that. I suggest he consider that Germany was burned out during the Second World War and rose afterwards to become a wealthy trader and financial house. I suggest it did so because of the desire of its people to improve themselves.
We in this country have listened to people who say we can redistribute our skills and talents in one way or another in order that everyone may attain some kind of equality. I suggest it is pretty difficult to redistribute skills, natural aptitude, talent, tenacity, courage and moral

strength. There are two basic directions we can take to tackle our mounting problems; one is socialistic, with state participation in all sectors, and the other is through a free market economy with over-all state control. Canada's greatest danger at the present time is that we are attempting to correct the situation which we recognize in tbis country through the socialistic route, that is, with direct intrusion into economic decision-making by all levels of government. This route is fraught with danger and is doomed to failure.
The fatal problem with this route is that the privilege is simply taken from the classes who have it now and is given to those who would like to have it. My friends to the left say they do not swallow this argument. They should consider for a moment the continual federal government interference in every economic decision in the past eight years. I refer to the egg marketing fiasco as a perfect example, but one could find similar examples in respect of oil, manufacturing, farm produce marketing and a bost of other industries.
The basic problem does not change. All we see is a shift taking place. Communism, the inevitable result of state interference, is an archaic form of economy for an advanced nation, and it will provide benefits only for the immature and primitive society. If Canada is sincere about owning its own means of production, I suggest this is a simple thing to accomplish. To do so we will have to forgo some of today's benefits, making more effort to assemble capital. Since the government is the largest consumer of capital, this also means we will have to examine government expenditures with a great deal of care. Do we prefer to spend a great deal of money on those things in which the government is involved, or do we prefer to use the money to increase equity ownership? We cannot have the government doing everything for everybody and still have a country which allows John Q. Citizen to retain more money with which to purchase a portion of the factory or industry in which he is working.
We must ask ourselves whether it is wise to leave earned capital with those who have the ability and the skill to employ it and who wish to expand or transfer those funds for political purposes into areas of Canada where there is no possibility of development taking place. I listened to the speech which the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) has just completed, but heard not one word about developing Canada. He did not refer to the need for creating greater productivity in Canada. His was a good speech and he said some things that needed to be said, but he simply repeated what has been said by every government member who has spoken during this debate on the throne speech.
We cannot allow this great country to take the direct and negative route of controls. We must take the route of saving capital and streaming those savings into equity. Since in a rapidly changing society commodities have an average life span of less than ten years, if we move now we can become the owners of most of the equity within Canada.
Let us consider the situation in Japan, country with a very small land mass. It has very industrious people, with one of the fastest growing economies in the world. Japan has attained this position under what might be considered

hopeless conditions compared with what we enjoy in this country. I suggest the basic secret is simple and obvious. The secret has a direct relationship to the attitude of the people. To some degree we have witnessed the erosion, by one government or another, of the attitude of the Canadian people compared with what it used to be, that is, a true blue Canadian attitude. One might refer to it as the working philosophy. It has been called many things. We must put greater emphasis on people. We must exhibit a keen desire to allow people to manage themselves. We must allow them to make a few dollars and determine how they should be spent.
I have often in the past thought that we have spent too much money in an effort to provide a higher quality of life to everybody, without encouraging people to make a contribution toward Canada. The federal government should show leadership in a positive direction by setting goals for the ten provinces, instead of being involved in judicial brawls concerning who should hand out most of the money to the taxpayer. One could cite, over the years, examples of government interference with the provinces. In one instance a court case is in progress: the Saskatchewan government is involved in a court case with the federal government. One need not mention the situation in respect of Alberta. Newfoundland is becoming involved at the present time. Instead of Ottawa being the referee, in far too many cases it has become the participant, competing with the province when the province is attempting to share in whatever prosperity there might be.
When Canada has needed a powerful central government to settle a dispute, the government has had to compromise its position because it is involved in the dispute. Decision-making in our country should be brought down to the lowest level. State socialism has a tendency toward the opposite. Private enterprise follows the proper course. We must begin to recognize some of these things. My friends to the left never agree that John Q. Public can make the right decision: they want to make it for him. Invariably, it takes three or four minds to carry out what John Doe could have done himself, and much more efficiently. Until a better control system is formed, the open marketplace, although it may have many difficulties and cause much concern, is still the best system and should be more adequately supported in Canada.
We might consider CEMA and the egg situation for a moment. Surely one can realize the difficulty. One might ask, how many eggs are 20 million? I do not look upon that as a great number, but I do consider it to be a great loss in human time when we consider that eggs can be shipped from Newfoundland to British Columbia at a cost of 19 cents. We may think we can interfere everywhere. We might be better off to study Hardin's law, which is simply that if the government makes one interference, it must make two or three more in order to catch up to the first one, and then it becomes a perpetual thing.
We have heard a great deal of discussion in the past few years about foreign investment. I think the amount of foreign investment which has taken place in Canada is alarming. From 1966 to 1969, the net capital inflow from the United States to Canada was $2.5 billion. The net capital outflow to the United States in interest and divi-
The Address-Mr. Horner
dends from Canada during that period was $3.6 billion. We had a minus situation of $1.1 billion. I am alarmed at that. Seventy-six per cent of all companies in Canada with assets of over $25 million are foreign-owned. We should start doing something about this situation. Very little was said about it in the speech from the throne. I am concerned about the route we should take. The only practical and positive route would require patience and courage.
Intelligence and firm leadership is required, rather than immediate haste on the part of governments, which forces people out of foreign investment and also encourages Canadians to leave. This only brings about a greater degree of loss to Canada than is necessary. As I said earlier, any new product has a life span of something like ten years. Slowly and surely we should give Canadians a clear indication that they can invest, and they should be encouraged to invest, in Canada.
In order for Canada to control a larger portion of its destiny, we should not be afraid of multinational corporations. We should make certain many of these multinational corporations are owned by Canadians, particularly those who do business within Canada. In order to do this we must have low-cost capital. We have not had this in Canada because in many cases we have driven it out. This capital must be available at a competitive price, for a long term. It is more important to have equity capital than debt capital, since if we manage ourselves properly we can always borrow money.
I believe it is extremely important that Canada should have such equity capital. We are now concerned about the oil industry and that we may be net importers of oil by 1983 because government in the past two years has successfully driven out a huge portion, well over 50 per cent, of the skills involved in the oil industry. It would probably take another four years to entice them back to Canada to go to work and carry on exploration for oil.
Because of the nature of the society in which we live, Canada always has had a good supply of professional skills in the field of applied research and applied science. If we do not create the right climate for these people in Canada, they will leave. We also have had some difficulty with our Canadian banks. The Gray report pointed out clearly that Canadian banks have been more prepared in the past to lend to foreign concerns than to Canadians. They do not seem to trust the people who have special skills in applied research, and so on. We do not seem too think they are as great as people from another country.
The fundamental requirement for attracting capital and people, and trusting the judgment and skills of these people, is to create the proper environment in which the capital and knowledge can be put to work. Environment, in this case, can be defined as the position our government takes toward business and the marketplace system. The government should state its position as clearly as possible and deviate as little as possible over the longest possible term.
It is becoming increasingly important for the federal government to state its priorities, one of which should include an industrial policy. A clear enunciation of priorities should be given the Canadian citizen so that he may determine where is the best place to concentrate his effort or whether he should bother making any effort at all. One

October 15, 1974
The Address-Mr. Horner
might consider what has happened in Canada in the past few years. We had a white paper on taxation which caused havoc in this country. We had the farm marketing bill which caused havoc in respect of the marketing of agricultural products. Then we had the involvement of the government, in one form or another, in manufacturing. Now we have the government's hand in the oil industry and we are told that by 1983 we may be a net importer of oil, while we have an abundance of oil resources.
What should an industrial policy include? Any policy being considered by Canada should be, in the future, only a Canadian policy if it is to be truly beneficial to the country as a whole. Why should we devise an industrial policy any other way? Regional policies will increasingly have a divisive effect in Canada. Every one of us in this House can think of policies which have been devised in the past which have been regional in concept. An industrial policy should be truly Canadian. We had an industrial policy which applied to regions all across Canada, within certain boundary lines. Some provinces were included, some not at all. This tends to divide.
Bargaining away any of the resources produced in one part of Canada to confer a benefit on another part of Canada is a dangerous act and leads to obvious divisions in the country. All parts of Canada are sufficiently sophisticated to understand the results of this type of action and should recoil against such political manoeuvring. As I was saying, this is a most dangerous route. Primary industry, resource industry and manufacturing industry which have an advantage in world markets should be encouraged to reach their highest economic level and bring maximum value to Canada as a whole.
Another recent alarming trend which I have observed is the sudden building up of tariff barriers. An industrial policy must state clearly our recognition of the fact that the world has been moving toward a system of lower tariffs and lower barriers. Canada is as yet a reasonably high tariff country and we will be under increasing pressure, as we have been in recent years. The other day I listened to a commentator speaking following the news on television. He asked, "What are we doing? Are we getting into a trade war?" One hears a lot of talk these days about a depression, but certainly if a depression takes place it will be preceded by a trade war. In my opinion, no commentator should be sitting in a high place, looking down at Canada, and asking, "Is this what I am seeing, a trade war?" An industrial policy should shy miles away from such a situation. We are master traders and we should be proud of our skills and our ability to sell. Certainly, many people derive their high standard of living in Canada from using these abilities.
I dealt earlier with the foreign takeover of a number of Canadian companies. In the past we have seen many takeovers of the Canadian economy by American corporations. Probably in the future the only change will be that the purchasers will be Japanese, German or nationals of other OPEC countries moving into Canada. If anyone is to be blamed for the loss, it should be the Canadian financial community, the people who control the money, not Canadian businessmen. Many members of the House have condemned our businessmen. However, in many cases it is

not their fault; it is the fault of the people who are supplying them with the money. Where does the money come from to make purchases of Canadian companies? Studies indicate, as I stated earlier, that the greatest portion of these funds comes directly from Canadian banks. Canadian depositors have supplied the necessary funds for foreign takeovers. This was pointed out in the Gray report.
Businessmen are well aware of the fact that if a company can finance through relatively low-cost debt, then the value of the equity-that is, the share portion of the company-increases correspondingly. Generally, it is this lever which the company seeks for the investment of foreign money. In other words, we want to use foreign money for operating capital, but not necessarily equity capital.
I know my time is nearly over, but I should like to emphasize this particular point, that in the past we have seen the Canadian government attempting to take what might be called the political route, or a simplistic approach, of simply prohibiting takeovers by law. The problem of prohibition by law is that the entrepreneur becomes wary of initiating a business in the first place and decides, very wisely, to work instead for a foreign corporation or for the government. That is exactly what has happened. When you suggest you will prohibit a takeover, you automatically devalue the business concerned and automatically discourage someone from going into the same business. You destroy a little of the initiative, skill, tenacity and courage about which I spoke at the beginning of my speech.
The only approach that will work is to provide the Canadian entrepreneur, executive or proprietor, who wishes to build a Canadian corporation with a better deal to sell to a Canadian rather than to a foreigner. This keeps him motivated, and Canada keeps control of her industries. Unfortunately, one of the difficulties in developing Canadian industry is the staggering overhead of carrying the cost of Canadian government. This overhead shows up as one of the civilized world's highest tax burdens which falls increasingly upon Canada's productive middle class. How many times have I sat in the House in the past few years and heard it said that this or that budget is increasing the burden on the middle class! We cannot do that forever or we will kill the goose that laid the golden egg.
The salaries of people in the middle class are taxed at a higher rate in Canada than they are in the United States, and so are many of our companies. One cannot penalize a younger person who has initiative and drive for seeking out the highest reward for his efforts and services. These people do not really mind living south of the border, and in fact many of them go there and have gone there. We speak about the brain drain in this country. How many times has that expression been used here in the House? We have not really applied our thinking in considering the pieces of legislation we have passed, to finding ways to curtail the brain drain. In fact, in the past this trend has accelerated because of lack of a clear industrial policy, lack of a policy on foreign investment in Canada.
I see, Mr. Speaker, that you are ready to rise. I have many more thoughts to express to Canadians, but I will take some other opportunity to do so.
October 15, 1974


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, in rising for the first time as a minister to take part in the debate on the Speech from the Throne, I should like, first, to express the wish that His Excellency the Governor General continues his recovery and that it be a full and speedy one. I also wish to compliment the mover and the seconder for their excellent addresses and, above all, to compliment this House on its wise choice of Mr. Speaker, whom I know personally and whom I hold in high regard, as does every member of this House. Also, I should like to thank all hon. members for their good wishes. I appreciate their thoughtfulness and I trust this spirit of goodwill will illuminate all the debates in the House and in the committee relating to my portfolio.
In this new job of mine, I wear three hats: as Minister of State for Urban Affairs, as the minister responsible to parliament for the National Capital Commission, and as the minister responsible for housing through Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. In the time available to me today I want to deal with each of these areas of responsibility, if time permits and hon. members will allow me.
The urban affairs ministry is the agency which provides the communication links among all levels of government and among all government departments and agencies which have an effect on the urban environment. The National Commission has a special responsibility for the national capital area as an urban community which has a very special significance for all Canadians and of which they can all feel proud. In another sense, it is a model community, a showcase within which the results of imaginative and innovative urban planning can be displayed. CMHC is an agency through which the government fulfils its obligations to ensure that all Canadians have access to good housing and a healthy and satisfying community environment. It administers a capital budget of substantially more than a billion dollars, but it is not simply a banker. It is in fact an instrument of the government's social policy in the field of housing and community planning.
During the past three years under my two distinguished predecessors, the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs has led the way in establishing a system of trilevel consultations involving the three levels of government at the national, regional and local levels. That system is a key element in our joint response to urban problems, and it is one of the mechanisms used to get more benefits, more cutting power out of our individual but harmonized efforts at managing urban growth. It means that the federal, provincial and municipal governments work with a common purpose, rather than at cross-purposes.
For the past 30 years Canada's rate of urban growth has outstripped that of every other western industrial nation and, if it continues at its present rate to the year 2000, we will be 90 per cent urbanized, with half of all Canadians living in Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal. Clearly, this startling rate of growth is intensifying urban problems and spawning new ones. That, Mr. Speaker, is where our
The Address-Mr. Danson
collective response must be directed-toward managing this rapid, unbalanced growth, not by imposing decisions on people but by providing attractive options. To meet this challenge, the concerted efforts of the federal, the provincial and municipal governments must be based on sound and achievable urban objectives, not vague theories or ill-conceived plans. I am happy to say we reached consensus on the general nature of those objectives at the second national trilevel conference in Edmonton last October.
We are concerned with the pattern of urbanization and the distribution of our urban population. We are equally concerned with restoring and improving our older centres to develop the kinds of services, housing and amenities they often desperately need to make them attractive places in which to live and work. But concern is not enough, and therefore we have developed many elements in our response to the urban challenge.
The Railway Relocation and Crossing Act, for example, has tremendous potential and we intend to exploit that potential to the fullest measure practical: to restore and revitalize our communities; to provide space for housing, for parks, for rapid transit corridors, for new commercial districts. This federal participation is in full recognition of and respect for provincial jurisdiction and with provincial priorities fully considered at all stages.
Another illustration is the new policy which now governs the management of federal urban lands and that includes a substantial amount of prime land in major centres. The federal government, as a major land owner in most Canadian cities, has reviewed its role as an "urban citizen" and defined a new set of policies governing the management of federal land and properties. We will ensure that the redevelopment of federal properties takes place in the light of their best urban use, rather than narrow, primarily financial considerations. These new policies will ensure that federal land as much as possible remains in the public domain. Further, local communities will be consulted during the analyses that will take place in planning the re-use of these land holdings.
Needless to say, the management of urban growth must take place within the context of regional growth strategies. They are as necessary to the effective handling of urban growth as is the trilevel co-operation in which we are actively engaged. Consequently, the federal government, through the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs, CMHC and other departments and agencies, is involved in supporting the development of growth strategies for a number of urban regions, and it will support many more in the future as the provinces and municipalities formulate their plans.
One very special kind of planning is required in our port cities. We have a chance to reclaim our waterfronts, restore them to the use of our people and improve the capabilities of our ports to compete in world trade. The urban affairs ministry, together with other federal agencies, is examining the critical question of how port activities relate to and affect other urban functions. We have begun to do this, for instance, in Vancouver, Montreal, Thunder Bay, Halifax and Quebec City.
Mr. Speaker, I have given just a few tangible examples of how this government is proceeding with an effective response to urban growth in particular and to urban prob-

October 15, 1974
The Address-Mr. Danson
lems in general. It is a response which involves many federal agencies. It is a response which commits us to genuine and effective consultation with other levels of government. It is a commitment which I intend to carry out fully.
With regard to the special planning opportunities within the national capital region, I should like to remind the House, Mr. Speaker, that the NCC has had, and will continue to have, a major impact on the development, functioning and quality of life in this area which, apart from its national significance, is also a thriving city. In fulfilling this role, the NCC is proposing two interrelated federal development strategies-one for the heart, or core, of the capital and the other for the capital region as a whole.
A major objective of the core area planning is to link, physically and economically, the centres of Ottawa and Hull as the strong and dynamic heart of the national capital region which reflects and respects Canadian cultural life styles-a vibrant capital in which all Canadians feel at home and of which they are part. The major elements defining the image of the capital-the parliamentary, judicial and cultural institutions, as well as a major part of the federal administrative function-will continue to be located in the centre of the capital. At the same time, we will seek a diversity of land use in the core area, emphasizing residential use, as well as governmental, retail and other business activities.
In the wider national capital region, in face of the pressures of present and anticipated urban growth which could threaten the very quality of life as well as the role of the capital region, the NCC is proposing a framework of development for the next three decades, just as the Greber plan did for the last two decades. The planning concept for tomorrow's capital is not meant to be a master plan but, rather, a working document designed to focus intergovernmental and public dialogue toward a common set of development objectives. This document will be released within a few weeks. Such consensus is crucial at this time because of the various planning activities under way by other levels of government and groups in the capital region. A further study bearing on the development of the national capital region is the Fullerton report. This study deals with the administrative and organizational framework for the capital. In light of all these recommendations, proposals and plans affecting the area, the government is committed to the establishment of a special committee of the Senate and the House of Commons to consider questions relating to the future of the national capital region.
I would like to speak now for a few minutes about another extremely important aspect of my responsibilities, the goal of putting good housing within the reach of all Canadians in all parts of Canada. This year, because of economic conditions which are common to all countries, the housing industry in Canada will not be able to maintain the remarkable record of growth which has been established over the last few years. I will deal, in a moment, with the present housing situation in Canada and the action which the federal government is taking, and will take, to deal with it.
When I suggested a few days ago, Mr. Speaker, that Canadians, by and large, are among the best housed people

in the world, some hon. members opposite seemed to express some skepticism. That is their job. I should like to return to that theme now, very briefly, by citing some accomplishments of the last six years during the term of this government. During that time, Mr. Speaker, 1,350,000 new homes were built in Canada, while in the same period
700.000	new families were formed. We have not only been keeping up with the needs of new families for homes; our building rate has been almost twice that of family formations. This is fortified by the knowledge that in the last four, or five years we have had no place in the bedrooms of the nation.


Mr. Gillies:: No bedrooms, that's all.


Barnett Jerome Danson: In human terms, this represents not just
1.350.000	housing units but homes for almost 5lA million men, women and children. This record has been achieved, Mr. Speaker, not only by sound housing policies but by a housing industry which, in terms of efficiency and productivity, is among the best in the world. I want to preserve a competitive, viable house building industry in this country as an essential partner with government in fulfilling people's needs. It is a strong and efficient construction industry and financial community in this country that will deliver homes to Canadians.
It is my intention to use existing programs, and new ones which I am developing, to stimulate this sector and to make certain that it is productive, competitive and responsible. Governments do not build homes, builders do. We must provide the climate and support to make certain they do so for Canadians of all economic groups. We must exact the maximum leverage from every public dollar spent to unlock the greater resources of the private lenders and builders. The Economic Council of Canada told us that if we were to meet the needs of Canadians, we would have to build a million homes between 1969 and 1973. We accepted that challenge and we built 1,153,000 houses in that period, exceeding the ECC target by a substantial margin and surpassing 200,000 units every year.
I know very well, Mr. Speaker, that it is not enough just to build houses. We have to build the kind of houses people need and can afford. In the six-year period from 1968 to 1973, we produced more than a quarter-million units of housing for low income people, at an investment of well over $2.5 billion. If the significance of those numbers is not evident, let me add that it is more than three times as many low income homes as were built in the previous 22 years.
Housing itself, of course, is not our only concern. In the same six-year period we responded to the demand of Canadian municipalities for almost $.5 billion in loans for sewage treatment facilities, and wrote off 25 per cent of those loans as an investment by the federal government in the interests of clean water and soil and good urban planning. That is a record of which any government can be proud. It is still a matter of deep concern to me, and to the government, that good housing is not equally available to all Canadians throughout Canada; but we have made significant strides towards that goal and we are constantly increasing our efforts. If we have to weather a few bad
October 15, 1974

months because of the prevailing economic climate, I see no immediate cause for despair and I am confident that before long we will regain the momentum which we have built up over the last six years.
I should like to share with hon. members the facts of the housing situation as it exists today and at the same time describe the actions which the government is taking and proposes to take to change the situation. Because of rising prices, high interest rates and the reluctance of private lenders to commit mortgage funds, the annual rate of housing starts is substantially lower than the record levels of recent years. We have attempted to improve the supply of mortgage funds in a number of ways. First, through the Assisted Home Ownership Program we have made public funds available to finance housing where it is most needed, good housing for people of low or moderate incomes. In spite of those who cried that it would never work, AHOP has been, so far, the most successful of our new social housing programs. I am grateful to my predecessor for introducing this program and for showing industry and the people of Canada that housing can be built at lower prices.
During the first nine months of this year we committed some $450 million for the purchase of 20,000 homes for some 80,000 Canadians. About half of these homes were new construction. Because of the remarkable success of this program, the available funds have been taken up sooner than we expected. However, I want to assure the House that as soon as additional funds become available, AHOP will be continued. Before the start of the next building season in the spring of 1975, new initiatives will be introduced to complement this very successful program.
So far this year CMHC has made direct loans amounting to more than $568 million to finance more than 27,000 homes-about two-thirds of them new construction. I announced a few weeks ago that we were prepared to put up $50 million at 8 per cent if builders in some of the larger cities would build housing for rent at agreed-upon moderate rates. I said at the time this would not be a panacea but one important initiative in dealing with a complex problem. It is evident, however, that it is not possible to fund all the new housing in Canada with public money.
Earlier this year we secured the co-operation of private mortgage lenders who agreed that high ratio loans should be available only for housing in the middle and lower price range. The lenders agreed that, for more expensive housing, down payments would be at least 25 per cent. At a time when mortgage capital is not readily available, this agreement has the effect of directing our financial resources to the creation of modest housing for more families, a strategy more consistent with our over-all national housing objectives. Over the years, the federal government has introduced many measures to encourage private investment in housing. Under CMHC mortgage insurance arrangements as provided for in the National Housing Act, private approved lenders made some $1.5 billion in loans to home buyers last year.
Last year legislation was passed to create the Federal Mortgage Exchange Corporation and to permit the creation of private mortgage investment corporations. These
The Address-Mr. Danson
measures are intended to make residential mortgages more attractive and convenient as an investment and to bring more investors, particularly small investors and a largely untapped source of non-equity foreign investors, into the field. We must continue to seek new pools of capital which can be tapped for housing money, and step up the flow from existing sources. I have always felt that pension funds should be much more active in mortgage investments. I know their participation in housing has increased, partly because of the persuasiveness of my predecessors. But I do not think the full potential of these funds as a source of capital for housing has been reached, not by any means. I am going to pursue that possibility. I think the time has come also when we should consider seeking housing non-equity capital from outside Canada in a more active and deliberate way.
As a further step toward making better use of private resources, our success with the Assisted Home Ownership Program suggests to me that if it is going to achieve its full potential in enabling Canadian families to buy their own homes, ways may have to be sought to make use of private as well as public capital under similar terms and conditions. In this way, assistance could be extended to twice as many families than if we were dependent only upon available public funds. At the same time, the private sector would be further stimulated.
As a general benefit for people who are purchasing modest homes for the first time, the government has proposed a grant of $500 as a way of offsetting the building materials' sales tax, for people who are most in need of help. This was referred to in the last budget and I anticipate it will be proposed to the House again as soon as resources permit. I believe the proposal to inaugurate a registered home ownership savings plan is in the same category. I have great expectations for this plan, which would give a very substantial tax saving to young people who are saving to make a down payment on their first home. I would also hope that a means could be found to see that these funds, or a substantial part of them, are invested in residential mortgages, to further augment the capital supply and the housing stock and complete the cycle for which that money is being supplied.
We will, of course, continue our support and encouragement of provinces and municipalities for the public assembly of land to which we have committed $500 million over five years, particularly those projects which promise a quick addition to the supply of serviced land, and on terms which will encourage municipalities to speed up planned residential development. The first of this land will shortly be appearing on the market. We are beginning to see the results of that fine program which should assist us in a major way.
In that regard I propose to reintroduce into the House legislation which will continue to improve the federal program of assistance for sewage treatment facilities. As a means of helping to increase the supply of serviced land, storm trunk sewers will be eligible for assistance for the first time where they help open up new areas for residential development and provide lower-cost housing lots. This legislation continues the forgiveness provisions to the provinces and municipalities.

October 15, 1974
The Address-Mr. Danson
Hon. members are very well aware of the wide range of social housing programs now available under the National Housing Act. I have already referred to AHOP, which can be of special benefit to young families. Another important approach is through what has become known as the third force in housing, housing provided not by the government, not by the conventional housing industry but by local people helping themselves. Very often this housing is created for the elderly or for the physically or mentally handicapped. We give these public-spirited sponsors 100 per cent financing at favourable rates, a 10 per cent capital write-down and substantial grants to help plan projects and get them started. With this kind of help, of course, we expect these groups to create housing that will rent at a price somewhat below market rates and reflect interest subsidies and grants which are provided with public funds. We are now looking at other ways of helping these third force groups, particularly ways in which land could be made available to them at a lower cost, especially near the central cores of our major cities.
I am pushing ahead energetically with the program of rural and native peoples' housing which my predecessor announced in the last parliament and under which we are committed to create or rehabilitate, with the fullest possible co-operation of the local people, a total of 50,000 homes over the next five years. This program requires the agreement and participation of provincial governments, and I am pleased to say these negotiations are proceeding and agreements should be reached with most provinces before the end of the year.
For many people, of course, the only solution to their problems is public housing provided at rents geared to their income. I am sure this kind of solution will continue to be needed for many years to come. However, we are continuing to seek new ways of applying this program, particularly arrangements which will avoid creating so-called ghettoes and which will integrate public housing clients into the community without incurring any social stigma, and also enriching the lives of those people and their children.
All these programs offer the people of Canada not only help with their housing problems, but the widest possible range of options to select the kind of housing they will occupy and the way they will occupy it as owners, tenants or members of co-operative organizations. I do not agree that everyone is entitled, as a matter of right, to be provided with a house of his own by the government. I do believe, however, in equality of opportunity and that all Canadians should have equal access to the same options for solving their problems.
I believe that people, like governments, in selecting their options in these times should exercise restraint. I think there is adequate evidence that some of our present difficulties are created by a minority of people who have heated up the housing market by repeatedly trading up to larger and more expensive houses which bear no relation to their essential needs and sometimes not even a relationship to their cost.
I wish to conclude, Mr. Speaker, by reiterating the view of this government, that even though housing is a critical

element in the economy of the country, it is not simply a commodity to be bought and sold according to the winds prevailing in the marketplace. Because it is an essential factor in the fundamental physical and social well-being of people, housing must be the subject of deliberate, consistent, long-term policy. This is why I reject any suggestion that housing funds are turned off and on to manipulate the economy.
Our financial commitments have not fluctuated; they have been consistently increased. Certainly, we must always be aware of the demands which housing makes on capital markets, its effect as a stimulator of employment and as a catalyst in the sale of a wide range of capital goods. These considerations, however, must be carefully weighed-off against a preeminent concern for people's immediate and urgent need to be decently housed, a need which cannot be deferred or delayed to accommodate economic or fiscal mechanisms.
Though I am a new minister, Mr. Speaker, I have the great advantage of being a member of a well-established firm. I mean, of course, the present government. It is a firm which, with respect to housing as in all other matters of public concern, enjoys the well-founded confidence of the people of Canada. Many Canadians are concerned just now about their current housing problems, but they have resisted and will continue to resist the efforts of those people who would magnify these difficulties into a national crisis. The people of Canada have confidence, Mr. Speaker, in a government which during its term of office has seen the creation of new homes for 5Vi million people, far exceeding the population growth and the rate of new family formations.
The people of Canada have confidence in the government which accepted the challenge of the Economic Council to build a million homes in five years and exceeded that target by a healthy margin. The people of Canada believe that our present housing problems can be solved, and they believe they will be solved by the government which during its six years of office built three times as many low-income homes as were built in the previous 22 years.
The people of Canada expect solutions from the government which introduced assisted home ownership, neighborhood improvement, residential rehabilitation, rural and native housing, the widest range of far reaching social housing programs ever introduced in Canada and, I suggest, in most countries of the world. The people of Canada know that our housing difficulties will not be overcome overnight by some simple device pulled out of somebody's hat. It will require a sustained attack on many fronts, not by a single minister but by the whole federal team working with other governments, the financial community and with industry and people at the neighborhood level.
That is what the people of Canada expect of this government, and that is what they will get. They have every reason to face the months ahead with confidence and good hope.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I want to say a few words about United Aircraft of Canada Limited. The tragic unfolding of the
October 15, 1974

United Aircraft story is a sad but perfect example of the problems of foreign ownership in Canada and the related failure of the federal government's corporate give-away programs to create permanent benefits for the people of this country. I will come back to this statement later, to justify it.
What is United Aircraft producing here and in the United States at this time? They are producing an exceptionally fine engine which was developed in Canada. The research for that engine was financed largely by the Canadian taxpayer, and the innovative ideas came from Canadian scientists and technicians. These engines can be used in small planes, helicopters, turbo trains, hovercraft and, of course, STOL aircraft. I am informed that by 1970 the company's production of this engine had cornered virtually 70 per cent of the world market in its class. All things considered, it is an exceptional accomplishment.
How was this project financed? Since 1965, the federal government, under the defence industry productivity program, approved $108,563,239 in grants. That was not loans, but outright gifts from the taxpayers of Canada. The company did, of course, put up some capital on its own. What has transpired since January of this year with this company in Longueuil? Early in the new year there was a strike. There can be no doubt that the reason the strike has persisted since the beginning of January, 1974, until now, the middle of October, is the profoundly anti-labour, anti-trade union policy of that company. The outstanding issue is the non-acceptance of the Rand formula, the recognition that once a trade union is democratically established, the check-off system for all members of that bargaining unit should automatically come into play. This formula has been accepted for more than 20 years by 90 per cent of all companies in Canada, where unions exist, as being an entirely equitable arrangement for working people. However, United Aircraft, both in Canada and the United States, rejects this highly civilized process for bargaining.
I want to put on record the attitude of this company's president toward the employees who produce these engines. I quote from an article by Wilfred List which appeared in a recent edition of the Globe and Mail. On the question of the democratic right to have a check-off, the company president said:
Why should the union officers sit on their asses in their offices while we collect the dues?
They already have the voluntary irrevocable check-off ... So to hell with them. Let them work for the dues.
That is the president of United Aircraft of Canada Limited. That is the man who is responsible for a nine-month old strike. As I said a few moments ago, that kind of attitude at the management level went out of virtually all companies in Canada some 20 years ago. However, it remains firmly embedded at the top of United Aircraft.
The Quebec labour mediator appointed by the minister of labour of that province has described the company as being, to quote him, "intransigent" on this issue. He said he was told by the company that even if the men and women out on strike accepted every company proposal- wage levels, pension benefits, you name it-management
The Address-Mr. Broadbent
said they could not, and would not, accept the Rand formula. Hence the description of the mediator appointed by the minister of labour of the province of Quebec of the company's attitude as being "intransigent", which I think is absolutely correct.
It is clear that the principal concern, in terms of labour matters, of this company that is owned in the United States is not its workers in Canada but the 60,000 employees it has in New England, principally in the Hartford, Connecticut, area. Those employees are now negotiating a new contract because their old one runs out some time next month, and the principal concern of the employees of the corporation in the United States is exactly the same as that of the Canadian workers in Longueuil, Quebec. That is to say, they want the check-off principle established. They want the democratic right to have dues collected from all members of a trade union accepted by the majority in a plant who benefit from that union's negotiations. It is clear that this company is using its Canadian workers as scapegoats for the real battle that it plans to fight and which it is now getting under way in the United States with its 60,000 employees there. Canadians are suffering because of a corporate concern outside our own borders.
In permitting this inhumane treatment of working families in Longueuil, what have been the economic consequences of this shutdown for some nine months? First of all, the company has admitted that it has shifted 40 per cent of its production from Canada to the United States. This point is not new, and it ties in with federal financing through gifts of this kind. When work was commenced on this engine project in the first place, after the engine had been developed at Longueuil, the first international sale in the range of about $1 billion was made to Iran. But instead of the sale being made by Canada, which had developed the engine, the company decided to build a new factory in West Virginia and to produce all the engines for sale to Iran in the United States. I have not checked the number, but my guess is that the number of employees working in the United States as a result of Canadian developed technology exceeds the number who are working in Canada.
As I have said, within the last nine months the company has transferred 40 per cent of its production to the United States. What does the company intend to do next year? According to a company official who was quoted in last Wednesday's Montreal Gazette, the company plans a 35 per cent reduction in production next year. According to that company official, the federal government has been kept informed all along of this cutback decision, and has been informed of the company's plans for next year.
In the House today, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) tabled a letter that he proudly held up and contended offered assurances to workers in Longueuil and to the people of Canada regarding their future prospects. This letter came from Mr. Stephenson, the president of the corporation. It was mailed last Friday, and I suspect driven down here at the minister's request. He probably got on the phone last week, after being questioned in the House, and said; "Please give us some wonderful assurances about your Canadian plans". He then got this letter from Mr. Stephenson. I do not think I exaggerate when I say that, in substance, it is worthless in

October 15, 1974
The Address-Mr. Broadbent
terms of providing any effective assurances that work will be continued in Canada.
In the first substantive paragraph of the letter, which is the second paragraph, the head of the company assures the minister that it will begin to repatriate the work from the United States which they had already sent out of Canada, as rapidly as possible "consistent with maintaining an orderly flow of engines to our customers". That kind of qualification in the opening part of the letter is such that if they produced no more engines at all in Canada next year, they could refer back to this letter and say, "Well, we warned you in advance that it might not be possible".
Given the attitude that I referred to a minute ago toward its employees, and the fact that the company is totally unwilling to accept the Rand formula, I think it is beyond question that the company expects to break that union. It expects to break the labour force at Longueuil either entirely or to reduce it substantially to the point of having almost no economic significance for Canada.
Let me repeat that two days before this letter was sent to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, an official of the same company said in Montreal, on Wednesday last, that the company planned a 35 per cent reduction in their production in Canada next year. Surely that is a flat contradiction of the stated general purposes enunciated in the letter to the minister.
I want to raise some questions, Mr. Speaker, which have been unanswered so far in this House, and unanswered by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and other cabinet ministers outside the House-questions that require an answer. First of all, how was it possible for United Aircraft to transfer the production of engines and associated technology created by Canadian scientists and technicians, and largely financed by the taxpayers of Canada, from Canada to the United States in the first place? Were there no safeguards to protect this investment by the people of Canada? If there were no safeguards, then there ought to have been. On the other hand, if there were, then why were these safeguards not enforced during the past nine months?
It seems to me self-evident that if the people of Canada are going to put up $105 million for a private corporation that is foreign-owned and produces products in its own country, we must ultimately have the assurance that the product will be produced in Canada. Judging from the transfer by the United Aircraft corporation of production to the United States during the past nine months, there were no safeguards at all in the contracts. I repeat, I do now know whether there were or not, and the government has not made the contracts available so we can find out. If there were safeguards, why was no action taken to stop this transfer of production?
My second question is: when did the government request United Aircraft to give assurances about its production plans in Canada for next year? This transfer of production has been going on for many months now. When did the minister really become involved in a serious way? Was it last week, after questions were asked in the House? Did he phone the president, who is an old friend, Mr. Stephenson-I understand they are good buddies-and get him to send off a letter to the minister because the matter might come up again in the House of Commons? Or did

the minister become involved last month or six months ago? Surely this question is a relevant one.
If production has been lost to Canada and we have lost many jobs in the last few months, then surely the minister responsible for this program has an obligation to intervene. I now ask the minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, when did he first go to the company for assurances about repatriating these jobs back to Canada? Related is the question, does the minister intend to reply to the letter he received from Mr. Stephenson asking for specific dollar commitments for next year? Never mind the general commitment of the company to do whatever it can. Surely, if the people of Canada are putting hundreds of millions of dollars into this corporation, the least we can expect is a dollars and cents commitment on the part of the corporation in terms of its plans for next year. Surely, the minister should not be satisfied with a letter written in general terms but should require the company to indicate that it plans to spend so many dollars in rebuilding the line and in producing a certain number of engines. This kind of specific detail is required and it is up to the minister to get back to the company to obtain that kind of assurance.
The third question that bothers me is a general one and involves the government's attitude toward working people in general. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce said outside the House today that it did not matter to him-this is the logic of his argument-what kind of labour conditions prevailed in companies doing business with the government of Canada. The logic of his statement would seem to be that it did not matter if a company that was receiving millions of dollars in government grants had a profoundly anti-labour attitude, because this was not the minister's private domain; but, rather,-his domain was to ensure, or encourage the production of engines. I say that is a totally unacceptable attitude.
We passed legislation just a week ago which on the whole was equitable in terms of settling the grain handlers' dispute in western Canada. At that time certain ministers of the Crown, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) and the minister responsible for the Wheat Board (Mr. Lang), made very fine speeches which sounded good in terms of their interest in the working people of Canada and the conditions under which they laboured. Yet today we have a minister of the Crown stating that in terms of our dealings with corporations and, I repeat, in giving those corporations millions of dollars, it really did not matter what kind of labour circumstances their employees lived in or worked under. I say that is totally unacceptable. By that I do not mean that the government of the day can be held responsible for every semi-colon or comma written into a labour agreement. That is not the point. What it can do is adopt certain minimum standards and make sure that any company which is a beneficiary of public funds at least meets those standards. Surely one of the standards must be that a corporation as anti-labour as the United Aircraft corporation should not receive financial assistance from the people of Canada unless it changes its attitude toward its own employees.
I would ask you, Madam Speaker, who speaks for the government in these matters: is it the Minister of Labour,
October 15, 1974

or the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce? Is it a matter of their wanting to have it both ways?


Mr. Breau:: That is a problem of Quebec.


John Edward Broadbent: The hon. member suggests this is a problem of the province of Quebec. Certainly it is partly a problem of the province of Quebec, but it was this government which made grants to that corporation, and it is this government that can now enforce certain conditions. That is exactly the attitude many have taken in respect of racism in South Africa, and it is similar to the kind of attitude taken toward Germany in the 1930s. This involves extricating oneself from a situation because of the legal niceties, but that is unacceptable. If we are to have nice speeches by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and others about our concerns in respect of problems within Canada, surely we cannot tolerate one of the business-oriented departments of the government taking the attitude toward corporations in Canada that they can do what they want with the people who work for them. I suggest that is a totally unacceptable attitude.


Herb Breau: Would the hon. member permit a question?


John Edward Broadbent: Certainly.


Herb Breau: Is the hon. member suggesting that whenever the government of Canada is dealing with a foreign corporation located in a province, it should have jurisdiction over the labour laws of that province or the collective agreements of the corporation?


John Edward Broadbent: By no means. If the hon. member had listened to what I said, he would know I suggested that in terms of grants provided by the federal government to corporations, it could set up minimum standards of behaviour, just as it did under the foreign takeover review legislation. It could set up certain standards of good corporate citizenship, and before a company received a grant from the people of Canada it would have to meet those decent, democratic and civilized standards or it would not get the grant. It seems to me that is precisely what this government is not doing, specifically in the United Aircraft case.
I come finally to my fourth concern. I do not anticipate this course of action-although the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce said something outside the House today which suggested that the government might follow this path-but if the government should decide to nationalize the United Aircraft corporation, would it retain ownership of the patents which have resulted from Canadian research and development, or will the United Aircraft corporation be able to transfer production along with the patent rights to produce such engines in the United States, so that all that would be left in the hands of the Canadian government would be an empty factory?
My suspicion is that the latter will take place, that the Canadian taxpayer will be left with some concrete, some metal girders, and the workers with no work to do because the work and the jobs would have quite legally been shifted back to the United States. We do not know the answer to that question because the minister has not provided the members of this House or the public in
The Address-Miss F. MacDonald general with the details of the contracts the government has entered into with the corporation.
I spoke a number of times in this House and outside, in 1970, about the federal government's research and development programs, stating that by giving about 80 per cent of such funds to foreign-owned companies, without having the stringent safeguards implicit in my remarks today, we as a country were simply financing growth in both technology and employment in the foreign countries concerned. We were not providing any permanent benefit for the people of Canada. I would ask whether the United Aircraft case is not a sad but profound example of more than $100 million misspent.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: First of all I should like to congratulate you, Sir, and through you the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Jerome) on assuming the high office of Speaker. I know that his qualities of fairmindedness, sound judgment and innate good humour will mark his tenure in office as our first commoner.
There have been a great number of interventions in this debate, many of a high calibre from new members of the House. The quality of these speeches is a clear reflection of the ability of men and women entering public life in Canada. Of all the interventions in this debate, perhaps understandably, that of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) drew the most critical comment.
His speech has been widely described as surprising because it was expected to deal with inflation. This was demanded by the situation. But the Prime Minister did not discuss the economic program of his government; he discussed bilingualism, constitutional patriation, reform of the procedures of the House of Commons, and amendments in respect of the tenure of members of the Senate.
The Prime Minister's speech should have come as no surprise. There was nothing puzzling about it. This was characteristic. This was the essential Trudeau. It was consistent with everything the Prime Minister has ever said about his priorities, or at least everything he said before the election of 1972.
The Prime Minister has always defined the problems of government as institutional problems. From 1968 to 1972 his main concerns were with the readjustment of constitutional relationships, the reform of parliament, and new techniques for decision making in the executive branch of government. The Prime Minister's commitment is not to the substance of public policy but to the reform of the institutional mechanisms by which policy is made.
It is the irony of his public career that he has made an obsession of his search for institutional rationality. He has an obsession with discovering and applying a scientific technique which will produce, in his words, "political instruments which are sharper, stronger and more finely controlled than anything based on mere emotionalism". Seen in this light the Prime Minister's speech ceases to be puzzling. Inflation did not receive serious attention in the Prime Minister's speech because it has never received serious attention in the Prime Minister's thought.

October 15, 1974
The Address-Miss F. MacDonald
There are few members of this House who would challenge the desirability of establishing a Canadian mechanism for constitutional amendment. There are few members who would challenge the desirability of making parliament more efficient. That is not at issue. But we on this side of the House believe that the pre-eminent government priority in Canada today must be to deal with inflation.
Inflation is not some temporary problem. It is not some problem that has limited or short-term effects. Inflation is a problem which attacks the essential fabric of our society. It is a problem which breeds economic despair and social instability and, if left unchecked, political collapse. Democracy is far less threatened by the ponderous workings of this House than by the spreading and virulent disease of inflation.
Each day in this House, in the newspapers, on television and radio there is a litany of symptoms. The focus is, of course, on the short-term effects. But beyond the immediate suffering there is the more ominous erosion of the security of middle and lower-middle income earners. There is the destruction of savings and retirement funds, the threat of a poverty so widespread that only the wealthiest and most powerful members of society will be able to protect themselves.
The government's failure to show any leadership in dealing with inflation can only serve to aggravate the problem. Each day that the government fails to act it contributes to the psychology of inflation. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) have already made just such a contribution by implying, in their description of inflation as an international problem, that it is a problem beyond Canadian control. The consequence has been to persuade large numbers of Canadians that the government will not act.
The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have helped create an atmosphere in which it is widely believed that the only way to survive is to forget any sense of collective responsibility and fend for oneself. Thus, each new increase in wages or salaries provides a justification for another increase. Each new increase in prices provides justification for another increase. Labour can blame rising prices and business can blame the rising cost of labour.
Thomas Hobbes wrote that "Outside of civil states there is always war of everyone against every one". That may be a pessimistic view of human nature, but if fairly characterizes the consequences of inflationary psychology. Every man is set at war with every other man. Surely the government has a responsibility to bring this under control. The government is not powerless. It can deal with this aspect of the problem of inflation very simply. It can give Canada some moral leaderships. It can give the Canadian people a demonstration of concern, some evidence of its commitment to act.
Instead of boasting about how well we are doing, the Minister of Finance should tell us how we can do better. The Minister of Finance is like a man standing at the upraised end of a sinking ship telling those around him that they are more fortunate than those at the submerged end. It is time he realized that he is on the same ship.

Instead of feuding in public the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) should try to find a means to reconcile the interests of consumers and producers. The Prime Minister's tolerance of this dispute is a measure of his failure to understand the problem of inflation. These two ministers are offering encouragement to the kind of forces which are helping to spread inflation. Group is set against group. Interest is set against interest. There is no attempt to reconcile conflicting interests.
There is no attempt to educate, or re-educate public opinion to the necessity for mutual restraint. And that, Mr. Speaker, is the foundation of a healthy democratic society: a recognition of mutual interest, a willingness to compromise, to find accommodation. The Prime Minister ignores this necessity, to pursue his obsession with remodelling the institutions of government. And what does the Prime Minister intend with his reforms in our parliament? Every institutional initiative he has ever taken has had the effect of centralizing power in the executive branch.
One can only suspect that the Prime Minister and those around him ultimately define rationality as the process which recognizes their superior ability to decide. All will be rational when they are freed from the fetters of scrutiny and criticism, particularly that of the opposition. If that is not what they intend, let the Prime Minister tell us, instead of lecturing us on protocol, what he proposes to do to ensure that members on this side of the House can more effectively execute their responsibilities.
The existence of vigorous opposition has been held to be central to the preservation of a healthy parliamentary democracy. Every member of this House, not just those on the other side, is a representative of the Canadian people. Will the Prime Minister help members of this House to be more effective representatives? For example, will he guarantee public access to the publicly-financed reports on which government policy is based? Will he give committees the resources to conduct proper investigations? Will he instruct his colleagues and members of the public service who appear before parliamentary bodies to answer the questions which are posed to them?
Our previous experience with the Prime Minister's concept of institutional reform affords little confidence that his understanding of efficiency will produce more effective public policy. The Prime Minister's obsession with institutional rationalization during his first administration produced a complete restructuring of relationships at the highest level of the executive branch of government, and these changes were made, we were told, to permit government to develop more effective long-term policy.
Does the Prime Minister recall his announcement on December 24, 1970 that inflation no longer exists in Canada? The vaunted mechanisms for rational long-term planning failed to anticipate changes that have gathered momentum to culminate in the present inflationary crisis. The Prime Minister will forgive us if we are skeptical about the efficacy of his institutional tinkering.
There is no more compelling illustration of the failure of the new style of decision making than the tragic miscalculation made by his government in trying to restrict agricultural production in 1971. Canadian farmers only three years ago were paid cash incentives to reduce their
October 15, 1974

production of essential grains, as the world moved toward a food crisis. Had there been even interim planning, perhaps Canada would now be prepared to make a significant contribution in terms of supplying leadership toward establishing a world food-security system which is so urgently needed. The government has failed both to plan ahead and to face its international responsibilities.
We have heard and read a great deal about the magnitude of the world food crisis. The statistics are appalling, frightening. Face to face confrontation with the ravages of famine is even more devastating. We know that at least 460 million people are unable to lead normal lives because they are permanently hungry. We know that 100,000 people died of starvation last year in Ethiopia. And we know that, for the first time in history, the world has only 28 days of food supplies in reserve.
World-wide inflationary pressures, drought, and a rapidly increasing world population daily aggravate the global disparity between supply and demand for food. No one country can hope to ameliorate significantly, let alone resolve, the threat to the survival of hundreds of millions of human beings in the decade ahead. But the "have" countries such as Canada have an overwhelming moral obligation to combat world famine by efforts, indeed by sacrifices, far surpassing anything we have previously contributed.
Long term planning in food production for domestic and international consumption must become a top priority. But this will not be accomplished by ad hoc measures, by temporary subsidies, or by an alternating disincentive and crash incentive approach to production. It will require strong governmental leadership which, to date, has been sadly lacking.
No better example of this lack can be found than in the "Western Producer" of August 22, 1974 which reported:
Agriculture Minister Whelan was not very optimistic about Canada's willingness to contribute to feeding an underfed world. He reviewed what Canadians have already done and then said: "Canada does have tremendous resources to increase food production. But Canada does not have unlimited wealth to pay farmers the price required to push production to the limits of our ability and technology. Canada does not have unlimited wealth to set aside surplus production in storage or to give food away to less fortunate peoples in the world. But most important, I do not see the will on behalf of Canadians to make sacrifices that would be necessary".
If that is the view of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), and it obviously is, does he not accept a responsibility to challenge Canadians to develop our tremendous resources to increase food production? There is no leadership there in this mounting world crisis, just an abdication of leadership. Fortunately, that is not the view of Charles Munro, president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and of the 45-country International Federation of Agriculture Producers, who said:
Canada would have much more food for export to under developed countries if the government could end the "boom and bust" cycle in the farm economy.
He went on to say that:
As farmers we say we have the potential and the technology to feed twice as many people as we do now, but there has to be the political will to do it.
The Address-Miss F. MacDonald
The key phrase is "the political will to do it". I am sure that if the Minister of Agriculture were to ask the farmers, he would find that there is the will on the part of the farmers and, if the Prime Minister were to ask the Canadian people, he would find that there is the will on the part of the Canadian people. But there is a real question as to the political will on the part of the government. The political will is lacking because the Prime Minister is so obsessed with institutional restructuring.
I see this lack of political will reflected in another area with which I would like to deal, namely, the plight of our native people. Completely overlooked in the throne speech, inserted as an afterthought in the Prime Minister's remarks, the native people and their grievances have been the subject of much discussion, analysis and indeed criticism in recent days.
At times it appeared that the welter of writing and reporting, the interpretations and misinterpretations, the obsession with who did what and to whom during the demonstration on Parliament Hill, would distract attention from the legitimate frustrations and aims of our native people. That demonstration riveted the nation's attention on Indian grievances-grievances which have been documented on many occasions by the native brotherhoods, grievances which have had numerous airings but few answers.
Briefs on housing, economic development and land claims have gone without ministerial acknowledgement for months; perhaps because they were suspected of presenting a biased point of view. But a recent government publication demonstrates succinctly and graphically, and surely entirely without bias, the bitter facts which underly native frustration.
Far more alarming than the native demonstration on Parliament Hill are the facts contained in "Perspective Canada", a compendium of social statistics produced by Statistics Canada in July of 1974 which provides irrefutable data to show that the social conditions of our native population are deteriorating, not improving.
In 1971, 25.4 per cent of families on reserves needed new housing, as compared with 19.7 per cent in 1965. In addition, twice as many houses were classified as needing major repairs in 1971 as in 1958. The minister in charge of housing will take note, I hope, that native housing is deteriorating both qualitatively and quantitatively.
This morning in committee we learned that there is a need for 20,000 new homes on Indian reserves, but this year only 2,000 were constructed, or one tenth of the actual need. This is less than one home per reservation. Is it any wonder that we see demonstrations and increasing militancy from our native peoples? To hear a cabinet minister admonish Canadians, as the minister who is responsible for housing did last week, saying that they should be grateful for their high standard of housing, must heap coals on the fires of Indian frustration.
The desperate housing situation is basic to the other severe problems the native peoples face, namely, health, education, and economic opportunity. What chance does a child have to get proper rest, to study, to learn a trade in a two roomed shack which is in need of major repairs? For far too long government has concentrated on unrelated
414

October 15, 1974
The Address-Miss F. MacDonald
programs in health, education and employment opportunities without linking them to adequate housing. I commend the statistics on native people in "Perspective Canada" to all those who are tempted to categorize and dismiss Indians as lazy, drunken and good for nothing.
A further indictment of the way in which successive governments have treated our native people is contained in a recent non-Canadian publication now exposing Canada's treatment of its native people to the world. Capsuliz-ing 400 years of betrayal and neglect in hard hitting, factual terms, report No. 21 of the Minority Rights Group in Britain deals with Canada's Indians. The aim of this group, whose sponsors include such eminent humanitarians as Barbara Ward and Gunnar Myrdal, is to secure justice for minority groups suffering discrimination. Perhaps this devastating recital, by a highly respected London-based educational trust, of discrimination against Canada's Indians will shame us into taking the action that we have heretofore avoided.
Phrases such as paternalistic, bureaucratic deadweight, excessive administrative and government control, occur and reoccur. The report examines the dollar outlay on native people in the light of the benefits provided them. It
states:
The increasing expenditure on the Indian, and the creation of programs in new fields like community development, had less beneficial effect than might be expected from looking at the sums involved. Not only was the money still being spent for the Indian rather than by him, but remarkably little was actually being spent on Indians at all. In 1970-71, for instance, of $228.3 million expended in the Indian and Eskimo affairs program, $175.4 million was classified as "operating expenses". The main beneficiary of the increased budget, therefore, was an expanded government department-
The report quotes one Indian leader as saying:
One wonders if the Indian people are not used to provide well-paying jobs to non-Indians.
The report also charges that:
There has still not been a major transformation of Indian life. The Department of Indian Affairs is still a huge and costly vested interest and may wittingly or unwittingly obstruct the movement of power and resources to the Indians.
But more than money is involved here. There is the question of Indian rights and self-respect. As the report states:
It will in the long term be far less costly, as well as more generous and more just, to let the Indians themselves try now, even if this means making them a special case for economic assistance for some years to come. They have been a special case of a different sort for 400 years. The government will have to be patient and courageous and far-sighted enough to realize that the symptoms of such deprivation will not, even in the most favourable circumstances, disappear overnight, and that another attempt to solve the Indians' difficulties with cut price solutions imposed from outside will inevitably create more intractable problems and necessitate still more expensive remedies in the future. There is a long history of failure, parsimony and neglect to be made up for.
The publication recounts how, immediately following his appointment in 1968, the former minister of Indian Affairs announced his intention of holding a series of consultative meetings with Indian leaders to discuss a radical overhaul of Indian administration. Two months later the government published its white paper on Indian policy, without consultation. The Indian leaders, so the 
report states, were surprised and disappointed. And I might add, angry at another betrayal by government.
I mention this, Mr. Speaker, because we have seen in the wake of the demonstration on Parliament Hill a ministerial meeting with Indian leaders, initiated by the National Indian Brotherhood. Regretfully, the government did not seize or see the opportunity to initiate such discussion itself. The outcome of this meeting, according to press reports, is that the leaders of Canada's registered Indians are to have regular and frequent access to a federal cabinet committee to discuss their problems. Optimistically, Indian leaders reported "It looks like we made a breakthrough". That is what they thought in 1968, and they were disappointed. Six long frustrating years of dealings with the Department of Indian Affairs followed, while their housing and health deteriorated.
The new minister has a heavy responsibility to assure that these meetings are designed to lead to the resolution of problems, and not just another mechanism to diffuse their impact. If this should occur Indians will seek other avenues through which to express their frustrations. This could lead to confrontations and violence which none of us want to see.
No amount of tinkering with executive and constitutional mechanisms can substitute for political leadership. Let the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) show us that he has the political will to tackle substance and not mere form.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie)-External affairs-Representation of Palestine liberation organization at Geneva conference- Canadian position; the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan)-Transport-Suggestion federal government join in Urban Transportation Development Corporation; the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan)

Manpower-Development of new community employment strategy-Inquiry as to government policy.


SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Duclos for an address to His Excellency the Administrator of the Government of Canada in reply to his speech at the opening of the session.
Mr. Alan Martin (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say at the outset of my remarks that this auspi-
October 15, 1974

cious occasion does indeed provide an honour and a privilege for me as a citizen of our great and growing nation. In my view, there is no single greater honour that can befall a native of his country than to be given the opportunity to rise and speak-without fear or favour-before the duly elected governing assembly consisting of his fellow countrymen from all parts and corners of the nation. [Translation]
Mr. Speaker, it is an event which neither I, nor my family, nor I trust the electors of the riding of Scarborough West who elected me on July 8 last, will ever forget. [English]
Mr. Speaker, with my particular political and community background, this occasion represents to me the focal point of the democratic process in our country in action.
I should like first to offer my congratulations through you to the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Jerome) on his election to the most distinguished and historic post that he occupies as chairman of this assembly. As a new member of parliament, I was most impressed with the background to this important office that was provided by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) during his nomination address, and by the distinguished member from Sudbury in his speech of acceptance. In my view, Mr. Speaker, Canadians would be well served by an effort on the part of your office to publicize some of the interesting details and background of the significant role occupied in our governing process by the Speaker of the House of Commons. [Translation]
To you, Mr. Speaker, member for Beauharnois-Salaberry (Mr. Laniel), I offer my most sincere congratulations on your appointment as Deputy Speaker for another session.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to offer my congratulations to the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Morin) who, I am told, is the first woman ever to sit as Speaker of this House.
Her appointment is of particular importance to me for the hon. member represents the riding where, as a young Canadian of 22, I voted for the first time. That area is also the one where I was born and spent the first few years of my youth.
To the mover of the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne I want to express my congratulations for a job well done. I remember how in Montmorency, Quebec, where I lived for a while as a youth, I had considerable trouble in obtaining for my father the names of the candidates in the elections. I felt that, at the time, there was little information available on elections, especially federal.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, to the seconder of the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, I want to pay particular congratulations, not only for an inspiring speech made by a fellow new member but also on his election as a Canadian of a lineage that has played such an important part in building the fabric of our national society over these past 100 years, yet lies outside the area of the three main groups-French, English and North American Indi-
The Address-Mr. Martin
an-that are so aften assigned all the credit associated with the background of our great country. I refer to the Chinese element in our Canadian society, of which the hon. member has the distinction of being a direct descendant.
Speaking as a newly elected member of the Parliament of Canada, I want also to pay homage and show respect to two members of this House who, between them, have a combined term of service in our parliament in excess of 60 years. I refer, of course, to the dean of parliament, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) and former Prime Minister of Canada and, if I may use the term, to the vice-dean and revered parliamentarian, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). It is one thing to be elected and re-elected to this House when representing the party that forms the government of the day; it is quite another story, I would suggest, to accomplish this feat over and over again when representing parties on the opposition side of the House. Mr. Speaker, the record of these two hon. members speaks for itself and in each case is an example of considerable significance to a newcomer such as myself.
I want to speak today in this debate on several issues that are of particular concern to me. The first of these relates to the state of our Canadian economy at this time as it affects the individual householder in my riding of Scarborough West. My constituents are, by and large, confused and concerned over the seemingly opposite economic trends that are developing in our Canadian society. On the one hand we are continuing to experience the seemingly insatiable thrust of the inflationary spiral which is producing such a significant effect on all householders, particularly on those who must rely on relatively fixed incomes or on incomes that are not subject to the same kinds of upward revisions generally assured to those members of the labour force who belong to well organized unions or other forms of employee associations. On the other hand we are seeing injected into this unpleasant and difficult situation the knowledge that our economy is no longer expanding at a rate to which Canadians have tended to become accustomed on a more or less regular basis, with some minor exceptions, since the days of World War II.
This is a most unusual and difficult problem. The hope is, obviously, that appropriate fiscal actions on the part of all levels of government-federal, provincial and municipal-coupled with natural corrections that will ultimately evolve in the marketplace, will suffice to see us through without serious dislocation of the existing economic framework that has been built up around our society over these past 30 years. Looking at the situation in realistic terms does, however, lead one to a legitimate concern as to just how long our Canadian and worldwide economies can continue at 1974 and projected 1975 rates of inflation before experiencing corrective measures whose ramifications might be felt over several years into the future.
There are no "instant pudding" solutions to the problem that we all recognize reaches well beyond the borders of Canada and North America and is clearly worldwide in nature. The important point, in my view, is that all levels of government, both within and without Canada, recognize the seriousness of the situation and attempt jointly to
2830S-27'/i

October 15, 1974
The Address-Mr. Martin
arrive at meaningful and carefully laid out short-term and long-term plans that will result in providing the kinds of leadership and direction in our national and international economic affairs that will, no matter how difficult to sell from a political point of view, impose on the governed those proposed solutions or courses of action that the best collective wisdom available will have deemed most appropriate under the circumstances.
In this regard, it is my view that what would be most inappropriate would be hastily contrived solutions, particularly those having strong nationalistic overtones and built-in long-term rigidities that are unable to respond quickly to continuing and ever fast-changing world circumstances. I say this because it is my belief that our worldwide society is beginning to experience, in economic affairs, the kinds of quick and sudden changes on an international level that we have been tending to experience of recent years in other aspects of our life. I seek and solicit leadership in this difficult economic environment from my national government under the direction of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner).
I feel that it is most appropriate and fitting, Mr. Speaker, that our own Minister of Finance should have been elected recently to chair the interim committee of ministers of the International Monetary Fund that has been established to undertake a penetrating, in-depth analysis of the free world economic environment. Hopefully, this will lead on a long-term basis to the kinds of recommendations on the national scene that will provide the basis for sound courses of action which will prove helpful to all Canadians. This is the kind of meaningful leadership that over the long-term will, in my view, bring credit to this government, to Canada and to Canadians as a whole.
In the short-term I ask simply that my government show a high profile of leadership in this difficult and delicate area that, while perhaps not satisfying all, will nevertheless provide the basis for shorter term courses or directions in our national economic affairs which will be in the best interests of the constituents of Scarborough West and of all Canadians, no matter where they reside. I am confident that this leadership has been indicated in the throne speech and has been further elaborated upon by the Minister of Finance in his recent speech before this House. In my view, this strong leadership will become even more evident over these next few months as progress is made in our thirtieth parliament.
The next issue on which I would like to speak is that of transportation. There are two aspects to this issue that are of particular interest to me-one is on the national level and the other on the local level. On the national scene, I welcome the positive and constructive measures that are being proposed to assist the average Canadian to be better served by the various forms of public transportation available to him. As one who has had the privilege of travelling with his family throughout a good portion of the more accessible areas of our country through the medium of holiday auto camping trips over these past several years, I am conscious of the continuing lack of adequate facilities to meet the real needs of today's automobile traveller. I am even more conscious of the disincentive that is built in for Canadians who wish to travel by means other than

automobile within their own borders or those of North America.
In fact, there are real incentives, particularly in the area of air travel, for Canadians to vacation in those parts of the world that lie beyond the confines of the North American continent. We talk of the need to do innovative things in order to promote national unity in this country. We are willing to go to the extent of providing subsidies, in some instances, to encourage business activities within Canada and, at the same time, occasionally offer disincentives for those who may be conducting business activities which do not appear to be in the interests of promoting Canadian-ism. Surely, Mr. Speaker, it is in our long-term interest to encourage Canadians of one creed or language, or of one geographic region or another, to get on the move and make a definite effort to meet neighbours to the east, west, south or north and, in the process, hopefully obtain a more comprehensive understanding of the wonders and potential greatness that nature and history have imbued on the geography and peoples which make up this great nation.
The other aspect of the transportation issue to which I would like to address myself, Mr. Speaker, relates to the local scene in my borough of Scarborough. The municipality of Scarborough today consists of some 375,000 residents and is the fifth largest municipality in Ontario. Current projections indicate a potential population of one million by the year 2000. This municipality, today at a half-built stage, may well become one of the largest single municipalities in Canada.
Contrary to the situation that prevails in so many North American cities today, my municipality is in the process of building a centre core, the showpiece of which is our fabulous new town centre opened by her gracious majesty Queen Elizabeth II during her Canadian visit in 1973. This municipality offers a unique opportunity to act as a testbed for a new national thrust in the field of urban transportation and over-all urban design, including parks and housing. I invite my good friend, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson), to look closely at the potential offered by Scarborough in considering new experiments that may now or in the future be conceived in relation to this aspect, bearing in mind, particularly, consideration of intermediate forms of transit that could supplement existing and proposed subway routes.
I would like to address myself to one more local matter relating to the municipality of Scarborough, and that relates to the continuing erosion of our beautiful Scarborough bluffs. These bluffs, Mr. Speaker, stretching as they do along the southern boundary of my riding and that of my colleague, the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. O'Connell), where the land meets Lake Ontario, are a phenomenon not duplicated in many other areas of the world. The erosion problem is reaching alarming proportions, and in my view goes beyond a mere municipal or provincial problem. It is, I suggest, a national problem in that the geographic formation of the area involved is so picturesque and unique, and also in that these bluffs form the effective international boundary of the country, situated as they are on the north side of Lake Ontario.
October 15, 1974

I would request the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Drury) and the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Sauve) to take steps to look into this particular problem and instruct their respective officers to make a report thereon which may, hopefully, lead to more concerted corrective action than has been evident to date.
The next point on which I wish to speak is that of over-all government expenditures. In the attempts over the past several years of elected representatives at all three levels of government to provide an increasing level of service in various facets affecting the lives of ordinary Canadians, we may have unwittingly moved closer and closer to a point, in terms of over-all government expenditures, that could be beyond the ability or willingness of the producing segment of our society to sustain. I believe this matter requires immediate attention at the three major levels of government-federal, provincial and municipal-and that the impetus for such action should emanate from our national government. I make this recommendation, Mr. Speaker, with no suggestion that we should not continue to evolve new, and improve old, areas of government services to the people. The point to be made is that the time may have come to consider substituting some new for old, rather than simply adding on in all cases.
I want to speak briefly on the matter of the provision of social benefits in monetary terms to the less privileged- economically speaking-members of our society. I commend efforts being made to re-establish the incentive to work philosophy in new areas of social policy as they are being conceived and developed. The work ethic continues to come under criticism, and in some cases attack, by certain minority groups within our nation. However, we have not as yet developed any other acceptable alternative to a healthy combination of the work-leisure ethic that assures an adequate level of over-all production of goods and services to meet both the direct needs of the Canadian consumer and his indirect or public-supported needs that are paid for out of tax revenues provided by the working segment.
While it is essential that our national government at all times lend a listening and sympathetic ear to all segments and individuals making up the fabric of our society, the parliament of Canada must at the same time ensure that close attention is paid to the encouragement and protection of the majority of the members of our society who, in the final analysis, must be relied upon to shoulder the combined burden of their own needs and the established needs of others.
As a Canadian who, by virtue of place of birth and later place of residence, has been fortunate to have had at least some exposure to both the French and English elements within our Canadian framework, I would encourage direct national government involvement in greater promotion of the teaching of both history and the French and English languages for future generations of Canadians-even if we were to start with those as yet unborn. In my view, these two essential aspects to a more mature understanding of the Canadian fact and way of life are at this point receiving completely inadequate attention at the more tender ages when learning experiences really get under way.
The Address-Mr. Ellis
Particularly in the field of bilingualism, it is my opinion that we may be tending to place a little too much emphasis on the adult segment of our society, possibly at the expense of too little concentration at the earlier levels of youth where, in my view, it can be so much more effective over the long-term. I would go a step further and simply state that, in the interests of our developing nationhood, we may no longer be able to afford the luxury of avoiding some form of direction national thrust into the entire educational field in order to ensure the attainment of some basic pre-determined national objectives.
In concluding my initial remarks to this thirtieth parliament, and as a newcomer to the House of Commons, I would like to add my support to efforts that may be made over the next four years or so toward meaningful parliamentary and constitutional reform that will assist in more fully developing our national potential and leading to greater independence and a more mature interdependence among other nations of the world. As one small contribution to the matter of parliamentary reform, I would recommend consideration of changing the House rules in order to limit the time for the speeches in the throne speech debate to 20 minutes rather than the existing 30. This would have the beneficial result of enabling either a reduction from nine to six in the number of days currently allocated to this debate, or alternatively permitting some 50 per cent more members to speak and make their views known to this House and, through it, to the nation. [Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I wish to end my first speech in this House with the words I used to begin: it is truly an a honour and a privilege to express my views before so distinguished an audience.


John Raymond Ellis: Mr. Speaker, in beginning my contribution to the debate this afternoon, I am particularly pleased that Your Honour is in the chair. In offering my congratulations you will know I am most sincere when I say how pleased I am that the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Jerome) has been given this great responsibility. May I also tell the House that a few months ago I enjoyed sharing an open line program with him. I have questioned myself since whether that open line program was at all responsible for his assumption of this high office. To the Deputy Speaker, the hon. member for Beauharnois-Sala-berry (Mr. Laniel), I give my congratulations on his accession to that particular post. If he does as well as the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) in the last parliament, then he certainly will be doing a fine job.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Raymond Ellis: May I also congratulate the Deputy Chairman, the hon. member for Thunder Bay (Mr. Penner), who seems quite capable of growing in that position, and the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Morin), a gracious and charming Assistant Deputy Chairman, as I am sure all hon. members will agree.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Raymond Ellis: Since the good people of Hastings have seen fit to send me to this august chamber for a second term, I

October 15, 1974
The Address-Mr. Ellis
want to relate some of my remarks to the type of area that the constituency of Hastings embraces. The county seat is Belleville, an urban area that is steadily growing and is moderately prosperous. New and expanding industries are coming in regularly. Just this past summer there was a new $4 million initial expansion. The amenities parallel the industrial growth, that is to say, there are parks, a river front, a new bay shore that all people are proud of, a museum, a playhouse, excellent facilities for senior citizens, and a bus service. It even has snow plowing and street lighting at least as good as any centre anywhere in Canada.
In addition, the rural area includes a number of small municipalities, each unique in itself, each with its own small industry contributing to the over-all economy of the area. In the very north, the community of Bancroft has a complete leathercraft industry that ships its products all over the world. Also uranium is produced there. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) knows that I have been continually after him for quite some time to step in and have this mine, which ran so well a few years ago, reopened. I applaud his statement regarding foreign ownership, but if the government wants to see some growth, this particular area can stand some assistance so it can begin producing now.
In the village of Marmora there is an iron ore production facility that is unique to eastern Ontario. It is being extended and could probably use some more support from the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. The village of Madoc is one of the largest suppliers, and up until a few years ago the only supplier, of talc in this part of Canada. The village of Tweed produces plywood. Those members of the House who are golfers might like to know that the laminated plywood golf heads on their clubs come from the grand old county of Hastings. Another municipality is Deseronto, which has various types of industries and a beautiful marina on the Bay of Quinte.
I mention all this because the government, particularly those on the treasury benches opposite, frequently forget that this is a part of Canada that pays a great amount of the tax that this country spends so readily. This is where its at. These people are the backbone, the very essence of Canadian life, and these are the people who are hurt when, in my opinion, the government makes stupid decisions to spend beyond their means instead of living within our budget. Furthermore, these people are made of sterner stuff; they are prepared to tighten their belts and to take strong measures. They are prepared to do so, but unfortunately the government is not.
In addition to those I have already mentioned, there are 20 or more hamlets, incorporated or otherwise, consisting of a dozen, 15 or 20 homes, that I should like to bring to the attention of the government. A couple of weeks prior to the opening of the House I travelled to every one of these small communities, and the story was always the same: they are as prosperous as the bungling and the mishandling of our natural resources by this government will allow.
There are little communities like Coe Hill and Shannon-ville, names that I am sure have never before been men-

tioned in this chamber, and I am not certain that the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) had never heard of them before until this morning when I brought them to his attention. We are spending many millions of dollars on large buildings in the city of Ottawa and other centres across the country, but these little hamlets, with two or three rural routes running out of them, do need better post office facilities. Indeed, recent surveys show that they deserve better post office facilities, Mr. Speaker, but they are not getting them. I intend to press the Postmaster General until they do get them.
All hon. members have heard me brag about the rural areas in the county of Hastings and the fabulous cheese that comes from there. I have to admit, Mr. Speaker, to carrying literally tons of that cheese to Ottawa for consumption by various hon. members, and I have had no complaint about that which I have put in the lobby from time to time.
The throne speech mentions the need to increase food production. How can you increase food production when you cannot attract young people to the farms or keep them on the farms, with interest rates as high as they are now? The farm credit legislation is virtually useless to them; they are turned down for a number of particularly phony reasons. This is especially the case with an ambitious young man who because he wants to raise a family holds down two jobs: he is not qualified as a farmer in the eyes of the legislation.
How can you increase food production, Mr. Speaker, when the cow-calf operators are losing money at the rate they are today? They got into the business because the government gave them interest-free loans. Now the government tells them they have to pay the money back, and of course they do not have the money with which to repay the loans. My hon. friend from Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave) the other day asked the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) if he knew just how serious this problem was. From the dairyman's point of view, even the animals that he used to sell at the end of their productive life and make a small profit on bring in only 12 to 15 cents a pound, a loss even at that.
How can you increase food production unless you give the dairy farmers a reasonable return on their investment? During the past year there was an increase in the subsidized price of milk. It was not enough, but it was not bad. Farmers at the time felt that if they tightened their belts a little they might be able to live with that price. But since then costs have again increased. What are we supposed to do? Are we to wait until next April 1, the very deadline, before we know exactly what the government's policy is going to be on milk subsidization?
The farmer really does not care whether milk is at $5 per 100 pounds or $10 per 100 pounds. As a matter of fact, he would probably far rather make 10 cents at $5 than lose 10 cents at $10. How can you increase food production? In fact, how can you expect anyone, young or old, to invest the $200,000 to $250,000 necessary without having some stability and some long-term policies in the field of agriculture? Farmers are businessmen. In my part of the country, particularly, this is so, and I think they are improving as businessmen. If you go back to 1954, one farm worker fed 16 of his fellow Canadians. In 1974, 20
October 15, 1974

years later, one farm worker feeds 56 of his fellow Canadians. Few other industries can cite such a record.
I want to make it clear, because I am not afraid to speak my mind on this matter, that I am not opposed to marketing boards. They are perfectly O.K. providing they are properly run. The Ontario Milk Marketing Board is an excellent case in point. It has brought stability to that industry. Its decisions are made in conjunction with the senior members of committees throughout the entire province, and only after it has consulted with all these people does it make decisions that affect the whole industry. This is not to say that some marketing boards are perhaps not run by idiots; but for the most part I am not opposed to marketing boards per se.
That might sound like I am a good friend of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). The minister and I agree on one point. He portrays himself as a friend of the farmer, and that is certainly how I stand. As a matter of fact the minister visited my riding recently, at which time I introduced him to the assembled people as not a bad egg. That seemed to suit the situation at the time.
The minister spoke at some length, and basically what he said was that he wants to improve conditions for the farmers. That is exactly what I want. At other times he has asked for increased food prices. There I think he is misguided. I do not think there is a need for increased food prices. One must remember that farmers are consumers as well as producers, and no farmer in this present day and age provides all his own food. They want lower prices, but they want to make a profit at lower prices.
Where is the stability this industry needs, and where are the long-term policies? Is the minister saying one thing in public and a different thing in cabinet? Is the cabinet not aware of the situation, or does it just not care what happens to the farmers in this country? Either way we are not getting the policies required.
This country will not have seen a crisis, whether it be energy or otherwise, until such time as it has experienced the crisis which will occur if there is no food available. If the problems that beset the dairy industry, the beef farmer, the turkey farmer, the egg producer and the grain farmer, with all our strikes, are not looked after now properly with long-term policies, mark my words, when the housewife goes into the market and cannot buy food for her family, then we will see a crisis. I do not care whether you blame the minister, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the cabinet or the civil service, I want them to get at these problems before it is too late.
On looking at the throne speech, I am afraid that the reintroduction of the Food Prices Review Board is not the way to solve these problems. This useless service is one that any housewife could perform. She knows how to go into the supermarkets and compare prices. You could send a group of students out and get exactly the same results. In my opinion the Food Prices Review Board serves only one purpose; it accepts and absorbs the scorn of which this government is properly deserving. These things are all related to the problems of my riding, and I am sure they are not much different from the problems faced by other ridings in southeastern Ontario.
The Address-Mr. Ellis
For a moment I should like to move on to a subject in which I have some interest, and that is the Department of Public Works which, with its almost 9,000 staff and a budget of over $500 million, is one of the largest departments of government. It is also very vulnerable in that the end results of its endeavours are open to full public scrutiny.
In general the Department of Public Works is reasonably efficient and maintains a reasonably good image. Abuses and patronage in the department have been reduced greatly, if not completely abolished in recent years, but there are some changes and improvements which, in my opinion, are essential.
The main one is that budgets for space and service must become the responsibility of each government department, thus putting the Department of Public Works on an essentially revenue dependent basis. Much of the criticism of the department by the Auditor General involves space ordered but not used. There will be obvious economies in having the budget of each department reflect not only the amount of space but the quality and level of opulence. If the Department of External Affairs wants the biggest chocolate cake in Ottawa, the finest offices, then let us show this in its budget, and let that department be responsible for it. Let us not bury this in the estimates of the Department of Public Works.
Acceptance of this proposal would allow one of the recommendations of the Glassco Commission which was never carried out to be implemented. That is to say, there should be a property accounting on both a quantitative and monetary basis, using proper accrual methods of accountings and recognizing depreciation when appropriate.
While answering to the Treasury Board in an over-all manner, all land and building services and management transactions must become the responsibility of the Department of Public Works. Keeping in mind current levels of involvement, there can be no justification for duplication of services such as found in the Department of National Defence, which still does a good deal of its own accommodations' seeking and construction.
In my opinion the Department of Public Works should be divested of all responsibility for a marine program. This is a duplication in fact and in function, if not in method of financing, of services provided by the Department of Transport, the National Harbours Board and the Departments of the Environment and Fisheries. If the Department of Public Works is called upon to act as contractor for these departments, that is fine, but it should not be the direct department responsible. The same can be said of the responsibility of the Department of Public Works for transportation programs. This is a duplication in fact and function of the services provided by the Department of Transport.
The fine arts program of the Department of Public Works, while admirable in concept, needs further refinement and greater input from public sources other than those directly involved. The public will not accept the use of rusty pipes and swiftly deteriorating free forms of plastic as art forms.

October 15, 1974
The Address-Mr. Loiselle
Under careful supervision greater use can and should be made of builder-proposal types of construction to reduce building costs and the parallel overhead costs encountered within the department.
With these few remarks about what I think is a very important department within the government, let me say I look forward to the thirtieth parliament with perhaps a bit of trepidation, but also with a good deal of determination on my part to make it work.


Mr. Bernard Loiselle (Chambly):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the population of the constituency of Chambly, I would like to congratulate you for having accepted the position of Speaker to which you have been appointed by this House. I would also like to congratulate my two colleagues who moved the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, the hon. members for Montmorency (Mr. Duclos) and for Vancouver East (Mr. Lee). I believe that the quality of their speeches demonstrated that the contribution of the young members can be both serious and effective in this House.
I would now like to deal with the measures outlined in the Speech from the Throne and particularly with those to fight inflation. I am sure that all the members of this House recognize the need to protect adequately and effectively the most needy, all those who cannot protect themselves against inflation, and I am thinking about the senior citizens, the pensioners, the sole supports of families. Finally, there are those who, because they do not belong to a union or an association of some kind, cannot face the disastrous consequences of inflation. The government has clearly shown its intention to act in this area by implementing measures such as regular increases in old age pensions based on the cost of living, the increase of veterans' pensions and other measures already mentioned. Another group which we should seriously consider is the middle class which must often bear the heaviest financial burden of all these measures that are implemented to help those in need. To this effect, Mr. Speaker, I believe that our government will act to better distribute the cost of all these measures so that those who are already well of in our society will pay the greater part of the cost of these new policies that will have to be put forward to ensure a better redistribution of the wealth of this country.
For the middle class this government intends to make financial help available under its housing policy to reduce the cost of land and promote development, to help directly new owners through increased assistance to buyers of moderately priced housing who have not owned a home before, and also through initiatives to urge lending institutions to accommodate particularly those buyers who can afford only a small down payment.
Another area, Mr. Speaker, in which this government will act firmly will surely be the food area because it affects Canadians the hardest. I am sure the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) will be the main artisans of that program since it will be a matter of monitoring excessive price increases in that area of the economy.

Another step mentioned in the Speech from the Throne is help to the small and middle businesses to increase our output. That program is most commendable because, however spectacular it might be at times to announce investments of the order of several million dollars and the creation of hundreds of jobs, it must not be forgotten that the present economic structure of this country is based first and foremost on small or middle businesses. It is only by ensuring the help required for its development that we can consider setting up a solid long term economy. To promote help for small and middle businesses we must first define what is a small businessman to be able to really understand his problem.
It must be kept in mind that a contractor with some fifty or a hundred employees used to be just a craftsman. Also that this craftsman who has become a medium-sized employer has often seen his business develop in spite of himself or without any control over its development.
Therefore, faced with his enlarged business, this contractor is often helpless when he has to perform some specialized work to ensure a smooth operation. Everybody agrees on that, but not on the means to meet those needs. The formula of assisting those contractors by increasing our public servants is quite questionable. I do not think it is the best way. I believe we should follow the example of Quebec which encouraged a few months ago, through the Minister of Industry, Trade, and Commerce, (Mr. Gillespie), the regrouping of some fifty contractors who will pay for collective specialized services.
The advantage of such a system, which already exists in a number of countries including France, is obvious. In France, this system proved highly successful, for it involved the regrouping of over 4,000 French businesses; after seven years they set up their own bank, the third largest in France. I feel this is an example to be followed. This system which proved successful should be applied here, for it has this advantage: both the small businessman and his firm are under the constant supervision of technicians they have hired and who, therefore, are their employees. So, they are not bothered, they do not have to spend much time on this type of work because it is a time-saving service for which they pay.
There are in our ridings some people-I know hundreds of them in mine-who, after starting as mere welders, found themselves, after a few years in business, faced with cost accounting productivity and general administration problems.
As for multinational corporations, a recent survey has shown that to carry out those duties, an average of 23 university graduates were hired. The small contractor, who must also meet those requirements, has surely not the means to incur those costs.
Too often, we deal with the small or medium enterprise as technocrats without ever having stood on an oil-stained cement floor or been in a place where some wood shavings were flying around.
It is easy for a recent university graduate who has no idea of an eventual loss to give to the contractor all the required good advice. However, since he has never experienced the problem, too often the contractor is frus-
October 15, 1974

trated by those entirely theoretical suggestions difficult to apply.
I will give you, Mr. Speaker, an example of that type of concern. I am referring to all those undertakings where today the craftsman becomes a businessman.
This businessman certainly needs specialized services, but he does not need to be told that he is unable to run a business, because he is an expert in his field of activity, he is a self-made man and one that should be respected.
There is another problem facing the small or average business, namely to find external markets. To do so, there again, the assistance of a number of government employees is offered. This service is rejected by the small or average business. The entrepreneur cannot, owing to his small volume of business or his limited production capacity, meet the demand of the external market.
In any of these two cases, one is looking for an example, for a course of action. I apologize for always quoting Quebec as an example, but the Department of Industry and Commerce has achieved some exploits in this field by grouping for exterior market purposes five or six competitors in a given sector. The lumber industry, in the Vic-toriaville area more especially, represents one of the fine achievements of the Quebec government. Its five or six competitors have met and, with the help of experts of their choice, they have succeeded in getting most interesting contracts on the foreign market, without for all that hindering the normal growth of their business or, as a consequence, that of their development. These are spheres of activities, Mr. Speaker, where I am sure, the government will know how to intervene with tact so as to increase the share accruing to the small and medium undertakings and thus keep this sector in good health, since their good condition will evidently provide us with an economy much more healthy, much less subject to vast monopolies and much more stable. This opens fields of activities where employees and employers are much closer and, in my opinion, in promoting this economic sector, we will be able to avoid conflicts such as the one we were compelled to solve recently.
Other very timely measures are put forward in the Speech from the Throne among which those proposed by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) who deserves special commendation for the way he has been handling his department since he took on as minister. Often in the past ministers of Transport were almost entirely concerned with rate increases, trying to balance such increases like real tight-rope walkers. The present Minister of Transport turned away from such a narrow attitude that has little long term efficiency; he looked at the very philosophy behind our transport policies, and so came up with the results briefly stated in the Speech from the Throne. It is essential in my belief that all parts of this great land be connected together, so that natural resources may be developed more easily in the most remote areas as the Northwest Territory, James Bay and so forth. This the minister understood, as I hope all members will indeed.
Moreover, I am sure that if we improve the transportation policy, we will be able to ensure a better balance in our economic development in every area of western as well as of eastern Canada and therefore enjoy a more even development than the one we know at the present time.
The Address-Mr. Loiselle
Especially as regards the constituency of Chambly as well as the southern shore population as a whole, I believe that the Minister of Transport will be able to give us more details on the methods required to promote the development of public transportation in those suburban communities.
The constituency of Chambly already has on its territory the substructure required for the establishment of express trains such as the Toronto Go transits. We are longing for the planning and implementation of such a policy, that should not be long in coming, I am sure. Already the hon. members for Longueuil (Mr. Olivier) and Laprairie (Mr. Watson) expressed their desire to offer a united front so that all our southern shore municipalities can be connected as soon as possible by these trains to that nerve-centre, Montreal, where a great portion of the people from cities such as Beloeil, Saint-Bruno, Saint-Hubert, Boucherville and others, are working. It is surely not by tying up millions of dollars for highway substructure that we will finally solve the transportation problem in an area such as ours.
The creation of an express train service will also enable us to solve the inter-city transportation problem between the southern shore municipalities. For instance, the Chambly-Saint-Jean stretch can be covered within 10 minutes by car, whereas by using the present public mode of transportation, the same journey to and fro requires 4 Vi hours. In 1974, that is unacceptable.
Mr. Speaker, considering the critical problem of public transportation, various levels of government have already examined that question. For more than three years now municipalities have been laying claims before the provincial government, which did not remain indifferent, on the contrary. It is already carrying out studies to determine the real needs and suggest better solutions. Considering the federal government's willingness to do something in that field also, I would subscribe to an increase of exchanges between the various levels of government, so as to achieve a better concertation of measures.
And I am convinced that the Minister of Transport knows this and that he will do everything to promote the necessary dialogue which will bring on the implementation of solutions as rapidly as possible.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, taking into consideration the benefits that my colleagues from the north shore of Montreal are reaping with Mirabel and all the development which stems from it, we on the south shore where industrial development is also going very well have another concern, and it is a concern shared by all the population of Chambly, it is that of environmental and pollution problems. The area that I represent is certainly one of the most historic of our country, the Richelieu river having always been a corridor which has put its stamp on our history. To put a greater accent on this area and also to make it better known to Canadians, the government of Quebec, through their planning and development bureau, have made a study on tourist development in the valley of the Richelieu river. The riding of Chambly has one of the richer inheritances. We have but to think of Fort Lennox, the Chambly canal, Fort Chambly, all the little churches which look out on the river such as Saint-Marc, Saint-Antoine and Saint-Denis and which were the authentic
422

October 15, 1974
The Address-Mr. Brisco
witnesses of the most important events in our history. Nothing must be omitted, Mr. Speaker, that could favour the promotion of these historic sites so that they might be better known by all Canadians. If we sometimes try to instill pride into the hearts of our young Canadians, they need only visit my area and they will easily find this kind of motivation.
Besides, this area has a most interesting geographical aspect. And this is why integrated touristic development of the shores of the Richelieu is required so that we might keep, near to Montreal, all the green spaces required for the leisures of a population who is too often tempted to go to the United States or elsewhere, while, right on their doorstep, all of nature's beauties are available for their enjoyment and this, without costing fantastic sums of money. To achieve this, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Canadian government to consider the possibility of reaching a supplementary agreement with the government of Quebec so as to see to it that the recommendations of the PLURAM study may take effect.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would once more like to tell hon. members how proud I am to represent an area like mine, whose population is most dynamic. It will always be an honour and a challenge for me to be worthy of my task of representing the riding of Chambly.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has graciously completed his remarks in somewhat under 20 minutes. Perhaps we could call it six o'clock and resume at eight o'clock with the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco).
It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this day.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Madam Speaker, in making my maiden speech in parliament I think my feelings at this moment, and the feelings of many other members who in the past rose to their feet for the first time, might best be described by verse 25, chapter 3 of the Book of Job which reads:
For the thing which I greatly feared is come upon me, and that which I was afraid of is come unto me.
First, I should like to join the host of other members who have voiced their sincere congratulations on your appointment. We realize that the appointment carries considerable responsibility, a responsibility which I believe will be exercised both with fairness and dispatch.
With reference to the Speaker and his appointment, his seeming reluctance to approach the Speaker's chair is, of course, steeped in tradition and history. I think all members of this House can offer the assurance that the Speak-

er's person will remain intact throughout this thirtieth parliament.
I should also like to congratulate the hon. member for Montmorency (Mr. Duclos) not only for moving the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne but for the honour which he has brought to his family and his constituents.
All hon. members, and those from British Columbia particularly, share with pride the honour conferred upon the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Lee) who seconded the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. I believe the hon. member is the second member of parliament of Canadian Chinese descent to be elected and he must, I suspect, be at once proud and humbled by the experience.
As you are aware, Madam Speaker, I represent the riding of Kootenay West in British Columbia and in describing its beauty, its attributes and its people, I can best summarize by describing my private philosophy in the recent election campaign. It was really quite simple- if I win, I win, and I shall have the opportunity to represent a wonderful group of Canadians, my constituents, and the opportunity to work with them and for them. If I lose, then I still win, for I will have much more time and greater opportunity to enjoy the beauty of my riding and the fellowship of its people.
Kootenay West riding is bordered at the south by the 49th parallel, to the east by the Purcell Mountains, to the west by the Cascades and the Monashee Mountains, and its northern extremity lies just south of Revelstoke and the Rogers Pass highway.
It is a riding of beautiful mountains and lakes, rivers and streams, some of whose names will have a sad but familiar ring in this House. I refer of course to the Columbia and the Kootenay Rivers, to the Arrow and Kootenay Lakes. The economic base of Kootenay West is its natural resources of water, minerals and timber, as well as the highly productive agricultural area surrounding the city of Creston. Some of our communities have names that ring loudly in the early history of mining in British Columbia. I refer to such places as Rossland, Trail, Nelson, New Denver and Silverton, Salmo and Ymir, Kaslo and Lardeau and the ghost town of Sandon.
Some names reflect the influence of our native peoples, such as Kootenay, the name of the riding, and Monashee, a mountain range. Still other names are a mirror of earlier times when the Russian people referred to as the Doukho-bors moved into Kootenay West-names such as Poupore and Ootischenia.
Kootenay West and its communities have contributed much to the social and economic wealth of Canada. While many of its constituents are of Anglo Saxon descent, we have a large and valued representation from ethnic groups of Italian, Russian and Japanese descent. All of them contribute a great deal to the social betterment of our riding.
Kootenay West has produced such champions as Nancy Greene from Rossland, and the Trail Smokeaters, twice world hockey champions. Trail, I might add, was the founding city for the organized movement of boys' minor
October 15, 1974

hockey, and the Kootenays have produced several champion hockey players.
Trail itself is the home of one of the largest, if not the largest, non-ferrous smelter in the world, and its wealth of experience and knowledge in metallurgy has contributed much to the scientific community. Cominco has also contributed much to the financial wealth of the riding and Canada, while its workers have donated time and energy in many different ways for the betterment of various communities.
In recent history we have been honoured by the presence in the riding of two prime ministers, and the man who should have been the third prime minister. I refer first to the visit in 1958 by the then prime minister, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker).
On that occasion I had the privilege of chairing a large political rally addressed by the right hon. member. I recall it as though it were yesterday. The prime minister was well into his speech when he was interrupted by four or five unfortunate women, referred to as Freedomites, who had stripped naked to protest I know not what. The right hon. member for Prince Albert rose to the occasion and said: "I have seen more than that back in the homestead in Saskatchewan", and continued his address.
In 1968 we were honoured by the visit to Castlegar by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). More recently, during the last election campaign we were again honoured by the visit of the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), who visited Nelson and contributed significantly to my election.
While nearly all the peoples of Kootenay West have contributed much to the social, economic and historical betterment of the riding, there are a few whom I should like to single out at this time. I am sure there is not a veteran member of this House who does not remember the "Squire of the Kootenays". I refer, of course, to the member of parliament who sat in this House from 1945 to 1968, the late Bert Herridge.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Hylton Brisco: He was always a gentleman, always concerned for and about his constituents, and always respected by people of every political persuasion. Mr. Herridge contributed much to the proceedings and debates in this House, with logic, persuasion and humour. Mr. Herridge served during the first World War in the 54th Kootenay Battalion and was wounded in action. One evening when the troops were to stand down, a young lieutenant, towering over the enlisted ranks, instructed Mr. Herridge and his fellow soldiers to dig some pits for their own protection. For ever after, as Mr. Herridge once complained in the House, the lieutenant was always a step up the ladder above him.
He was, of course, referring to another native son of Kootenay West who also will be remembered by the veteran members of this House-a man who was born in Kaslo, who served his country, along with many others from Kootenay West, with distinction during World War I with the 54th Kootenay Battalion. I refer to the Hon. Howard Green, Privy Councillor and Queen's Counsel.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Green was a member of parliament from 1935 to 1962 and culminated a long and distinguished
The Address-Mr. Brisco
political career as secretary of state for external affairs.
I should like also to mention the name of the last Conservative from Kootenay West to represent that riding. Mr. Billy Esling served the riding faithfully and well for 20 continuous years from 1925 to 1945.
The last member of parliament to represent Kootenay West was Mr. Randolph Harding. Perhaps few people realize that Mr. Harding, upon his election to parliament, had already served as an MLA in the British Columbia legislature for 23 years. Until his defeat in the last election, he had a record of nearly 30 years in public service, an indication of his dedication. He was especially concerned with matters pertaining to the environment and was very knowledgeable on this vital subject.
Finally, in describing Kootenay West, I wish to quote from the Parliamentary Guide of 1973. The final sentence on page 368 in the preamble to the description of ridings says:
So the two Kootenays were not counted as existing for political purposes.
Surely the Prime Minister himself must have written that sentence, for it so perfectly describes the long standing attitude of the government towards Kootenay West and its people. It is a history of tax whom you can for what you can, but give as little as you can in return.
I now wish to make passing reference to the Speech from the Throne, what it says, and what it fails to say. On occasions too numerous to mention the Leader of the Official Opposition has taken the government to task for its well demonstrated and documented inability to reduce inflation. He has reasoned, implored and debated, and challenged the government to take action. In this House, on November 20, 1967, the Leader of the Opposition said:
After rereading the minister's budget speeches in the last couple of years, in the spring of 1966 and in December, 1966, as well in the Spring of this year, I have to say that the government has been far too complacent about the dangers of inflation. The government has known for some time that an inflationary situation was developing. In fact, the minister himself referred as long ago as the spring of 1966 to the need for restraints.
Again on the same day the Leader of the Opposition quoted the Liberal Premier of Saskatchewan, who had said in reference to inflation: "Our own party as the government must accept responsibility for the primary blame." Now, some nine years later, a period longer than it took the allies to wrestle the Nazis to the ground, I sit in this House and listen to an exchange between the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister wherein the Prime Minister disdainfully declares he is still about to wrestle inflation to the ground.
Surely the Prime Minister and his government are suffering from the affliction of having been too long in office. It is usually found in the aged; We call it muscular atrophy. I state unequivocally that this government has not developed or declared a sound program to combat inflation but, rather, by continued increases in spending has failed to set an example for Canadians to follow.
If the government is not prepared to listen to the opposition, perhaps it will gear itself to listening to that source of the voice of the people outside parliament. I refer to the editorial pages of the nation's newspapers. Surely the government has the capacity to read and digest the contents of the editorial pages. Surely the government must
28305-28%

October 15, 1974
The Address-Mr. Brisco
be aware that not for months but for years the editors of the national newspapers have demonstrated their verbal indignation over the inaction of the federal government and its failure to take a positive and constructive stand on the number one issue facing this nation.
I honestly wonder how the Prime Minister can now summon the courage to face this house if he knows that the United States president has, in 60 days, set out to accomplish what the present government has not had the intestinal fortitude to attempt in nine years. Of course spending is necessary, but the point is how, where, when and on what. Certainly the government has not suffered from any largesse to Kootenay West. There has been none.
When, in 1968, a flood disaster struck the city of Trail and caused millions of dollars damage to its downtown business area and to the homes of many residents, the government was not moved to assist in any meaningful way. Its attention and our dollars went to such things as refitting and then scrapping HMCS "Misadventure".
I fail to note in the Speech from the Throne much reference to Bill 22, recently adopted in Quebec. When the Prime Minister addressed this House on September 15, 1968, he said in part that English speaking Canadians must not allow a single incident to cause them to forget the basic principle that linguistic equality requires all provinces to recognize the right of parents to have their children educated in the official language of their choice.
I agree with what the Prime Minister said in 1968. Obviously he no longer agrees with himself. Since he seems somewhat vague on the subject of Bill 22, is the Prime Minister suggesting by his silence a similar bill for all provinces?
Again, with reference to the Speech from the Throne, I note the intent of the government to renew the mandate of the Food Prices Review Board. I take it that this is a form of dentistry wherein the government will reline the gums but forget about the dentures. That is about all the dignity this mandate deserves.
On the positive side I am pleased to see the government adopting policies from my party, policies that were clearly spelled out by the Conservatives in the recent campaign. I refer to increases in pensions, war veterans' allowances- although the government has failed to say how large these will be-and in allowances for spouses aged between 60 and 65 of old age security recipients. The latter policy is a modified version of our party's avowed policy.
I am pleased to note that the government will make special efforts on behalf of individuals and specific groups who are ready and willing to work but tend to experience particular difficulty in finding regular employment. There are perhaps thousands of physically handicapped Canadians who hope the government is making reference to them. This also applies to many of our unskilled native peoples.
All Canadians are awaiting with interest the development of the government's new transportation policies. Certainly in Kootenay West we are interested. There is an early need for a municipal airport at Creston and Kaslo, and the extension of an existing runway at Nelson. We are pleased that the government is currently upgrading and 
paving the Trail municipal airport at Columbia Gardens. We have been fighting for this airport improvement for 20 years.
The people, business and industry of Kootenay West are also interested in the government's rail policy. As the government has said, "Transportation is vital to Canada, providing for the flow of people and goods that link and bind our regions".
Under existing policies of the Canadian Pacific Railway, rail, truck transport and telecommunication links are being steadily severed. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) and the minister responsible for regional economic development have heard or will shortly hear from me on this subject. It seems more than passing strange that an area such as Kootenay West, an area with an unfavourable economy, an area that qualifies for assistance under the DREE program, should suffer from rail line abandonment and diminished truck transport service at the hands of one company.
The government attitude toward environmental concerns is amply demonstrated by the six lines of vague rhetoric it devotes to the subject in the Speech from the Throne. Surely the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Sauve) is deserving of more attention. My specific concern and the concern of all Canadians, especially those on the Pacific coast, is the do-nothing attitude of the government toward the tanker route from Alaska to Cherry Point, Washington.
The hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Sharp) did this country a disservice by saying from the beginning that the government would do something, because the government did nothing. Surely the demand for a double bottom on these oil tankers is not too much to insist upon. Indeed, it is the least the government should insist upon. I note that the government, according to the Speech from the Throne, has initiated a series of consultations with the principal groups in our society, including provincial governments. I note that the government will ask these groups how productivity can be increased. That is a wonderful idea. I urge the government to address the question of productivity improvement directly to the Minister of Mines for British Columbia.
The various taxes, supertaxes and royalties and other controls now in effect, or going into effect in British Columbia, have sharply reduced risk capital in B.C. mining ventures, and mining companies have virtually abandoned the province in the exploration for new mines. I urge the Minister of Finance to study seriously the economic effects of raw resources taxation introduced by some provinces before he even gives thought to additional and heavy federal taxation that would disallow provincial mining taxes from being deducted before federal taxes are calculated. Surely the mining industry will stagger under the load. Is this the productivity the government seeks to encourage?
As a new member of parliament it has been my privilege to observe the exchanges of question and debate for the first time. I have been depressed by the fact that some ministers of the government show little or no concern for the questions, and are flippant in their replies.


Walter David Baker: Do not be surprised.
October 15, 1974


Robert Hylton Brisco: Is this really what Canadians expect from us?
At the same time I am heartened and encouraged by the genuine effort of some ministers who give every indication of answering questions with sincerity.


Walter David Baker: Name one.


Robert Hylton Brisco: I would like to digress from the main text of my maiden speech for a moment and appeal to the government for specific assistance. If Kootenay West had what its constituents consider to be their fair share of government support, it would not be necessary to make this appeal. But Kootenay West has suffered from financial disparity for too long.
I appeal to the Minister of Transport to pay particular attention to the transportation problems of this riding, and I urge the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson) to assist us specifically in the development of secondary industry. We have the workers, the electricity, the manpower and other essentials for the development of skill-intensive non-polluting secondary industry. Only through the untiring efforts of people in the community have we been able to attract any secondary industry.
Just as eastern Canada was at one time a rural area which later became industrialized, so also Kootenay West is a rural area which should have the benefit of further industry in order to establish a sound economic balance in the riding.
We do not ask for, nor do we want, a Los Angeles type of development, with homes and factories stretching to the horizons. What we do want and what we so desperately need, is employment for the sons and daughters of the people of the riding. Fifty per cent of these young people find it necessary to seek employment elsewhere. This, Madam Speaker, I am sure you will agree, is not adequate by today's standards.
While it is true that in this, my first address to the House of Commons, I have reflected doubts and concerns about the government, perhaps all of us can take heart and gain some measure of assurance from Proverbs, Chapter 11, verse 14:
Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Armstrong Richardson: Madam Speaker, my first reason for wanting to participate in this debate is that the very early paragraphs in the Speech from the Throne make appropriate reference to the more than 2,000 Canadians who are giving dedicated service in peacekeeping duties in Cyprus and the Middle East. This evening I would like to enlarge on that statement. I would also like to speak about the other important tasks being performed by members of the Canadian Armed Forces. In particular, I would like to talk about the way in which we must finance and pay for the work being done by the armed forces, especially in these days of very high prices and rising costs.
The Address-Mr. Richardson
I am certain that Mr. Speaker, of all people, will appreciate the importance of peacekeeping because he performs that function in this House every day. It is as a peacekeeper in the House of Commons that I wish to congratulate the Speaker on his election to high office, and also to congratulate the Deputy Speaker and you, Madam Speaker, on your appointments.


Gerald William Baldwin: We haven't opened up hostilities yet.


James Armstrong Richardson: We have a peacekeeper for when we do.
It is several days since the hon. member for Montmorency (Mr. Duclos) and the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Lee) moved and seconded the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, but I recall their words very well. I must say that when the hon. member for Vancouver East was speaking about western Canada, he expressed some thoughts that are very close to my heart. I believe with him, however, that none of us are in this House as easterners or westerners. I think the mover and seconder of this address demonstrated very clearly that they can defend and argue articulately for their own areas, but they both do so as Canadians.
The Speech from the Throne speaks about the more than 2,000 members of the Canadian Armed Forces who are performing dedicated service in peacekeeping duties for the United Nations in the Middle East. It forcibly reminds us that casualties are still continuing. It is true that the 11 men who were killed and the 19 who have been wounded constitute the highest cost that Canada has paid in its peacekeeping role.
When a Canadian soldier is shot and killed in his jeep, for many it is a news story or a statistic. Just a few weeks ago I went to Rimouski to attend the funeral of Jean-Claude Berger. I must say that when you meet his mother and father, his brothers and his little sister, and particularly when you learn how the people of Rimouski felt about him as an individual, you realize that his death is not a statistic, but a measureless human tragedy. [Translation]
Madam Speaker, I want to point to the hon. members of this House that when I attended the funeral of Private Berger at Rimouski, I expressed my most sincere condolences to Mr. and Mrs. Berger, conveying as well those of all hon. members on their behalf.

Despite the tragic human loss of this kind, and despite the other costs and difficulties of peacekeeping, I remain convinced that Canada as a nation and the Canadian armed forces have an important and useful role to play in supporting the concept of peacekeeping and in improving the practical methods of peacekeeping.
Whenever the problems and apparent failures are being discussed, I always find it useful to remind ourselves that peacekeeping is a very new concept in the totality of human history.
For centuries men in uniform have left their countries for only one purpose, to fight. Today some men in uniform leave their countries not to fight but to try to prevent fighting. I like to believe that we may be at the beginning of a new era. It may be a long time until there are more

October 15, 1974
The Address-Mr. Richardson
men in uniform committed to preserving peace than there are men in uniform committed to war, but that is the distant goal we must work toward. I believe it is a goal that is attainable by an enlightened people.
We should realize that because of what the Canadian armed forces are doing in a practical way and because of the moral leadership that Canada is giving to the idea and concept of peacekeeping, we could now be on the early part of mankind's long journey toward the end of war.
It is against this background of my belief in the peacekeeping concept, and my respect for what our personnel are doing in Cyprus and the Middle East, that I am looking forward to being there in just three weeks from now. I have visited our troops in Cyprus once before.


J. Michael Forrestall: Why don't you take the committee with you so they too can see?


James Armstrong Richardson: When there is an opportunity to do that, we will take the committee. I expect to be questioned by the committee on my return. I hope to see firsthand the living and working conditions being experienced by our personnel. In particular, I want to be able to make some judgment about the number of personnel we should have in the Middle East working with the United Nations, especially in Cyprus. As the House knows, we doubled the number of personnel in Cyprus this summer on the understanding that this was a temporary commitment.


J. Michael Forrestall: It has been temporary for ten years or more.


James Armstrong Richardson: Important as peacekeeping is, it is, of course, by no means all that we have to do in the Canadian Armed Forces. Our first task and our central responsibility are nothing less than to defend Canadian independence and sovereignty. Just as one example, a few days ago in this House the Minister of State (Fisheries) (Mr. LeBlanc) spoke in glowing terms of the assistance that he had received from the Canadian Armed Forces in identifying foreign fishing vessels.


J. Michael Forrestall: Don't get off on that nonsense. How are they going to do it now with no fuel and no money to buy fuel?


James Armstrong Richardson: I will come to that in the course of what I have to say.


J. Michael Forrestall: Tell us about fuel costs and money for next year.


James Armstrong Richardson: Next to the defence of our sovereignty, our second important task is to participate with the United States in the air defence of North America. This is a vital duty, and I am certain that the hon. member knows that some of our most highly trained personnel are involved in this task, using some of our best equipment. Here again, when we think of Canadian sovereignty, if it were not for Air Defence Command, if an unidentified aircraft flew into Canadian air space we would have to call on the Americans to locate and identify it. That would clearly be, I believe, a loss of sovereignty and independence on the part of Canada.


J. Michael Forrestall: Are you getting the 104's replaced?


James Armstrong Richardson: In the fullness of time we will have everything replaced.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Even the government.


James Armstrong Richardson: But some of our equipment does not need replacing. I do not know whether the hon. member has had the privilege of flying in a 104.


J. Michael Forrestall: You know damn well I have.


James Armstrong Richardson: Then he knows it is a great aeroplane and he should be proud of the fact that it is flown by Canadians.
The third clear responsibility and important task of the Canadian Armed Forces arise out of our belief in the concept of collective security and our commitment to play a useful and important part in the NATO alliance. I have visited our troops in Europe, and I am personally convinced that if the occasion arose they would give a very good account of themselves on the ground and in the air, an account of themselves well above their numbers because of their capability and individual training. They are career soldiers who cannot be measured just by the numbers that are in place.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Armstrong Richardson: These, Madam Speaker, are the four essential, central tasks of national defence. The serious question that is facing the government and the Armed Forces is how we can perform all of these important tasks effectively and adequately in times of rapidly rising costs. All of our costs, particularly our aviation fuel and heating fuel, have risen so substantially that we are really not able to carry out all of the tasks even within the increased budget under which we are operating this year.
There is sometimes talk about the way that the government has cut the defence budget. I think the first thing that should be made clear-and I started to make it clear in response to a question a short time ago-is that the defence budget is not being cut.


J. Michael Forrestall: What nonsense.


James Armstrong Richardson: It is being increased.


J. Michael Forrestall: What is the real increase in goods and services last year over the previous year?


James Armstrong Richardson: Let me give the hon. member the facts. Last year, fiscal 1973-74, our expenditures were $2,231 million, just more than 10 per cent of all the money that the federal government spends. This year, fiscal 1974-75, the national defence budget will be increased by more than $275 million, for a total of more than $2,500 million. This means that we will have more than $100 million of supplementary expenditure over and above the 7 per cent annual increase that was approved in the formula last year.
In light of these figures it is simply not true to say that the government is reducing the defence budget. I want to tell the House that it is not the government that is cutting
October 15, 1974

back on defence spending; it is, as is known, inflation and rising costs that are preventing us from doing all we would like to do, even within a growing budget.
In looking for an answer to our problem I think it is necessary to study the breakdown of defence expenditures. They are in three main categories. The first is personnel costs, which simply means the cost of pay and allowances. The second is operating costs and maintenance costs, which means the cost of fuel, food, ammunition, and supplies of all kinds. The third is capital cost that is the cost of new equipment.
This year, speaking in approximate terms, it is important to grasp the fact that 67 per cent, or more than two thirds of the national defence budget was spent on personnel costs-pay and allowances; 22 per cent went for operating costs-fuel, food, ammunition and supplies; and 11 per cent was for new equipment.
It is my firmly held belief that, whatever our total expenditure may be, the current ratio between personnel costs, operating costs and capital cost is not the right ratio. In my judgment, we must spend a higher percentage of our total budget on new capital equipment and operations, and a lower percentage on personnel. I want to make it clear at this point that I believe this policy is designed to benefit the men and women who are now in the Canadian Armed Forces. Obviously it is also designed to increase our military capability.
I want to try to illustrate what I am saying, and I have to do this in a somewhat extreme way. Last year and the year before there were about 82,000 to 83,000 men and women in the Canadian Armed Forces. We could have had a force of 120,000, a force armed with clubs and baseball bats. They would not have been a very effective force. To take the other extreme example, one man in charge of a button that is connected to a series of missiles can control a big area of the world. So how is it possible to say that numbers of people is the yardstick, and that military capability depends on having 83,000 85,000 or any number of people? That is the real problem I want to make clear. If we are not talking about numbers of people, what are we talking about?


An hon. Member:: Peacekeeping.


James Armstrong Richardson: No, peacekeeping is only one of four tasks. We are talking about military capability, and it is on that which we must really focus. As well as improving our equipment, and I have indicated we want to do that, we must reduce some of the commitments entrusted to the Armed Forces if we are to reduce numbers. General Dex-traze has pointed this out on a number of occasions, and he and I are in complete agreement on this.


An hon. Member:: That is not the way it is coming across.


James Armstrong Richardson: That is why I am speaking tonight, so it will be quite clear. General Dextraze and I agree that the Armed Forces are now over-tasked, and reduction in numbers inevitably means some reduction in tasks.
The Address-Mr. Richardson
Let me make one other point. A reduction in the percentage of personnel costs as part of our total budget does not adversely affect the men and women now in the Armed Forces. In fact it does the opposite. The people about whom I am most concerned are the men and women now in the Armed Forces. What I intend and hope to do is to get more and better equipment, and more money to operate this equipment.


J. Michael Forrestall: I wish you would. You can't even fly a helicopter safely any more because you do not have the money for training.


James Armstrong Richardson: Understandably there is some limitation in respect of the amount of money available. The only way we can improve the military capability and the conditions of the present members of the Armed Forces is to reduce the number of recruits taken in and put on the payroll. To state the equation in the simplest possible way -we are going to use the payroll that would have been used to pay someone not now a member of the Armed Forces to buy equipment and improve conditions for the people now in the Armed Forces.
We will have to make adjustments as we go along. Another point I want to make clearly is that in order to do this we will not be required to ask anyone to get out of the armed forces. We do not need to do that as we have 8,000 or 9,000 who, for one reason or another, mainly because of retirement, leave the Armed Forces each year. What is involved is simply a matter of adjusting the new flow. We can recruit 5,000, 6,000 or 7,000 and adjust our numbers based on the number of people we take in from the outside, and not on the number of people pushed out from the inside. This adjustment can be made easily and clearly to the benefit of the men and women now in the Armed Forces.


J. Michael Forrestall: It still takes 200 men to run a ship and one man to drive a truck.


James Armstrong Richardson: In a word, our central objective is to improve our military capability. In my view this means that the Canadian Armed Forces must be "better and fewer". What we must aim at is an elite force made up of well fed, well equipped, well trained, well disciplined, well paid and well led and well motivated personnel. In other words, we need an elite force that is proud of the job it is doing for Canada, a force with a high morale, a force to which many more Canadians would be glad to belong. Regretfully we cannot achieve this overnight. We cannot achieve some of our objectives in a few months or perhaps in some cases in a few years, but at least we should recognize the concept and have the vision of the kind of Canadian Armed Forces that we want to build, and we should be working steadily toward that achievement.
I have tried tonight to speak about the great, essential and vital tasks of national defence. I have also tried to indicate the readjustment that may be necessary in order to achieve maximum military capability. Let me now conclude by adding another dimension to our thinking about defence expenditures.
When hon. members think about national defence and the taxpayers' dollars that go into it, they should understand that much more is done than the main tasks about

October 15, 1974
The Address-Mr. Richardson
which I have been talking. National defence is not only involved in protecting Canada, it is involved in a great deal more. The Canadian Armed Forces are involved in many specific ways, some of which I have just mentioned, in helping to improve Canada.
When a dollar of the taxpayers' money goes into national defence, taxpayers are really getting more than double benefit. The main tasks I have described are being performed. In addition the taxpayer is receiving a series of hidden or other benefits. The first one which comes to mind involves the whole area of educational and vocational training. Many people perhaps do not realize that the Armed Forces are the largest educational and vocational training institution in Canada.
Canada's armed forces are involved in training in 90 different trades including everything from welding, flying, cooking and teletype operations. Literally thousands of Canadian men and, I am glad to say, increasing members of women all across Canada are serving Canada better and also increasing their own standard of living. This is all for one reason; because they are trained in a skill in the Canadian Armed Forces. The cost of this training comes out of the national defence budget, so when we are talking about defence expenditures we must think about education. We are spending educational dollars as well as defence dollars.
I do not need to mention the great industrial benefits that flow from the national defence budget. In many parts of Canada industrial benefits flow directly from national defence expenditure. I could spend a great deal of time, as I am sure we all could identifying these in detail. Perhaps we do not do all things perfectly, but think of our contribution to our fisheries and the environment. We not only assist in the identification of oil slicks or ships dumping garbage in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, we actually have skilled personnel with special equipment to help clean up oil spills. So we are involved in protecting the environment.
The Canadian Armed Forces are also involved in the development of the north through the building of airports. We are involved in the operation of search and rescue. If we did not have a search and rescue capability in the Armed Forces we would be required to create one, which would probably cost a great deal more money than is now being spend for this purpose under the national defence budget. All these things represent benefits that flow from the defence dollar.
If we experience a flood, or a national disaster, such as the one in Honduras at the present time, the Canadian Armed Forces are there, ready and able to assist.
There are even such small things, relatively, as ceremonial events. If the Canadian people should wish an honour guard or a band, this is all provided out of our budget. Then there is our youth program, the cadets. We have also the physical fitness program, and our involvement with great sporting events such as the Pan-am games and the Olympic Games. The double benefit that the taxpayer receives for the defence dollar is not as widely realized as it should be.


J. Michael Forrestall: That is why you can spend more money and the taxpayers will accept it. It all goes back to them.


James Armstrong Richardson: That certainly is the case I am making. I appreciate the support from across the floor.


J. Michael Forrestall: There is no support for your present position.


James Armstrong Richardson: Madam Speaker, since my time is running out I shall conclude simply by repeating that our four vital tasks are: protection of Canadian sovereignty, our participation with the United States in the air defence of North America, our work in defence security in NATO, and our work as a peacekeeping force. We not only perform those great tasks but also provide all these other benefits I have mentioned to the Canadian people.
We are improving Canada as well as protecting Canada, and I suggest to you, Madam Speaker, and fellow members of this House, that there is a group of men and women in Canada whose work means that they deserve even more respect than they have, and even greater appreciation than they receive. That group of men and women is made up of the dedicated and disciplined and hard-working members of the Canadian Armed Forces.


René Matte: Madam Speaker, since 1968 I have had the great honour of representing here in this House a well-informed, industrious and proud people, whose opinions, wishes and most legitimate aspirations I endeavour to reflect as faithfully as possible.
Spread out in no fewer than 47 municipalities, the people of my riding would dearly love to see their lot improved. They increasingly refuse to live like poors in the midst of abundance, wealth. For the most part, they live in villages, and those rural people know that public administrations, the federal government, do not concentrate their efforts in the right direction to help the people to be better off.
Hopefully, this our 30th Parliament should bear the stamp of innovations, of reforms appropriate to the needs of the times. We are going through extremely difficult and complex days. These times conceal a deep uneasiness from which could loom disastrous crises and catastrophies.
It is hardly the right moment to give as a pretext to our idleness the fact that an alarming international situation forces us to drift along with the world tide. Instead, we should strive to settle domestically our own problems with our own means. This 30th Parliament must respond quickly if it does not want to be swallowed up by social and economical crises that we could easily avoid if we had the courage to turn off from the beaten track.
Madam Speaker, without indulging in dark pessimism, I must admit that I do not believe this government is able to carry out successfully the tremendous work that is vested in it.
In 1968, the Canadian people as a whole believed for a moment that the new Prime Minister would introduce really new policies, through which his dream about a just society would materialize. Except for a few shy attempts at renovating, we have seen nothing, save legislation that

October 15, 1974

often led to controversy, such as changes relating to the Criminal Code and concerning abortion and homosexuality, or still the all too notorious emergency measures of 1970.
After that, the Prime Minister's attitude changed. The cool and casual intellectual became a politician. Following his disappointment in the 1972 election, he even became a "political manoeuverer" and a demagogue. May I be permitted to prove these assertions with a brief analysis of the last election campaign.
Following the confusion that prevailed during the last Parliament, confusion resulting from the unquenchable desire on the part of our Progressive Conservative friends to launch an election, and maintained by reporters always on the lookout for new sensations, during summer, the die was cast, the people had to go through another election.
We expected to see in public a serious analysis of the economic situation, the suggestion of concrete solutions and the wish of the outgoing government to fill in certain gaps and face the inflation problems, the price spiral and the social injustice.
On the contrary, the Liberal strategists played vote-catching. We witnessed a backward propaganda game where trickery went alongside demagogy. The great defender of the worker's rights, the collaborator of Cite Libre, the swashbuckler of the Duplessis regime of the fifties, was being engulfed in petty stretches-of-roads politics and gut promises.
Madam Speaker, I was in my constituency during the election campaign where, in this day and age jets and satellites orbiting Venus, people were invited to see the train pass. Behind Margaret's charm and the little Trudeaus' innocence were deliberately hidden inflation, the extravagant price rise and unemployment.
The former Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) came several times in the Champlain constituency and talked nonsense which often were within a hair's breadth of personal attacks, vulgar and pernicious comments.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) also came. More polite than his colleague from Saint-Maurice, he nonetheless stated that you had to be on the right side if you wanted to get grants, retaining walls and all the "goodies" promised by the Prime Minister in 1972.
That was a far cry from the just society of 1968! Making people believe that the government exists and administers only red ridings. Vote for Social Credit and you will get nothing! You must vote Liberal to get something. I said this during the election campaign and I am repeating it in this House; I challenge all members of the government to declare publicly in this House that nothing will be given to the riding of Champlain or to other opposition ridings under the pretext that only those who voted red are to be given any favours.
There follows one of two things, Madam Speaker: either favouritism is being openly flaunted as a policy or someone is a barefaced liar. The insults being flung at the people of this country are all the more inadmissible as the government administers with everyone's money and it is
The Address-Mr. Matte
certainly not a favour when the people receive, in one guise or another, their own money. That is pure demagogy! I cannot put any faith in a government who gets elected by using such procedures.
During that time, the real problems are staying hidden. The government itself has created inflation. At first it was said there was inflation but it was not true. How could there be a lack of products when our country, overflowing with raw materials and offering all kinds of possibilities, had to deal with surpluses? Milk producers were penalized for producing more than their quota, grain producers were being paid not to sow, interest rates were allowed to rise to paralyze small industry, the number of unemployed was allowed to increase. There are the ill-conceived policies which sooner or later had to give way to inflation.
But adequate policies are still not being considered. The alleged explanation for the whole situation is that inflation is a world phenomenon.
Madam Speaker, that famous key phrase hides from people the possibilities of a government willing to solve the problems of production and consumption in Canada. I think that is laughing at people. Indeed how can we explain that there is trouble in Japan, Europe, or Africa? How can that stop trees from growing in Canada, cows from giving milk, grain from growing, and how can that empty our oil wells?
Madam Speaker, that is telling us things that are absolutely stupid since the true solutions will be found only when there will be a return to measures based on common sense, a policy based on a quiet elementary principle that this country must get down to work and produce everything people need. So it is not a matter of knowing what is happening in the United States, in Europe, or in South America. The question to be asked is rather the following, do we have what we need in our own country to produce the goods we need?
Madam Speaker, the answer to that question is the solution. We have come to the point where inflation is being created artificially. Madam Speaker, that is obvious. Many small dairy producers were forced out of business. Last week at least three beef producers in the riding of Champlain told me they were giving up their business because the income they derived from it is insufficient. If the government does not find anything to remedy that situation, in a year or two there will surely be a shortage of beef. Then that will really be inflation. That a country like Canada cannot produce all the beef, all the vegetables, all the sugar that we need, Madam Speaker, I think that this is scandalous.
And last week I asked the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) if studies had been made to allow his department to help sugar production in Canada, to prevent us from falling into the hands of international monopolies. This is a very easy problem to solve in Canada. But, Madam Speaker, when at the same time we are told that if the price of sugar is increased twice, three times, four times and finally five times, this is due to the fact that sugar is controlled internationally. It is stupid to think this way when Quebec has so much land that could be used for sugar beet production. And only a few years ago, the producers of the Saint-Hilaire and Saint-Hyacinthe areas

October 15, 1974
The Address-Mr. Matte
were not allowed to grow sugar beets. And last spring, in my constituency, the authorities simply refused to buy the products of maple syrup producers, so that some of them now have on their hands tons of unsold maple syrup. When a country like Canada, which can produce in abundance, must wait and see what will happen on the international scene, I say that its leaders are doing nothing to correct the situation and are irresponsible or that they profit from this situation.
Madam Speaker, it is time for us to see problems where they are, to find adequate solutions to these problems and to stop stirring up the population with all kinds of false problems.
The balance which must be achieved to prevent economic disasters has to assure adequacy of production for all the Canadian people. When one's country is larger than the United States and larger than all of Europe, with a population of only 23 million inhabitants, the mere reference to a shortage, to a scarcity of products, Mr. Speaker, is, and I say it once again, scandalous! We must at all cost rectify this situation.
Mr. Speaker, since the inception of Social Credit, our political philosophy has always been closely related to all current problems, for Social Credit is merely trying to take steps that will solve production as well as consumer problems. If at the present time, there is now a scarcity of products in some branches of human industry, we only need to promote production. However, it is not by allowing the interest rates to climb to 10, 12, 13, 14 or 15 per cent that we will accomplish anything, on the contrary. The more we will impede the development of small producers or of the small industry, the more acute will be the scarcity of products.
I cannot understand that all the governments which have been in office over the years can see only one weapon against inflation, namely allowing interest rates and unemployment to go up. They say: "Let us starve the people, this is the way to fight inflation." That is an absolutely stupid way of fighting inflation, Mr. Speaker. On the contrary, if there is inflation, a shortage of goods, there should be absolutely no unemployment. Everyone should buckle down and encourage production.
We can therefore no longer accept the same old excuses. It is unfortunate that the limited influence of our party should prevent us from telling people more about the real solutions that should be applied. But we trust that the serious leaders in this country, if there are any, will at least take the trouble of looking carefully into the possibility of applying economic reforms, which could prove to be the solution to all the problems we are up against. Let us not fear, if needs be, to set the example for the whole world, since a country such as Canada, with untold wealth, is in a position to prove that it is possible to produce, to give one and all a decent minimum standard of living. If any country can do it, Canada can. The possibility should also be considered of bringing about certain economic reforms with a view to solving what problems we face and especially to giving the people the better quality of life which they seek and to which they are entitled.


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to begin my remarks by adding my congratulations to those of my colleagues in the House and ask you convey them to Mr. Speaker on his elevation to the exalted role of Speaker of this House. I extend my congratulations to you too, Sir, and to our other charming deputy who was in the chair most of today. I had hoped that she would be presiding when I spoke. That is nothing against you, Sir, but I thought it would be rather nice for me.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stan Darling: Certainly Mr. Speaker's elevation to the chair puts him in one of the three principal positions in this House-the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Speaker and the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition (Mr. Stanfield). The Speaker has accepted great responsibility in assuming his share of the burden and, as they say in show business, the performance of the previous Speaker is a tough act to follow. However, we are all sure he will do an excellent job.
I also wish to offer congratulations to two new members, the hon. member for Montmorency (Mr. Duclos) and the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Lee), who moved and seconded the Address in Reply in a very capable manner.
I wish I could speak in as glowing terms as the Speech from the Throne itself and the speech of the Prime Minister on October 2. Like my colleagues in the official opposition, I had expected the Prime Minister to follow up quickly and decisively on his election promises. I expected the Speech from the Throne to contain specific references to steps that the government planned to take to deal with the serious problems that have been with us since the present government come to power.
During the election campaign the Prime Minister promised to heal the wounds of the nation and to provide instant solutions to all its problems if only the people would return his government to power with a majority. Well, Mr. Speaker, the government was returned with a working majority, and we are all waiting for some sign that the Prime Minister was serious about wanting another chance to prove that he could and would govern responsibly. This is the third chance that the present government has been given to run our country, and I personally do not believe that this time will be any different from the others. It will probably be three strikes-and out.
In the last election campaign we heard much the same slogans and promises that we heard from the Liberals in 1968 and 1972. Some of the lyrics were different but the tune was the same. I am surprised that the Prime Minister did not enshrine his election tune in law and call it the new national anthem. We already have a title for it- "Promises, Promises, Promises".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stan Darling: I do not think I am unreasonable in expecting the government to present a Speech from the Throne

October 15, 1974

that contains something more than generalities and red herrings. After all it was three months from election day to the opening of parliament. Surely the geniuses in the government's white towers could figure out, in that time, that all the promises of the last six or seven years were left unsolved. In fact, most of them had not even been dealt with seriously. I cannot believe it took three months to prepare a speech that skirted around all the current issues and problems.
I heard from a reliable source that the Speech from the Throne had been farmed out and written by some brain truster in Toronto who did not even know what was going on in Ottawa, or anywhere else in Canada for that matter.
Last year the Prime Minister appointed Mrs. Beryl Plumptre to head the Food Prices Review Board. I suppose he thought the higher prices for food would go away and stop bothering him. All of us now know that Mrs. Plumptre has bombed out. She solved her own personal problem because she gets $40,000 plus per year in salary. It suits her all right to be used to pass the buck for food price inflation from the government to the Review Board. Just the other day the government announced that her job has been made secure for another year. I suppose that is the sum and substance of the government's fight against inflation in food prices for some time to come.
That is not good enough, Mr. Speaker. The people of Canada, the people of my constituency, will not be satisfied with this kind of nonsense in place of decisive action. I personally do not think that giving Mrs. Plumptre exposure on national television week after week is going to solve any problems, bring down the price of food, or even stabilize the price of food. I want to see some positive steps taken by the government. We have enough publicity seekers around already, people who go on national television one day telling us that the worst is yet to come, and the next day come back and tell us there is not much of a problem after all.
I was disturbed a few days ago when the new Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson) made a public statement that there was no crisis in housing in Canada today, and that Canadians should consider themselves fortunate to be living in a country without a housing problem. Of course there is a housing crisis in Canada today, Mr. Speaker. Tens of thousands of people in Canada cannot afford decent housing, whether they are looking for rental housing or housing for purchase.
Rental housing has gone beyond the means of thousands of Canadian families, and every day that passes means that countless more thousands are being priced out of this market. Purchase housing has long been beyond the reach of the average working family unless two or more people in the family are bringing in good salaries. The costs of materials and construction are continuing to rise at an alarming rate, and when the present interest rates are added to these costs it is easy to realize why the average Canadian family simply cannot afford living accommodation that they have a right to expect.
This fact is easy to realize, Mr. Speaker, but as far as I am personally concerned, it is impossible to accept. I do not accept a situation in a country like ours where builders and money lenders are empowered to determine who can and who cannot live in a decent home. We are now in a
The Address-Mr. Darling
situation in Canada where the builders and landlords dictate housing costs and they also determine rent levels, here in Ottawa and elsewhere. There are landlords who not only set exorbitant rents for their accommodation without any limits or restrictions being placed on their actions, but who also decide whether they will allow children in their apartments. In other words they can say to a prospective tenant, "If you plan to raise a family, go somewhere else".
A few days ago the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Jones) pointed out that present CMHC policies seem to be directed toward urban construction and other matters related to improving the housing situation in the cities. My own riding happens to be rural in character and so I have a personal interest in this matter. This situation was further aggravated on October 1 of this year, just a week or so ago, when CMHC restricted its home ownership plan to new housing. This means that families who have a chance to buy older homes in areas such as my riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka have been cut out of the Assisted Home Ownership Plan. This is discrimination in more ways than one.
In the first place buying a new home is almost always more costly than the purchase of an existing one, especially where families plan to acquire an older home and fix it up to suit their own needs and tastes. The Minister of Urban Affairs may not have a housing problem of his own, but I can assure him that thousands of Canadians are not as fortunate as he is in that respect.
I would just like to make one more comment about the change in CMHC policy with regard to the Assisted Home Ownership Plan. In the last few days I have heard of cases where people have been hit by this change and, in my view, it shows how cold and unfeeling this government is when it comes to dealing with individuals.
We have a situation in which the government has wasted hundreds of millions of dollars on many programs, one being bilingualism. Incidentally, the money applied to CMHC programs is not being pumped down the drain in the way so much other money is that is supplied for other programs. This money is being paid back to the treasury, with interest. Tonight the Minister of State for Urban Affairs is appearing before a committee. I had hoped to attend, but was unable to do so because I was selected to speak in the House.
At this point I wish to mention one or two proposals which were advanced by my party in the last election campaign, and which the government adopted.


An hon. Member:: They were Conservative proposals.


Stan Darling: Nevertheless, they were good ideas. We are pleased to note that wives of old age pensioners will be eligible to collect pensions at age 60. When I listened to the Prime Minister I thought this plan would be implemented in October. I thought that was fine. But when I read his speech, I noted that the date of implementation was to be October 1, 1975. That gave me an awful shock. That situation is disgraceful. The plan could have been implemented within two months of parliament being convened. Inflation is with us now and wives of pensioners certainly need that money.

October 15, 1974
The Address-Mr. Darling
Can we believe the government when it says inflation will be licked by October of next year? I do not think we can, which is all the more reason why the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) should speed the program up and implement it within two or three months. I am sure many members opposite feel as I do. Let them put pressure on the government so that it will find the money for this program much more quickly.
We also advocate that, in case of need, 55-year old wives of pensioners should be entitled to the pension as well. This program will not cost as much as some fear because many such wives of pensioners must obtain other financial assistance if the couple are to live in the manner to which they are entitled.
I am also happy to see that the war veterans allowance is to be increased. Again, this has happened because of pressure which has been kept on the government by my party's veterans affairs critic. This was one of my areas of interest in the previous session. The veterans have already done their fighting, and it does not seem right that they need to fight over and over again for every dollar of increased pension they receive.
I now wish to comment, and in so doing take pot shots at ministers, about labour unions which pursue their selfish aims at the expense of the public. Really, judging from what we have heard lately, the demands of some unions sound more like blackmail than demands put forward in collective bargaining. I do not believe the government has been sensitive about the rights of the majority of Canadians. It has allowed strikes in essential services to take place.
We hear a great deal from the NDP about special interest groups in industry and business. Of course we know that most of such thought is simply socialist gob-bledygook. We should be directing our attention to those special interest groups in labour unions which are using blackmail and intimidation to force unreasonable demands on the government and the general public.
The unions seem to delight in keeping our country in a constant state of turmoil, and it is time we served notice on them that these minority factions will not be allowed to impose their will on the majority of Canadians every time they feel like it. Collective bargaining is not a divine right to run roughshod over the people, and unions will have to be told that they are expected and required to act just as responsibly as the rest of us. The average citizen in this country is getting impatient with irresponsible and destructive strikes, and I might go so far as to say that they are darned fed up.
I was surprised to note that the grain handlers' strike was settled by giving them a 61 per cent increase. As one of my colleagues said, that means that a sweeper in a grain elevator will now make about $7 per hour, or close to $12,000 per year. Many people in Canada's work force are not in unions. They have no one to speak on their behalf, and I can tell you they are giving that settlement a hard look. Other union contracts will be negotiated in the near future and some members of this House, as well as our newspapers, can take the blame for what will happen.
When we debated the grain handler's strike my friends to my left kept talking about the great big terrible grain 
companies. I may not know as much about the grain industry as my friends to my left, who seem to know everything about everything except how to get large numbers of their followers elected to this House. Their numbers are reduced and they no longer have the clout they had.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: We have quality, not quantity.


Stan Darling: Now they can spout their socialist philosophy because there is no danger of their being called to account.
Members to my left called the grain companies great big corporations. Actually they are co-operatives owned by farmers, as the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie) mentioned in his speech. But many members here failed to mention that. The ordinary people of Canada, who may read what has been said in that debate, may think the grain companies are the same as other great cartels and corporations. Of course we heard a great deal about corporate bums, but we no longer hear about the corporate rip-off.
Many people in Canada who work very hard cannot bargain from strength. Some make but a meagre pittance. I should like to see the wages of some people rise. Some of them could combine and use their combined clout. I would like to see their wages increased by so much an hour.
The minister is now faced with an Air Canada pilots' strike. At the present time they are staggering along with a paltry $30,000 basic for the lowest paid pilot, plus fringe benefits. The super pilots are receiving $50,000. A nice increase of 10 per cent will be coming along.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member will permit a question?


Stan Darling: I will when I have completed my speech, Mr. Speaker.
This is what a lot of people are wondering about. Money is going to the highest paid on a percentage basis. Where is it all to come from? It will come from the poor consumer in one way or another. It will come from the old age pensioner, those on welfare and those with restricted incomes.
It is time the most fortunate in Canada stopped to think. Yesterday a good many of us overstuffed ourselves while celebrating Thanksgiving. This is a very fortunate country-let us not kid ourselves-despite unemployment, poverty, discrimination, hunger among many, and regardless of the Prime Minister.
We in this country consume, directly or indirectly, five times as much cereal grain as the average citizen in Latin America, Africa or Asia. As Canadians, we must ask ourselves some very personal questions about what our help will be to those less fortunate than us. It might be well to emphasize at this time that a great many of our own citizens are in need of a basic wage that will enable them to live in decency.
October 15, 1974

Some of the highest paid people in Canada can be found without going too far from this Chamber. There is no question about that. Something should be done.
I was delighted to hear the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) speak this evening. I had the privilege of visiting Cyprus and Lahr, Germany, in February of this year. I talked to the troops there. I commend the minister on his troops. They are a wonderful bunch. But, without mentioning names or ranks, they were not over enthusiastic about the equipment supplied to them. They want more and better equipment. They certainly deserve it.
There is one other matter, and I will probably be baring my soul in this respect. I used to wonder why the devil Canada spent so much money on an army. It was not very big. I felt that the United States, that great country to the south, would protect us. They would not dare let anyone invade us.
Just two weeks ago I had the privilege of visiting armed forces bases along with NATO members from all over Europe. We visited Shilo, Esquimalt, Halifax and Camp Valcartier. I was most impressed. Although $2.5 billion is a hell of a lot of money, it certainly is not enough. That is it in a nutshell. We have to pay the piper. I hope parliament will find enough money to equip our great Armed Forces in the way to which they are entitled and should be equipped.
I know that a tremendous 10 per cent of our national budget goes for defense. However, if you match that against some of the NATO countries in Europe, I bet we are not paying too much. We are not too hard done by. I hope many members will look at it in this way. And when I say this, I include members on this side of the House too.
I say to the Minister of National Defence that when he appears before the Standing Committee on Public Accounts he will have a friend. I happen to a member of that committee. I believe it was one of my friends from the holier than thou group to my left-


Mr. Hogan:: Thank you.


An hon. Member:: Saintly sinners.


Stan Darling: When I first came to this House I sat at the far end of the Chamber. I expected to see a halo over that particular group of 31 members. Now they do not require as large a halo. Of course, with the new member in that party maybe there will be a halo.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stan Darling: One way of saving money would be to cut down on some of these mandarin palaces being built in Ottawa and other places to house government agencies. They are growing like a cancer. I visited the offices of a government agency in a town not too far from where I live. The official was not very high up on the totem pole, but when I went into his office, there were rugs like the one in this Chamber. You could put four Centre Block offices of members of parliament into his office. I will not refer to the Confederation Building where I understand some members have tennis courts for offices, at least members opposite. Money could certainly be saved if the
The Address-Miss Begin
government would quit extending its tentacles through more buildings.
The Ontario government has finally stated it is putting a ceiling on its civil service list. I hope that will be done here. I am not quite sure of my figures, but I believe there are between 330,000 and 340,000 civil servants here. That is a lot of people to have their noses in the public trough. The ordinary taxpayer has to foot the bill for that. We must do something to try to cut down in this area. We must show that inflation is more than just a word.
Members on this side will do their best to try and do what the people of Canada want, namely, save money and fight inflation. We know that during the election campaign we wrongly told the people there should be controls on prices and so on. Privately, every damned one agreed. The only exception is they said "not me". They wanted everyone else's wages cut but their own.
Something has to be done to try to keep prices down. I hope we will be able to do something in this parliament. The Prime Minister says that one of his top priorities is reconstituting and changing the House of Commons, fut-tering around with the Senate, and doing this and that. If things could be left as they are and we could get down to brass tacks, we could do something about inflation. Let's forget all about this damned gobbledygook of changing the House of Commons even though there are a lot of things I do not like about it. Your Honour should put a cross on the calendar. This is the first day this session we have not had a Standing Order 43 motion. I know which is the guilty side for the most part, and I am not enthused about that. These crazy 43's waste the time of the House. There are a lot of things that could be done to streamline the House, and I agree with the government on some of them. There is no question about that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stan Darling: I agree that 20 minutes for a speech is all that the Prime Minister needs. I do not speak often, but I do sit in my seat and listen to all this wonderful oratory that goes on and on, and darned few members ever stop before they are told to sit down. Having spoken for 30 or 40 minutes, they then ask how long have they got? One learned member of the House of Commons last year, who is not here today, represented an English riding, spoke French about half the time and recited poetry. That was the hon. member for Scarborough-something-or-other. So it is not necessary to be a most highly educated person to get back into the House of Commons. I hope that this parliament will get on with trying to do something that the people of Canada want done, and will not just waste time.


Miss Monique Begin (Saint-Michel):: Mr. Speaker, allow me first of all to congratulate you on your appointment. I should like you also to convey my best wishes to your colleagues, namely, the Speaker of the House and hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Jerome), the hon. member for Beauharnois-Salaberry (Mr. Laniel), and my colleague from the Louis-Hebert riding (Mrs. Morin).

October 15, 1974
The Address-Miss Begin
This being said, Mr. Speaker, I shall never be able to "talk a blue streak" like my predecessor just did. I shall speak French, and I have not quite understood whether this means automatically that I shall be speaking poetically.
Within the past 18 months, Mr. Speaker, I have gone through two election campaigns. These will have actually cost the Canadian taxpayers some $70 million. The day to day administration of this House during that time will have cost them another $40 million, and I will have experienced not the pleasure but the regret to see some 35 major bills automatically shelved simply because the government was defeated. To sum it up, $110 million in less than two years and, it must also be pointed out, a remarkable number of pieces of legislation passed by a minority government. That is where lie the strength and the weakness of our form of government.
In my opinion, the paradox of democracy, and in the first days of this third week of sitting of this Parliament, my off-hand reaction is to ask myself how are we going to fulfill the mandate given to us by our voters. Every member is concerned about that. So I prepared notes right on the first day of the session on the urgency of a parliamentary reform. I have since listened with great interest to the speech made by the Prime Minister who chose to give particular emphasis to that problem. I also heard the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) and noted specially what he said about the question period in this House, the broadcasting of the debates of this House and committee work.
Incidentally, I want to stress the great interest I found in the question debated last Thursday night by the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) and the answer given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Reid). I support my colleague from the opposition on the basic principle of freedom of information for members of Parliament as defined by him-the onus of proving confidentiality lying upon the government, which I think is the opposite of current practices. No need to add that I agree with him that nothing is more fundamental than to allow the public to follow the committee proceedings on procedure and organization and on the internal economy of the House. I will add further, at the risk of shocking the experts, that our senior civil servants and other civil servants should attend those discussions so as to better understand the role of members of Parliament and how we need their help and they need ours. I am sure they would be delighted to do so.
I cannot understand, and I beg your pardon, that the opposition and a number of mass media-except a Toronto morning paper that I shall not name-have managed to run down the Prime Minister's speech and to accuse him of lack of substance, of glossing over the real problems of today. Naturally, I would not say that the speech my hon. colleague from across the way has just made strikes me as a model in this regard.
I know full well why I was elected MP by the thousands of electors of the Montreal riding I represent. I know full well what they expect of me and what problems we must solve. But I want the Canadians to know how obsolete and even hypocritical is our way of solving those problems.
The Canadian people have elected us to discuss the price of eggs, to protect them against inflation. That is not hard

to know. Of course, they want money to keep on circulating, and above else, they want to know they will not lose their jobs. They fail to understand why we do not control the companies that make excessive profits and exploit the consumers. At the same time, they are shocked, which may seem paradoxical but does them credit, by our slowness, our hesitations in helping the starving people of Sahel or Bangladesh, those who lose everything in a hurricane such as in Honduras, or those who lose their freedom such as in Chile, Angola, Rhodesia and South Africa.
What can I answer, Mr. Speaker, when women's groups ask me why the life expectancy of Indian women is 10 years less than theirs or that the life expectancy of Eskimo women is 20 years less than mine for example?
And what can be said, Mr. Speaker, to those who are caught in the infernal trap of usurious credit and who are not protected nor helped by any legislation to get out from under?
And what can an honest member do when he hears the report of the Montreal Diet Dispensary and is aware of the scandalous nutritional deficiencies among pregnant women and generally among poor families in the richest country of the world?
As a full-time member, I can only be particularly ill at ease with the procedure set by the Canadian parliamentary system which prevents me-and I intentionally dwell on that word-which prevents me from performing productive and responsible work. The clumsiness and the legalism-I apologize to my colleagues who have legal training-the clumsiness and legalism of our procedures are, I feel, unacceptable to any parliamentarian conscious of his responsibilities.
In a sense, I say without hesitation and very simply that the exterior forms and the usual practices prevent us from doing the real job, that is resolve the problems I mentioned a few minutes ago, for which 264 Members of Parliament have been elected, they have been delegated to serve the interests of twenty-two and a half million Canadians.
Every member has had the experience of having visitors in the galleries. Often, whole classes of children and teenagers come to discover their Parliament. What is their reaction? Here are some comments we hear: Miss, one would think that ministers are doing their best not to answer questions asked by members. Why do members ask such stupid questions? That was reported in this morning's paper. Why do all members leave the Chamber at three o'clock in the afternoon? How is it that members are reading or writing under the nose of the speaker in the House? It might appear candid to say such things here, but if they reflect the spontaneous reaction of the majority of visitors, they are scandalous for the House.
People who observe from these galleries, maybe once in their lifetime, as they walk through the town, the symbol of their government and our democracy, do not understand what happened and are confounded at the loss of time in our debates. Very often, they see us as children playing in a kindergarten.
I feel this view is absolutely right. I also find that we ourselves get lost in the intricacies of our own game. Clear demonstration of this happened during last Parliament
October 15, 1974

where the bulk of members simply did not know how to use procedural possibilities, otherwise the government would have fallen much sooner.
I also find very telling the daily language we unconsciously learn as soon as we enter this worthy precinct and speak among ourselves, when we say for instance we are going to "kill a bill during private members' time", or we have to "sit through the late show". In this vocabulary, one might point to a number of other phrases, all telling of fallacy in the workings of Parliament.
It is clear then I see but one paragraph in the Speech from the Throne, the one about parliamentary reform, and for a very simple reason. If we do not implement rapid reform, we will never find the time to debate and vote the program in the 15 preceding pages, that is 60 or 70 bills, let alone talking budget.
And this program, excuse me if I say so, is far from being innovative. It only continues work undertaken since what I have been able to witness, that is in the preceding 18 months of government.
Certainly many members before me must have been impatient with the archaic parliamentary system, but I believe that surely this is not a reason to accept an inacceptable and unjustifiable situation that must be corrected anyway. In fact, traditions are lost if only because of the changes brought on by the age, occupation and seniority of the members. We might as well develop, with full knowledge of the case, new "rules of the game" adapted to the twenty-first century.
I did not have time to consult the Parliamentary Guide on this, but even if I myself have not reached the age of retirement in the year 2000 I think that there are others also in this House for whom the twenty-first century is not fiction.
My colleagues who have preceded me in this House, not during this session, but during preceding Parliaments, have put forth numerous reform projects especially during the last fifteen years. I have read many of them. One of the most interesting comes from the last session. It seems to be rather meaty even though it is but the beginning of a report which was co-signed by the former member for York Centre (Mr. Walker) and by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). Just as they are, I am in favour of more respect for democracy, but I am quite incapable of finding where the essence of democracy lies.
For example, if I take the time allocated for speeches in the House, I do not see where 20 or 30 minutes per member, depending on the discussions, has improved the quality of democracy in Canada. It is very rare that a man-and this also means women-has a new idea. When one has one, it can only be brought forth clearly and briefly and, for me, 10 or 15 minutes at the most should be enough. Also, why should we all repeat the same things? Members of a same party can reach prior understanding to allow a smaller number of members to make public the views of the group, divided according to the subjects to be covered. Every speaker in the Parliament of Europe in Strasbourg, for instance, is allowed to speak for seven or nine minutes. I am thinking of the member who spoke
The Address-Miss Begin
before me, whose final words were: "This inflation is just a word". In my opinion, however, this inflation is actually thousands of words. Members of this House are strange beings generally struck on the day of their election with an uncommon illness, namely verbal inflation. I think we could reduce the time allowed for speeches in the House by half and therefore double the amount of time spent on parliamentary duties.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words about the work of committees. I shall do so because working on a committee is almost the very essence of the ordinary member of the House, it is the springboard, the platform, the place, the tool that he can call his own as opposed to other aspects of his parliamentary life such as, for instance, the question period which "is the ministers' property." For instance, I was struck by the fact that the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau)-obviously it is his duty and the duty of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) to do so-stressed the matter of the question period. Those are the ministers' problems. As an ordinary member of the House, and no doubt I am expressing a view that we all share, whatever our party, as an ordinary member of this House, I spend hours working with the standing committees of the House.
I think that the remarkable reforms of 1969 intended to change the functions of the committees of the House are far from being implemented. Their spirit has been applied but they have not been implemented. Judging from what I have seen up to now, the 23 committees of the House cannot, at any rate, be considered as working groups. They are not groups, they do a very bad job and they have continuous partisan fights except maybe in two or three committees.
That has struck me because I earnestly admit that one of my main reliefs during my three months as a Canadian delegate to the United Nations last year was to be relieved from committee work. This is absolutely abnormal and I was surprised myself to have such reaction, but it reveals very well the "artificiality" laid upon us. I think that the rigidity we can observe during the committees concerning the time allotted and the order of speakers is against the good functioning of the human spirit. I am not an expert on procedure and organization so I feel free to express what the average citizen would feel in a House committee. A member of Parliament has there a tremendous opportunity to become an expert in some issus that interest him and for which he is prepared.
Mr. Speaker, before you interrupt me I shall say it is ten o'clock and ask you for leave to finish my speech later.



[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.
[Stage Direction]
October 15, 1974
Adjournment Debate

Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I am always overwhelmed by the multitude of my colleagues who listen to my voice at this hour. On the other hand, to those who are not staying I feel like Lady MacBeth who said: "Stand not on the order of your going".
Last Tuesday's question to the minister, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen), concerning the Geneva Conference and the role of the Palestine Liberation Organization at that gathering was prompted by my continued interest and profound concern for the future of the Palestinian people.
There are many blunders, many failures, many moral wrongs in our age as in all preceding ages, but I believe nothing is a greater affront to our conscience than the Palestinian refugee question which has been a blight upon our record for the past quarter century. One and one-half million people driven from their homes or fleeing them in fear have languished in tents and shacks for 28 years. Discouragement, disillusionment is their lot. Children have grown to manhood knowing no home, knowing no hope. Not surprisingly in this life so degrading to the human personality disillusionment has turned to despair, and frustration to desperation. Not surprisingly the refugees ask: does any one care; will no one take up our cause?
The Arab inhabitants of Palestine were not consulted and, I fear, not considered when others decided that a new state of Israel should be set up in Palestine. I cannot here tonight discuss the violence and terror which went on in Palestine over the years prior to the carving out of the Republic of Israel-violence not by any means confined to the Arabs, or shall we say, the Palestinians.
But suffice to say there has been a painful, cruel lack of concern for the host of huddled refugees in the far-flung camps of the Middle East. UNRA has dispensed funds, but nothing like a decent lifestyle has been established, even if we set aside the vital question of the right of these people to a home of their own rather than a half-way hostel on a road which seems never to open up. Only in recent years has there been some recognition of the intensity and importance of the fate and status of the Palestinian refugees.
In this session of the General Assembly of the United Nations a recent decision was made to take up the general issue as a separate item for plenary discussion. The other day It was decided to hear a spokesman of the Palestine Liberation Organization at that great international organization in New York.
I regret that Canada found itself unwilling to join the vast majority of delegations prepared to hear a spokesman for the long suffering Palestinians. We took the familiar safety device of abstention. Of course there are problems, but there is a difference in this case. There is an interesting difference between our performance at ICAO or UNESCO. We know there are problems. All but one of the Arab states now seem prepared to look upon the PLO as

the spokesman for the Palestinians and all present voted in favour.
The government of Jordan has a different point of view from the rest of the Arab states. Does Canada agree with the Jordanian position? Canada is in the Middle East in the UNEF. Canada is a charter member of the United Nations. I believe we are wisely establishing new diplomatic missions in Arab states. Having long recommended such a move, I expressed pleasure on the opening of an embassy in Saudi Arabia. I am glad that Yemen is strengthening its diplomatic contacts with us. The appointment of an ambassador from Canada, stationed in Baghdad, is long overdue.
But what I should like to know is the view of the government on the situation referred to in my question, and I hope that the distinguished parliamentary secretary, my long time friend from New Brunswick, will tell us tonight what is the view of the government of Canada. What are we doing to make our contribution toward peace in the troubled Middle East? Let us never forget that Armageddon is located in that part of the world. How are we demonstrating our awareness of the new prospects for advancing the cause and the lot of the long suffering Palestinians? Such a tragic situation, so egregious an affront to human dignity, cannot go on forever; indeed it should not go on longer.


Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, in November of 1973, during his visit to the Soviet Union the then secretary of state for external affairs expressed the view, which he reconfirmed in the House on November 26, 1973, that the Canadian government believes the Palestinians should be represented in one way or another at the Geneva conference on the Middle East. This is obviously necessary since the whole question of the future status of the Palestinians is a major element in any future and permanent settlement eventually reached by the parties concerned.
Canada has not advocated the attendance at this conference of the Palestine Liberation Organization itself. We do not believe we can prejudge the question of whether the PLO is the only legitimate representative of the Palestinians since this is an issue which must be settled by the parties themselves.


TRANSPORT-SUGGESTION FEDERAL GOVERNMENT JOIN IN URBAN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, although my question is in the area of industry, trade and commerce, allow me to just say that I could not believe my ears when I listened a moment ago to the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) speak about the poor Arab refugees who have had no support from anyone in the world. Certainly they have had no support from the billionaire Arab interests in the Middle East except to finance propaganda. I think his was a disgraceful intervention.
I asked, in the House last Friday, a question about the Urban Transportation Development Corporation which is a corporation recently established by the government of Ontario. When I first learned of the Urban Transportation
October 15, 1974

Development Corporation my reaction was one of regret that this corporation had not in fact been established by the federal government. The objectives of the corporation are very important for an urbanizing society. In my own area, the region of metropolitan Toronto, the problem of urban transportation is a critical one and new solutions are required, new and innovative technology.
A few years ago this corporation was established by the province of Ontario and the hope was expressed at the outset that there would be federal interest and participation in it. I am enthusiastic about it for a number of reasons. I am enthusiastic because it addresses itself to one of the most serious urban problems. I am enthusiastic about it because its approach is to look for innovation. It very rarely happens that new solutions are found by old line companies. It seems that companies that are practised, experienced and committed in transportation need some kind of a push or a boost to provide new ideas. This corporation can provide them.
I am enthusiastic about it because it emphasizes development activity within the private sector. It is not the intention of this corporation to be in business to produce goods or to produce services. On the contrary, the idea is to be a contractor; to generate and stimulate within the private sector a new kind of industry-an industry badly needed for the future of Canada.
Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I am enthusiastic about the corporation because it is already succeeding. It has already promoted improved production; it has already promoted some successes and already established some technology. It has already made sales outside Ontario and outside Canada even, in the United States.
I use my question, Mr. Speaker, as a method of urging the government of Canada to participate in this corporation. The province of Alberta has already undertaken to become part of it, though the details of its commitment and the role it will play financially and otherwise have not been publicly announced. I hope that the federal government will play a role at least as important as that of Alberta and, hopefully, the other provinces of Canada.


Mr. Gaston Clermont (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the government is very much aware of the importance of creating a national based urban transportation development corporation to assist in solving the urban transportation problems. Indeed, on two occasions in the Speech from the Throne the determination of the government to establish such a corporation has been stated.
The first positive step in this direction was the proposal by the former minister of urban affairs (Mr. Basford), at a trilevel government meeting in Edmonton that such a corporation be established. The purpose of this corporation was to bring together the interests of the federal government and the provincial governments in resolving a number of the urban transportation problems that faced various municipalities.
Many of these problems have a common base and the purpose of this corporation would be to identify these areas of common interest, to identify the types of equip-
Adjournment Debate
ment that might best meet these requirements, and to ensure that to the maximum extent possible this equipment would be produced in Canada. The government's purpose has been to join in the creation of a strong organization which had both federal and provincial participation which would assist industry to design, develop and produce transportation systems and equipment needed in Canadian urban areas.
The government has initiated discussions with all the provinces and there is general agreement that a corporation with these objectives would be beneficial and would contribute substantially to the solving of a number of urban transportation problems.
In considering the establishment of such a corporation it has been important to acknowledge the progress in urban transportation development that has been achieved by the province of Ontario and to utilize that experience as the nucleus for a nationally based organization. I am pleased to report that recent discussions with Ontario appear to have produced a basis for agreement. If such an agreement is reached the government plans, as a matter of priority, to place details for participation before the other provinces. I hope that the other provinces will find the proposed terms and conditions acceptable.
It is the intent of this corporation to provide leadership, and development and production of urban transportation systems that will enhance the social well being of many Canadians.


MANPOWER-DEVELOPMENT OF NEW COMMUNITY EMPLOYMENT STRATEGY-INQUIRY AS TO GOVERNMENT POLICY
Andrew Hogan: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) and is in connection with the announced three year program that was going to be signed with the provinces. I am concerned about what is going to happen in regard to the unemployment situation in the Atlantic region in the meantime. Surely LIP grants and unemployment insurance benefits are not the answer.
I should like to ask the parliamentary secretary, or whoever is speaking for the minister, when are we going to get from the federal government a co-ordinated plan for the development of the Atlantic region?
When the federal government set up the Atlantic Development Board, ministers promised a plan and talked about it in their speeches. We were told a plan would be forthcoming. When they set up the Area Development Agency they promised such a plan for the Atlantic region. Also, when they set up DREE they promised such a plan. Now we are in 1974 and we, in Atlantic Canada, are still the poorest of all regions in this country, with the possible exception of the Northwest Territories.
I am afraid that the government has become so used to setting up special functions and institutions which can be used in the Atlantic region that it has forgotten that national policies such as those of fiscal and monetary restraint of the 1969-1970 period can wipe out any good done by these institutions. I fear that we shall see much the same thing again in the November 1974 budget. Such a budget, a repeat of 1969-1970, would erase a great deal of

October 15, 1974
Adjournment Debate
good that some programs for regional development and expansion have done. In other words, there is a contradiction inherent in the government's national fiscal and monetary policy and in its regional development policies.
I include the government's manpower policies in this general inconsistent behaviour toward the Atlantic region, so many areas of which are floundering on the shoals of lack of job opportunities. What I say is also true to some extent regarding the government's training and retraining programs which, in part, have become another form of welfare, of band-aid help which is not effective enough to meet the needs of regional structural changes which are necessary if there is to be reconstruction of the economy and sustained employment in that region.
It is time for all politicians of the Atlantic region to stop fooling the people in Atlantic Canada about two things. Let them not give the people exaggerated impressions to the effect that income and employment prospects from off-shore oil exploration will make much difference to the region. Second, let them not hold out the forlorn hope that Fundy tidal power is being seriously considered by this government as part of the answer for meeting Canada's energy needs in the next decade.
Let them, Mr. Speaker, develop a serious plan for the Atlantic Region which will take advantage of our geographical position, an advantage which has come about because of changing technology in transportation, and which has changed our relationships with the markets of the world. I am referring to the development of our container ports and our deep water ports. There are two in eastern Nova Scotia, and one of those, Gabarous, is in my riding. The site has been recommended by steel experts who have studied the subject for DREE as a prime site for a labor intensive steel complex.
I hope such developments will be included in a new redevelopment policy and plan which will also redevelop the basic resources of the Atlantic region and thus provide a real answer to the problems which have plagued Atlantic Canada for at least half a century.


Mr. William Rompkey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, in response to the question by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan) on October 8, let me begin, as he did, by referring to the community employment strategy, which is a long-term plan, as he indicated, to combat the problems of the chronically unemployed or under-employed.
The hon. member expanded on the terms of reference of the original question and referred in a broad sense to government policies. It is impossible in three minutes to speak of the impact of DREE on the Atlantic Region, although, without question, DREE has been successful in creating many jobs. Tonight I can only speak on behalf of the Department of Manpower.
Let me begin by talking of the community employment strategy which is aimed at helping specific groups which experience particular difficulty in keeping and finding regular employment. Some of these are the physically handicapped, the mentally retarded, socially handicapped,
ex-inmates of mental or correctional institutions, people living in areas of chronic unemployment, and single parents. In the Atlantic area we know particularly of those in the second last category, people living in areas of chronic unemployment.
This program is being developed in conjunction with National Health and Welfare. Indeed, it is as a result of the policy paper the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) put out last year. One important aspect of it is that it attempts to involve the community in the definition and, indeed, the resolution of their specific problem. To my mind, that is a departure from what we have been doing up until this time. It will tell the community of the impact of our present programs on them and, together with them, try to seek answers to improve those programs and the employment situation in a particular community.
This is a long-range plan. It is one worth undertaking. It will have beneficial effects. However, it in no way indicates that there is any lack of appreciation or emphasis on our present programs or ongoing activities. We want to emphasize the extensive efforts that have already been made by Canada Manpower to reduce unemployment.
The hon. member referred to the Canada Manpower training program. He called into question its effects. I believe that program is certainly worthwhile. The hon. member will agree that in this time of rapid change it is very important that we keep our skilled people up to date. Canadian workers change jobs many times during their careers. It is incumbent upon us to provide continuously educational opportunities for them as they do this.
The $2 billion spent on training programs in the past represents a very successful investment. We have reorganized Manpower Placement Services. I can tell the hon. member that in my own area of Atlantic Canada, for example in my constituency, there has been a decentralization of Manpower services over the past year or 18 months. In my opinion this is of great benefit in meeting the local placement needs.
The department instituted a system of farm labour pools which was designed to ensure that crop harvests are not hindered by inadequate labour supplies.
The hon. member also referred to the short-term job creation program that had been recognized nationally, the local initiatives program. There is certainly agreement that LIP is not the answer to long-term unemployment. It was not designed for that purpose. It has been continually modified since its inception, and will be continually modified during the progress of this parliament, in consultation with members on both sides of the House. We regard this as important and effective. What I like better is the Local Employment Assistance Program which, I feel, has a longterm effect on many areas of unemployment.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret I have to interrupt the hon. member because the time allotted to him has expired. The motion to adjourn this House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.

Wednesday, October 16, 1974