1974-10-10

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Peter Stollery (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration has the honour to present its first report pursuant to its order of reference of Tuesday, October 8, 1974. Your Committee has considered Bill C-12, an Act to provide for the resumption of grain handling operations on the west coast of Canada, and has agreed to report it without amendment. I respectfully suggest that it be read today. A copy of the report and minutes of evidence Nos. 1 and 2 is tabled.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Since the hon. member has already read the report in the course of his introduction, it will not be necessary to read it again.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, there have been some informal discussions going on about the bill dealing with the grain handlers' strike and I understand there is agreement in the House to make an order as follows: first, that Bill C-12, the grain handlers' bill, be considered at the report stage and third reading today when orders of the day are called; second, that any time taken up today for debate or division on the bill be added at the end of the debate on the Address, and, third, that today be regarded as the fifth appointed day of the debate on the Address but that if any further amendment is proposed during the debate on the Address the division on it shall be taken at 9.30 p.m. on Tuesday.


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: With reference to Bill C-12, that which has been said by the House leader is certainly true, notwithstanding the appearance of the minister as acting as both judge and jury in the standing committee. Now the government has shown its course we want to co-operate and see to it that the bill is expeditiously passed. Therefore, we agree to waive any required notice in this regard to bring on third reading.
[DOT] (mo)


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I might add that the other elements of the proposed motion are acceptable to this party.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the motion presented by the government House leader does represent the result of discussions which have taken place. We are prepared to give it our unanimous support.


Mr. Fortin:: Mr. Speaker, we also took part in this agreement and we still hold to it.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the order. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to put under Standing Order 43. Yesterday the Canadian Council for International Cooperation concluded a special conference in Ottawa on the world food crisis. This conference brought together representatives of 60 major non-governmental organizations to prepare recommendations for the Canadian government position at the United Nations World Food Conference at Rome starting November 5.
Because of the critical role that Canada, a bread basket of the world, will play at the Rome conference, and because of the great need for non-partisan involvement by parliament, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave):
That a special one day debate be held in the Commons prior to November 5 to examine the recommendations of the council for a strong Canadian position on a world food security system; ways to increase food production in the developing countries; and more equitable distribution of world food supplies.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House has heard the motion. Since it is presented pursuant to Standing Order 43, it cannot be debated without unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

October 10, 1974

External Affairs


Mr. Speaker:: There not being unanimous consent, the motion cannot be put.


Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, yesterday the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) raised an interesting question following the refusal of his motion by the House. Your Honour undertook to examine the point raised yesterday by the hon. member for Bellechasse, namely that members of the opposition who move motions under Standing Order 43 should not be rebuffed by a voice in the wilderness but by somebody who will stand up and be recognized by the Speaker when he says no.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Both the provisions of Standing Order 43 and the other practices of the House require that there be unanimous consent. It has been a matter of long standing practice and has been clearly understood that unanimous consent, when asked for, is negatived by any single member who raises his voice against it. That has been the long standing practice of the House, and I am unable to see anything in the precedents or practices of the House to argue otherwise. If there is to be any change to that practice, I submit it would have to come from some sort of understanding and agreement among members of the House.


André-Gilles Fortin: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Lotbiniere on a point of order.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I want to go on with what I just said in a very appropriate way to my Progressive Conservative colleague and take up the remarks the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) made yesterday and those you are reported to have made on page 244 of Hansard: The question is very interesting and I shall study it in the future. I do not want us to leave unsettled the important question of upgrading Standing Order 43. I therefore ask what your intentions are as to the upgrading or outright suppression of Standing Order 43.


Mr. Speaker:: I said yesterday that it is an interesting question, and it is. I also said I would examine it in the future, and I will.

The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville.


Mr. Yewchuk:: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Athabasca is rising on a point of order.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville, but my point of order is a continuation of the two points of order concerning Standing Order 43. I think it would be useful to point out that the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River is making a mockery of parliamentary procedure.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, he happens to be sitting directly across from me and I am sure he does not pay the slightest attention to the motions, what they mean or their

content, he just simply shouts very glibly every time an hon. member-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The provisions of Standing Order 43 presumably are clearly understood by all hon. members. This does not simply involve a question about the subject matter of the motion, but in addition the possibility that the business of the day may very well be set aside to debate the subject matter, which is a totally different matter. The point of order in respect of the manner in which unanimous consent may be expressed or negatived may be valid, but aspersions in respect of a member for his reasons for not wanting to set aside the day's business for debate on a Standing Order 43 motion is a totally different thing, and I must rule that this is not a point of order.


PUBLISHING
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I will try a third time to obtain unanimous consent to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43, seconded by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn):
That this House request the government to act immediately to terminate the special tax privileges currently enjoyed by Time and Reader's Digest.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion which was very short. Perhaps I should repeat it:
That this House request the government to act immediately to terminate the special tax privileges currently enjoyed by Time and Reader's Digest.
This motion requires unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There not being unanimous consent, the motion cannot be put.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, under the terms of Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard):
That a special committee of the House be set up to study the relationship between the international sugar monopoly and the fact that the conflict without solution between the workers' union of the Saint-Hilaire refinery and their employer will cause a minimum loss of


i

October 10, 1974

25 million pounds of sugar, when sugar now sells for 50 cents a pound to the consumer.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: As there is not unanimous consent, the motion cannot be put.


CITIZENSHIP ACT
Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-20, intituled "An Act respecting citizenship".


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

Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-21, to amend the Agricultural Products Co-operative Marketing Act.


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

Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-22, intituled "An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan".


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

[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government Notices of Motion
October 8, 1974-The President of the Privy Council:
Oral Questions
That a Special Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons be appointed to consider and make recommendations upon Parts I, II and III of the paper entitled "Employer-Employee Relations in the Public Service of Canada", prepared by the Chairman of the Public Service Staff Relations Board;
That 14 Members of the House of Commons to be designated by the House at a later date be the members on the part of this House of the Special Joint Committee;
That the said Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records and examine witnesses; to sit during periods when the House stands adjourned; to report from time to time and to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be deemed advisable; and to delegate to sub-committees all or any of their powers except the power to report directly to the House;
And that a Message be sent to the Senate requesting that House to unite with this House for the above purpose, and to select, if the Senate deems it advisable, some of its Members to act on the proposed Special Joint Committee.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of Standing Order 21 this notice of motion is transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the House.


PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government Notices of Motion
October 8, 1974-The President of the Privy Council:
That the Public Accounts for the years ended March 31, 1972 and March 31, 1973 and the Reports of the Auditor General thereon together with the evidence adduced by the Committee during the Twenty-ninth Parliament, be referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of Standing Order 21 this notice of motion is transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the House.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of indications that officials of the Interprovincial Pipeline Company have been holding discussions with his officials during the past month concerning security of throughput for the proposed line from Sarnia to Montreal, I should like to ask the minister whether his officials have not kept him informed regarding these discussions which go to the heart of the project which the government has considered as being of great importance. I ask this question particularly in view of the fact that the minister made no refer-

October 10, 1974
Oral Questions
ence to any such difficulty in an answer he made in the House on Monday.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I did indeed meet with officials of the interprovincial pipeline company to discuss this as well as other matters relating to the pipeline extension. They indicated at that time their concern on the basis of, perhaps one could say, general comment in the industry rather than on the basis of the National Energy Board report about the availability of oil supplies in the late 1970's and early 1980's. They indicated that their concern principally was related to the financing because of the consequence of any deficiency in the throughput financing. I suggested to them it would be possible to cover such a contingency in the rate structure that would apply. They in turn talked in terms of the possibility of the government securing their position against such a contingency and I suggested to them they should come back with specific proposals if they had them in that regard.
I should say as a matter of interest that I have been advised by the National Energy Board that it has now completed the taking of the evidence in the Montreal pipeline application case, particularly with regard to the changed route, and has adjourned it sine die so that the company can come back to state its position in this regard, as the board said, as expeditiously as possible.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Some of us might wonder why the minister did not see fit to give some indication of some such difficulty when he gave a very reassuring answer in the House on Monday that the matter in his judgment would proceed and be finished early in 1976. May I ask the minister whether the government is prepared to give the pipeline a guarantee of throughput or minimal financial assurance each year or is the government prepared simply to leave this matter stand until the National Energy Board makes its report later on this year as the company has indicated it would either wait for such an assurance or wait until the National Energy Board makes its report.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As I think was indicated in the press reports which inspired the hon. gentleman's question, we will be meeting with the company in the course of the coming week to have more precision with regard to its concern about through-put. As I indicated, our feeling is that any financial exposure in this regard should be achieved within the rate structure, but we will want to define more clearly with the company the extent to which it feels financially exposed. Then, of course, at that point the government would have to take a decision concerning what its financial involvement might have to be.
The general principle remains, however. We feel that for the security of the Montreal market the extension should be carried from Sarnia to Montreal.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The minister refers to me being inspired by a press report. It is fortunate that there is still a free press in this country and that we do not have to depend for information on that minister or any of them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should like to ask the minister whether it is a fair assumption that despite the very reassuring response he gave to the hon. member for Edmonton West on Monday, the whole project is still way up in the air.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as I said, the hearing has been completed in relation to the route. As to the question of financing, it has been raised just recently by the company and it is one that obviously will have to be defined. But otherwise my understanding is that the company is proceeding with the application and the board will be in a position to report on all points except for that one when they render a decision.


OIL-ALLEGED POSSIBLE SHORTAGE-SUGGESTED CURTAILMENT OF EXPORTS
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the minister. In view of the fact that the Interprovincial Pipeline Company has asked for this postponement on the grounds that their application was based on misinformation and the oil industry has now reached a conclusion which I have advanced to the minister for the last six months, namely, that by 1980 or sooner Canada will be in a deficit position with reference to oil, and in the light of the reluctance of the Interprovincial Pipeline Company to proceed, is the government considering phasing out our exports of western crude oil to the United States in order to make sure that we have sufficient through-put for eastern Canada, particularly in light of the fact that President Ford has announced that the United States intends to curtail its imports of oil?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It was because of our concern about conflicting opinions on the supply situation that earlier in the year the government asked for an advisory opinion from the National Energy Board with regard to the petroleum supply in Canada. My anticipation is that the government will be receiving a report within a month, and I hope then to have a more definitive indication of the actual supply availability. I have said in general terms, both inside and outside the House, that we anticipate that over the next decade there will be a reduction in Canadian exports of crude oil to the United States. The National Energy Board report when received will provide us with a basis upon which the exports can then be phased down. In sum then, we expect that exports will be going down. The exact timetable, of course, would be better dictated after we have the board's recommendations.


OIL-POSSIBLE SAVING BY USING WESTERN OIL TO SUPPLY MONTREAL MARKET RATHER THAN IMPORTED OIL
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the minister if officials in his department have made any estimates as to what saving would be involved if we could ensure a market in the Montreal area for western crude rather than having to make compensation payments to the oil companies for oil imported. Would such a saving warrant the government in giving an assurance to the Interprovincial Pipeline of a guaranteed through-put?
October 10, 1974


Donald Stovel Macdonald: My recollection is that 250,000 barrels a day going into Montreal, while reducing the compensation liability, would also reduce the export charge income in the west, and I think that rather than an actual saving there might be a slight net deficit as a result of that kind of change in our supply.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It arises out of the statement made public last night that the United States will move against agricultural trade quotas in Canada or put on import controls. In view of the potential seriousness of such a situation, and in the light of the fact that Canadian officials have known of these developments for approximately one month, I should like to ask the minister what discussions Canada has had, other than the discussion which the Minister of Agriculture was supposed to have had when he was in Boise, Idaho?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, following the Canadian government announcement of the quota system, it was indicated to the trading partners affected that Canada was ready to consult with them. Very intensive consultations have already been held with the Americans on the necessity of our establishing these quotas to protect the Canadian market. Subsequent to those discussions at the official level, I raised the matter with Mr. Kissinger when I met him in New York and advised of the serious view that would be taken by the Canadian government of any retaliatory action to the quotas justifiably established by us.


PROPOSED UNITED STATES ACTION AGAINST AGRICULTURAL TRADE QUOTAS-POSSIBLE GOVERNMENT ACTION
Jack Burnett Murta: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, as I do not believe the minister really gave me an answer. If a small trade war should develop between Canada and the United States on agricultural products, what will the Canadian government do to alleviate its effects, especially in view of the contradictory statements made in Canada and the United States by the Minister of Agriculture?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to clarify Canada's response to the abnormal situation which prevailed in the market in 1973, and to justify our actions. We have attempted to convey that to the Americans, which will undoubtedly appeal to my hon. friend. At the moment the Americans have filed notice that they propose to take retaliatory action, and we have asked for public presenta-
Oral Questions
tions of the extent of that action. We do not know the form or magnitude of the action they propose and until this is known it will not be possible for the Canadian government to assess its position and consider what action would be justified.


DISCUSSIONS WITH UNITED STATES CONCERNING TRANSPORTATION OF ALASKAN OIL ACROSS CANADA- GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. When the minister advised the House yesterday that he had no precise knowledge of United States policy regarding the transport of Alaskan oil across Canada, did he know then that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources had already discussed this matter with United States officials in Washington last week?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I was replying to my hon. friend in the context of conversations that had taken place with the U.S. Ambassador-at-large, William Eberle. Naturally, I will be updating my information and knowledge with my colleague the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I do not pretend to know every aspect of every conversation that takes place between my colleague and his counterpart in the United States.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, the minister could have said no and saved a little time. A supplementary question. Can the minister advise the House whether the government is prepared to use this new proposal, which clearly means an oil pipeline across Canada to carry Alaskan oil, as a bargaining lever to force the United States to keep all oil tankers out of the Straits of Juan de Fuca on the west coast of British Columbia?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend knows well the attitude that has consistently been taken by the Canadian government with respect to west coast oil tanker. I would advise my hon. friend that discussions are continuing on this very point between Canadian and American officials.


John Allen Fraser: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. All members from British Columbia know how little has been done in the last few years. My question to the government is very straightforward. Are they or are they not telling the United States that they cannot have their oil pipeline unless they get their tankers off our coasts?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I would not like to emulate my hon. friend by making the bargaining approach public.


Mr. Hees:: Why don't you wrestle them to the ground?

October 10, 1974
Oral Questions HOUSING


REFERENCE TO ELECTION PROMISES-GOVERNMENT POSITION ON IMPLEMENTATION
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have in my hand a volume made up of Liberal promises made prior to the July 8 election.


An hon. Member:: That is only the first volume.


John Edward Broadbent: It has some 287 pages-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There has been ample opportunity for debate during the beginning days of the session, but there is limited opportunity for questions. I would appreciate it if the hon. member would come to his question.


John Edward Broadbent: The volume is some 287 pages long.


An hon. Member:: Read it all.


John Edward Broadbent: I think it should be entitled "Great Expectations". If I could have the attention of the cabinet, Mr. Speaker, I would put the question to the Prime Minister. On the occasion of an address on the problem of housing for this year the Prime Minister said in Vancouver on June 5:
Down payments are too high, interest rates are too high, monthly payments are too big.
He went on to say that action had to be taken immediately.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. With all due respect, the hon. member really ought to pose a question.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I am giving the necessary background. In reply to a question in the House yesterday, the Prime Minister implied that solution of the housing crisis he was talking about in June could be postponed for a two to four year period. In all seriousness, I ask the Prime Minister if the government plans to do something this year about the housing crisis he referred to in June, or if they intend to wait a year or two or three?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian people are well enough informed to realize that no government can do everything everywhere at the same time. That is why they gave us a four year mandate.


John Edward Broadbent: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Also in June the Minister of State who was then responsible for housing promised that for this year $200 million would be added to the AHOP program. This has not been done so far. I would ask the Prime Minister if he intends to keep that election promise?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member will send me a copy of that big book I will look up the quote and see if it is a real quote.


FINANCE
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the statement contained in his speech yesterday, as reported at page 260 of Hansard that he has recommended and pointed out the necessity for stricter controls over the movement of international capital, can he tell the House if the government of Canada is proposing some sort of foreign exchange control?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: No, Mr. Speaker. I think the hon. gentleman may have read that statement a little out of context. I will look at it myself to see if there is any ambiguity.


James McPhail Gillies: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it the position of the Minister of Finance that it is possible to have control over international movement of capital without domestic foreign exchange controls?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, if one were to accept the hon. gentleman's premise, within the context of the speech the answer would be no.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of National Defence. Was the Chief of the Defence Staff, General Dextraze acting on the minister's instructions when he sent out a general newsletter to the armed services instructing personnel not to write to their members of parliament with respect to any personal problems they might have?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


An hon. Member:: They should write to Information Canada!


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the letter to which the hon. member refers.


An hon. Member:: You didn't get one?


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat surprised the minister has not seen this publication as it was generally circulated to the armed forces. It comes from the chief of defence staff. The minister should also be concerned because it advises armed forces personnel not to write members of parliament or to the minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
*



October 10, 1974


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Since the minister has not been informed of this action by the chief of his defence staff, will he assure the House he will immediately instruct the chief of defence staff to send out an amending memo to all armed services personnel correcting what is a most serious abuse of the rights and privileges of all members of this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I have to date found no difficulty in supporting the chief of the defence staff in all that he has done. I will certainly want to look at this in detail, read it and report back at a later date.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Shefford. [Translation]


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I would respectfully point out that owing to the avalanche of supplementaries this morning, we have not yet had the opportunity to ask a first question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. While I am happy that the minister regards this as a serious matter, I am concerned that this whole issue will be sloughed off. I believe it constitutes a very serious violation of the rights and privileges of all members of this House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows well that if it were his intention to raise this as a question of privilege, he ought to have done so at the first opportunity. He has addressed the question to the minister. Having dealt with it in one way, he obviously should not deal with it as a question of privilege at this time. He asked a question of the minister. The minister said he will come back with an answer. Until the minister appears to be dilatory in carrying out that promise, I can scarcely regard it as being sloughed off. If that does happen, and the minister fails to come back with an early reply, the hon. member will have the opportunity tomorrow. I would not accuse the minister of being dilatory at this moment.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I accept the words of Your Honour. However, since it is a question of privilege, I hope the minister will give the undertaking that in the next session of this House tomorrow he will provide us with the information because it is a serious matter.


James Armstrong Richardson: I will undertake to do that, Mr. Speaker.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I would respectfully point out that owing to the abusive use of questions of privilege in the House this morning, we have
Oral Questions
not yet had the opportunity to ask the first question. I would therefore ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider and analyze the supplementaries asked this morning to take a decision in that connection.
I should like to put a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Has he communicated with his Quebec counterpart to find a solution to the conflict between the employees of the Saint-Hilaire refinery and theirs employer?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: The matter was raised earlier by the member for Saint-Hyacinthe. Following his question, I inquired about the situation. I can say to the House that the refinery belongs to the provincial government and I really believe that the latter will find a solution to the strike now under way. I must remind the hon. member that the production of Saint-Hyacinthe represents less than 1 per cent of the Canadian sugar consumption. Obviously, I am concerned about the losses incurred, but I do not want this problem to be unduly exaggerated.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Can the hon. minister assure the House that he will order an investigation to ascertain whether or not the disturbance is being fostered by the international sugar monopoly at the expense of Canadian consumers and the sugar-beet production which accounts for several millions of dollars in the Richelieu Valley area.


André Ouellet: The hon. member should know that legal proceedings have been instituted in the Montreal Superior Court against four refineries. The law will have its way, Mr. Speaker.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, my question could be a supplementary. It is directed to the hon. Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
If the worst comes to the worst and the Quebec-based sugar refinery should consider closing its Saint-Hilaire plant, which would entail laying-off some 50 workers and wasting the complete crop of 350-odd sugar-beet producers, could the hon. minister undertake to explore, together with the Quebec authorities and within the scope of the Ottawa-Quebec agreement, all possible avenues to help this unique Quebec industry which is essential to the future of an agro-food industry?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, insofar as co-operation is concerned, the answer is, of course, yes. To the best of my knowledge, no formal application for such assistance has been received to the present moment. However, I will be glad to look into this and advise the hon. member.

October 10, 1974
280____________________________
Oral Questions ENERGY


NECESSITY FOR CONSERVATION MEASURES-CONSULTATION WITH PROVINCES ON CONVERSION TO NUCLEAR OR COAL FUELED ELECTRICAL PLANTS
Mr. Elmer MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Bearing in mind President Ford's statements regarding measures to conserve energy resources and in light of the recently concluded draft agreement on energy sharing in Brussels, does the minister intend to inform the House of similar conservation measures for Canada or are we to assume that as a result of our immediate surpluses there is no necessity at this time for conservation of energy resources?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, we have the same direction as the United States. Indeed, all western countries are working toward more effective conservation programs. The office of energy conservation has been directed more toward long-range measures than short-range measures as set out by the president.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: In light of President Ford's commitments for the quick conversion of existing oil-fired electrical plants to nuclear and coal fueled plants, has the minister consulted with provincial officials to pursue a similar course which would ensure a dramatic cut-back in the use of petroleum resources in the country?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, we announced yesterday we would be financing the first nuclear plant in New Brunswick for the use of that province, Prince Edward Island and hopefully the hon. member's province as well.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Because of the fact dairy farmers in Nova Scotia are being forced to dump milk as a result of inadequate storage space and lack of transportation caused by a strike in Nova Scotia's largest dairy, will the minister advise whether immediate assistance is being considered by the government to prevent further such wastage and to avoid another fiasco similar to the egg tragedy does not occur?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, this is strictly a provincial labour problem. It is a provincial marketing board which looks after whole fluid milk.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Lloyd Francis (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Has the government considered issuing a statement clarifying the position of employees of the government of Canada working in the city of Hull with regard to Bill 22, the Official Languages Act of the province of Quebec?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, no institution of the federal government will be affected by Bill 22. Bill 22 is couched in terms that it can only apply to areas within provincial jurisdiction. It, of course, cannot be applied to any area of federal jurisdiction.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that three cabinet ministers and a special United States envoy have admitted that the anti-inflation measures announced two days ago by President Ford will have a massive impact on Canada, is the Prime Minister satisfied that the effect of these measures will not be disruptive or damaging to this country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I must advise the hon. member that, as to the premise of his question, he has been misinformed. Such a statement has not been made by three ministers, two ministers or even by one minister.


Stan Darling: Since both the right hon. gentleman and the Minister of Finance have stated there was no consultation between Canadian and United States officials prior to President Ford's announcement, can the Prime Minister tell the House on what basis he seems satisfied that the impact of these U.S. measures will not be disruptive or damaging to Canada?


John Napier Turner: I was a
party to these conversations and perhaps the House will allow me to reply. There was no consultation prior to the President's statement because it had budgetary consequences. Nor would we, in similar circumstances consult with the United States prior to our budget. I did say that Ambassador Eberle gave an undertaking to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, the Secretary of State for External Affairs and myself, that there would be close consultation as to the phasing in of all the aspects of the President's statement which affect Canada.

October 10, 1974


SOCIAL. SECURITY MEASURES TO PROTECT PENSIONERS IN PRIVATE PLANS- DISCUSSIONS WITH CHARTERED BANKS
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance? Is the government giving consideration to the introduction this session of legislation regarding private pension plans, to provide greater protection for pensioners under those plans and to require such plans to comply with modern-day standards including the escalation of the pensions of those already retired?


Mr. Nowlan:: Order paper!


John Napier Turner: One aspect of the question relates to future legislation but there are also, perhaps, budgetary aspects which would prevent my replying fully to the hon. member.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of assurances the minister has given in former sessions, would he make a beginning on this subject by having further discussions with the chartered banks about their inadequate pension plans?


John Napier Turner: If the hon. member will recall our earlier exchange, I did bring the matter up with the banks. But I thank the hon. member for reminding me.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What did they say?


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: A supplementary question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that most of President Ford's statement dealt with non-budgetary matters, would the Prime Minister tell us, now that the need for confidentiality is past, whether he or any member of the government requested consultation prior to President Ford's statement and, if so, what was the reply. If such a request was not made, why not?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If the question relates to consultation with the President, the answer is no. If the hon. member has in mind consultation between the two governments, may I say there have been several meetings between members of the United States government and our government. And, of course, the Minister of Finance has been to Washington a few times recently.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Since the greater part of President Ford's statement was based on what took place at the Washington summit economic conference, could the Prime Minister explain why no member of his government was in
Oral Questions
attendance at that conference-in fact, no member of this House other than myself?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


FEED GRAIN-NEED FOR SUPPLIES IN ATLANTIC REGION-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE OF GOVERNMENT ACTION
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture or to the minister responsible for the Wheat Board. It is a delightful question, Mr. Speaker, in the sense that it falls strictly within the confines of the jurisdiction of either the minister responsible for the Wheat Board or the Minister of Agriculture-no outside forces or weather storms could affect it. Has either of the two ministers, whichever is responsible, had an opportunity to consider the request from the grains group in Atlantic Canada urging that feed grains be put in position in elevators in Atlantic Canada without delay bearing in mind the onset of winter, unsettled labour conditions, and the fact that no feed grain whatsoever is stored there at the present time?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: I can assure the hon. member that the Canadian Wheat Board and the Canadian Livestock Feed Board have been paying close attention to this question. With the movement of grain renewed, there should be every opportunity to put the grain in place. Domestic needs will be served first.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: A further question to the minister. I appreciate that there has been some activity among the officials, but could the minister give us a commitment that the movement of the 250,000 tons of grain needed by Atlantic Canada will be given priority in view of the fact that though grain is now moving there are other labour problems which might well affect railroad operation and, thus, the movement of grain to the east. Could we have an assurance along these lines before there is any shutdown of supply?


Otto Emil Lang: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As I said, we are giving priority to domestic needs. A lot of grain will be moving; we shall be putting it there, and, of course, what is needed domestically will take priority over the export of grain.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture a question supplementary to the one asked by my colleague from Shefford. Since Canada could readily produce all the sugar needed in this country, which would save us from the international monopolies in this field, could the minister advise this House whether he has taken special steps to promote sugar production in Canada and, if not, can he explain why it has not been planned previously?

October 10, 1974
Oral Questions


Eugene Whelan: answered that question in the House the other day, but to repeat, I am sure the hon. member realizes that one of the most important factors is the international sugar agreement which was destroyed, I guess the word would be- the countries refused to join it. The world pattern of sugar supply changed and the need for production in Canada is probably more obvious now than it has been in the past. I said the other day I was submitting a paper to my colleagues for consideration. Whether we can provide all the sugar we need in Canada is questionable. Even the most optimistic forecast I have been given is that only 25 per cent of our domestic needs could be produced in Canada.


TRANSPORT
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Transport. It has to do with the study of the feasibility of an Arctic railway carried out by CN-CP some time ago. In view of the fact that this important study has been in the hands of the minister's department since last March and the bearing this information could have on current National Energy Board and right-of-way pipeline hearings, will the minister now undertake to honour his commitment to make this study public? If not, what justification is there for further withholding it?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: The
hon. lady says this is an important report. It is one we are studying very intently within the department-


Flora Isabel MacDonald: For six
months?


Jean Marchand: -jointly with the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources.


An hon. Member:: That is the trouble.


Jean Marchand: As soon as this study has been completed-


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: On a point, of order, Mr. Speaker. A high percentage of all the questions addressed to the Minister of Transport are answered in the same way. Matters are either under study or under review or being looked into. Perhaps the hon. gentleman could save a great deal of time if he could tell us which matters in his department are not under review at this time.


Jean Marchand: On that point of order, may I say that everything is under review.


An hon. Member:: What about Benson?


George Harris Hees: Bring back Benson!


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Is the minister really fully aware of the extremely serious situation in the cow-calf and grass yearling side of the total Canadian cattle picture, and in particular, is he aware of the present disastrous price levels of heifer calves and yearling heifers? If so, has the minister any statement of policy to announce that might help restore some faith and confidence in the total Canadian cattle picture?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I think this very question was asked in the first instance by the hon. member for Lisgar, which illustrated that we do have some concern. Even the United States of America has some concern about some of the things that we are doing to assist the beef industry. We have also received many suggestions from beef organizations and from the hon. member which differ greatly about what we should be doing for the beef industry. We consulted the provincial people on Monday, and I have already told the House that they were not unanimous about what should be done, although they thought something should be done. As far as I am concerned, something will be done because I realize that the situation is urgent. I hope the hon. member can impress on all his colleagues, including the hon. member for St. John's East, that the matter is important, too.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour. Would the minister report on the Air Canada pilots negotiations?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would advise the hon. member that the parties are meeting in direct negotiations today, I understand this afternoon.


Steve Eugene Paproski: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister considering personal intervention?


Some hon. Members:: No, no!


George Harris Hees: Give them a chance, John.


John Carr Munro: It may be a relief to the hon. member to know that I am not, Mr. Speaker.
October 10, 1974

Oral Questions INDUSTRY


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the minister state now that the Canadian position at the World Food Conference in Rome will advance structural solutions to the food crisis and not just emergency aid, so that measures to obviate famines will be situated within a total strategy for development?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I would advise my hon. friend that the government still has under consideration the position that will be taken at the World Food Conference; but I think I can assure him that the position will not be confined to emergency action but to structural changes, or proposed structural changes, particularly in the economies of the developing countries.


Douglas Roche: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Bearing in mind that the conference opens in November, something less than one month, can the minister state what Canada, as a major agricultural and producing nation, is prepared to do to establish a world food security system?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, all of the aspects of the conference are now under review. When a final position is determined it then will be possible to tell my hon. friend exactly what the position is.


FINANCE
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Does the minister intend to adjust the interest rates on government annuities in light of the fact that the interest rates on which the benefits and premiums of government annuities and older bonds are based remain constant during the term of the contract, despite accelerating inflation and higher interest rates for other government bonds?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no. I have already had correspondence with a good many members on this subject.


A. Daniel McKenzie: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister explain the rationale as to why concess-sions are being given in regard to some government bonds while annuities are completely ignored?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I will write and give the hon. gentleman a full explanation, as I have several hon. members on both sides of the House.


AUTOMOBILES-EFFECT ON CANADIAN INDUSTRY OF UNITED STATES REGULATIONS CONCERNING GASOLINE CONSUMPTION-CONSULTATION WITH CANADIAN GOVERNMENT
Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that President Ford announced in his recent economic statement that he will be discussing with the automobile manufacturers changes to increase automobile gasoline mileage by about 40 per cent, and in view of the statement yesterday by the Minister of Finance that there should be prior consultation on economic matters, can the Minister advise whether there was prior consultation with him or his departmental officials regarding possible changes in automotive production, in view of the fact that the auto pact is a bilateral agreement?
Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce: Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague the Minister of Finance has already indicated that, as a result of consultations with Ambassador Eberle, there will be further consultations at the official level respecting the steps announced by President Ford. That consultation will undoubtedly involve discussion of the kinds of model changes that may occur. Consultation will be had both at the official level and, I expect, at the inter-corporate level.


CANADA-UNITED STATES AUTO PACT-EFFECT OF UNITED STATES REGULATIONS CONCERNING GASOLINE CONSUMPTION
William James Kempling: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that our total deficit in automotive trade between Canada and the U.S.A. and Canada and Britain, Germany, Japan, Italy and France is now greater by several million dollars than our total automotive deficit in 1965, will the minister at the earliest possible moment make a statement on motions setting forth in the clearest possible terms where we presently stand with regard to the auto pact and his assessment of the impact of President Ford's statement on the Canadian automobile industry and Canadian automotive parts manufacturers? This matter is very important.


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put into context the deficit to which the hon. member referred. When the auto pact was signed the deficit was probably equivalent to 60 per cent or more of the total trade in automotive products. Today it is less than 10 per cent. The second point, which is very important in understanding the effectiveness of the auto pact, how it works to benefit Canada, is that production and employment in the Canadian automobile industry is up. It has not been up in the United States this past year.

October 10, 1974
Oral Questions


CANADA-UNITES STATES AUTO PACT-REASON FOR LOWER PRICE OF CHEVROLET MONZA IN UNITED STATES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a final supplementary question on that subject. Would the minister explain to the House how it is possible that an automobile produced in Ste. Therese, Quebec, for the total North American market-I refer to the Chevrolet Monza-is being sold in Washington for $400 lower than it is sold anywhere in Canada? That is a common difference in both countries before tax is taken into consideration. This automobile is produced exclusively in Canada for the whole North American market, yet Canadians are paying a minimum of $400 more than Americans. Why is this?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I would be very pleased to make inquiries on behalf of the hon. member. I should like to make it clear, of course, that in comparing prices of Canadian and American automobiles there is a different tax system. There is no sales tax in the United States.


INABILITY OF DOCTORS TO COPE WITH INCREASE IN TROPICAL DISEASES-MEASURES TO ENSURE TRAVELLERS RECEIVE PROPER MEDICAL CHECK
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the galloping increase in tropical and parasitic diseases which has now gone beyond the ability of doctors to cope with properly, particularly in the city of Toronto and surrounding areas, I should like to ask the minister what steps are being taken to increase the number of doctors trained in this particular field so that they at least will be able to diagnose and to recognize cases when they see them; and what precautions are being taken to make sure that travellers abroad get their proper shots before they go abroad and are properly checked on their return?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that my answer to the question of the hon. member will be long. I will only say at this time that the officials of my department subject new immigrants to appropriate exams.
However, since we have tens of millions of visitors and tourists each year, it would be impossible to submit all these people to a medical examination on their arrival in Canada. I am now revising the regulations and the legislation governing this and I may be able later on in this session to propose some amendments that would improve the situation.


POSSIBLE ESTABLISHMENT OF SCHOOL OF TROPICAL MEDICINE
Philip Bernard Rynard: I should like to ask the minister whether there are any plans to set up a school of tropical medicine in Canada?


Marc Lalonde: Not on the part of the federal government, Mr. Speaker.


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order in relation to statements the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) has been making, and I should like to quote a part of one as follows:
-I don't think you're going to get (better returns and new incentives for farmers) with controls on exports.
With that and his latest statement of intention to impose export controls on eggs to the United States, would the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), and I see he has left the House, instruct what appears to be a slightly mixed up Minister of Agriculture to clarify some of these points in order that we might know what we are talking about and what we are doing?


Eugene Whelan: On that point of order, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the hon. member get the tape that was made. He has also insinuated today that I did not speak with the Under Secretary of Agriculture for the United States in Boise, Idaho. I did talk with him; also I got the full facts on what was said about imports and exports, so before he makes accusations he should check on what I said.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the government House leader whether he will put on the record what the government proposes to ask parliament to consider for the next week.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, It is our intention to continue the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne until its conclusion, and then to proceed on a number of bills that should receive the urgent consideration of the House, beginning with Bill C-14, in the name of my colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie), to incorporate the Federal Business Development Bank. If that is disposed of before the end of next week we will then proceed to another bill standing in that minister's name, Bill C-9. At the beginning of the following week it would be my hope to proceed with a matter which is very urgent, namely consideration of the Canada Pension Plan bill.
October 10, 1974


Mr. Beatty:: Mr. Speaker, in relation to the business of the House, I wonder whether the government House leader could indicate when the parliamentary committee to look into the destruction of 28 million eggs will be struck, whether it will be a standing or special committee, what will be its terms of reference, and what will be the numerical composition of that committee?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to propose a motion probably next Tuesday or Wednesday.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


John Carr Munro: that Bill C-12, to provide for the resumption of grain handling operations on the west coast of Canada, as reported from the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration, be concurred in.


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


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
John Carr Munro: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


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


Robert Lorne Stanfield: On division.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order in that regard, I should just like to say that the report from that standing committee came to Your Honour on division and not as a result of any unanimous decision. I do not know where they ever got the idea it was unanimous, as it was on division.


Mr. Speaker:: It is my understanding that the only unanimity involved is in respect of the consideration of the report going ahead today. The report simply indicates that the bill was reported without amendment. I do not think there is provision in the report to make comment as to whether it was unanimous or otherwise.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I just wanted to make that clear.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the point is well taken.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the third time and passed.
The Address-Mr. Wenman SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, October 9, 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. Bob Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons I came to Ottawa relates to one of my main areas of concern, namely a concern in respect of water policies, including policies of study and research for the development of a firm resource policy. At this stage I would refer to the only policy we have as a policy of drift. This general state of affairs sems to be further complicated by conflicting comments on the part of a number of Government ministers. There should be active consideration in respect of this whole area of water resources and the export of Canadian water. The concern I express relates to statements expressed once again by ministers in establishing the Liberal position on this subject.
It is my concern that the government is currently negotiating and considering the export of Canadian water. I am led to this conclusion by the statements of various ministers. The former Minister of the Environment, the Hon. Jack Davis, prepared a policy statement for this House which he did not deliver. I am wondering why he did not do so and who stopped him. I have a copy of that proposed statement in which the minister opposed the export of Canadian water. In wondering why it was not delivered I have asked myself if it was because the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) once said in a television interview:
I don't want to be a dog in the manger about this-but if people aren't going to use it, can't we sell it for good hard cash?
Perhaps it was never delivered because of what the Hon. Jean Chretien said, as reported in Time magazine:
-within 25 years we'll be exporting water to the United States-
Was it not delivered because of what Hon. Jack Davis said before the last election when he was trying to jump back on the fence in time for survival, in repudiation of his earlier statements:
I want you to think of water schemes that are not only basin wide but possibly even continental in scope-the Rocky Mountains need no longer contain our thoughts-we can vault over them or tunnel through them and see what lies beyond; so we will be turning whole rivers around.
Was it because of the ghost of the Hon. Arthur Laing who, having just completed an interview, said:
-diversion of Canadian water to the United States is not negotiable- there is no such thing as a continental resource-we own it-
Then, turning aside as he finished his interview, in a supposedly confidential manner he said:
-you should know for your own information that something like North American Water Power Alliance; major water diversion, is not only feasible-it's inevitable. We are establishing a bargaining position and the best position is to say no.
That position is unacceptable to Canadians. As we look at these statements the position of the Liberal government becomes more clear.
286

October 10, 1974
The Address-Mr. Wenman
Is the new Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Sauve) going to stand up in this House and say the position of the government of Canada is that there will be no export of water? Perhaps the minister would just nod her head at this point. I should like to hear that statement in the next few days, because the pressure is increasing. Demands in the United States for energy will require as much of Canada's water as they can get, particularly when they are following a policy of extraction from shale coal, and the excavation of that coal.
With this kind of pressure we will certainly need all the energy of the minister of energy in preparation for these negotiations, and the non-policy resource statements we have had are completely inadequate.
Only last night in an article which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen we find the following statement:
Prodded by angry voters back home a month before United States congressional elections, a group of Great Lakes congressmen came out Tuesday for a plan to siphon water out of Lake Michigan-with Canada's agreement if possible, but over Canadian objections if necessary.
Is that to be the position of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) and our Prime Minister? Canadians need to know now. As we anticipate the possible destruction of our precious environment and the establishment of an irreversible trend toward economic and political union with the United States, I am disappointed about what happened in respect of the Prime Minister's previous poetic or perhaps hypocritical statement in which he said:
... If part of our heritage is wilderness and if the measure of Canada is the quality of life that is available to Canadians, then we must act should there be a threat to either-we must act to protect the freshness of our air and we must act to protect the purity of our water; to conserve our living resources. If necessary, we must offer leadership to the world in these respects and withstand the cries of complaining interests.
I ask, where is the leadership today? Where are these statements today? What has happened to the Prime Minister who perhaps spoke for myself and other Canadians when he spoke in this manner? I do not want to be a dog in the manger, but I might ask how hollow these words ring now as the Liberal government is preparing to go forward with the export of water.
Before the Secretary of States for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen), or is it Mr. Head, tilts at more new windmills, we need to develop a firm policy against water export. We need strong statements from the Prime Minister and from his chief ministers responsible for energy, resources and environment. Can any true friend and neighbour of another nation expect Canadians to "Judas" their heritage?
Certainly, I do not blame our great cultural friend and economic neighbour to the south for trying to gain and covet our greatest and most precious natural resource. If I were a citizen of the United States, or a politician there, I would probably also be calling for plans and conferences for the velvet glove seduction of Canada. I too, would be saying what Senator Frank Moss said:
-in the United States, increasingly, the control of water becomes the key to prosperity, growth and economic power in the United States- 
Or perhaps I would even be putting forth veiled threats such as:
-we want to continue to live together on this continent in constructive peace for a long time.
Or, as President of the United States, I too would be instructing the State Department to work out a continental energy deal with Canada. When the United States Ambassador to Canada, Mr. Porter makes threats to Canada regarding oil and other non-renewable resources, I do not blame him for making those threats but at the same time I would say that I have great respect for the intelligence of American politicians and am certain that they would not be foolish enough to cut off their nose to spite their face in retaliation. That would, in the short term, damage Canada severely but in the long term the great loser would be the United States.
United States officials are only too aware that the only real hope of maintaining a high standard of living with consumption and production at anywhere near current levels is to maintain solid relationships with Canada and to establish negotiated resource supply treaties. But if the retaliation is a prelude to serious, tough resource negotiations to be carried on in an attempt to gain Canada's resources for a pittance, then I want assurance that these negotiations will not end up with Canada losing its life blood in the form of export of its water.
Major diversion and export of water from Canada is totally unacceptable now and will continue to be so in the future. When the minister stands up and makes such a statement, as I am sure he will after any amount of research, I want him to add to that statement, not negotiable now or in the future. He should state that this is not a bargaining condition. He should make clear that this is the intent of the government of Canada.
Just briefly, in relation to the appointment of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) to a high position on the International Monetary Fund, I must say that on occasion I wonder whether Canada had been placed in the role of a puppet in international financial circles rather than as a nation assuming its rightful place as one of the world's most respected exporting nations. I hope the latter proves to be the case and that the minister will not indeed be the puppet of the big five but rather will be successful in elevating Canada's national stature as a fair but strong arbiter and counsel.
Mr. Speaker, I could not make my first speech in this House without bringing forward the matter of western alienation because it is a topic of real concern to the people of western Canada. It is a matter of concern for all Canadians. The eastern oriented government must make a renewed effort to understand, investigate and resolve the underlying causes of this alienation. Even after the poor showing of the Liberal Party in the west, the message apparently has not gotten through. The problem lies much deeper than just the inequitable freight rates, western subsidization of eastern Canada through equalization grants or the excessive expenditure of government revenue in eastern Canada. It lies much deeper. It lies in the matter of the heart and the eye. The frontbenchers of the government of Canada will have to learn to see with the eyes of a westerner.
October 10, 1974

We have this great French-Canadian culture which is talked about as having heart. I think we do have this feeling and give credit to the French Canadians for making a contribution to Canada in this regard. I hope that that feeling of heart which the ministers have for Quebec will be expanded to western Canada so that, as the Prime Minister speaks in terms of what he thinks about the linguistic demands of Quebec and their relationship to the unity of Canada, he will also think in the same way about the feelings of the people of western Canada. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) will have to remember that he should think of the traffic jams in Vancouver as well as those in Montreal about which he so effectively spoke the other day.
While it is true that Canadian cabinet ministers visiting British Columbia perhaps do not receive the warmest welcome, this may be an indication that they should go there more often to find out what is happening. It would be interesting to study the itineraries of all members of the cabinet over the past couple of years, and then perhaps we would realize the reason many cabinet ministers seem oblivious to the problems of western Canada. Member after member has spoken to empty cabinet benches in this House. It is unfortunate that these ministers cannot even find the time to sit in the House to hear the western members on their own side of the House, let alone members of the opposition. It is unfortunate that as transportation improves in Canada the prairies seem to stretch further and further away, and the Rocky Mountains seem to grow higher and higher so far as this government is concerned.
Speaking in those terms, and having been critical slightly of one or two ministers, I should like to say that the western culture is of extreme importance. That culture should be explained here and should be known here. This is significant as well. As a consequence, I have brought with me samples of this culture. I would ask the attendant to distribute these samples to the Speaker and to the leaders of the various parties. I hope members will enjoy these samples and perhaps comment on them to me later.
It is my hope that as the government considers the forthcoming budget, not only will it consider western Canada specifically but also pensioners generally across Canada. I hope the budget will include measures to reduce the pensionable age from 65 to 60, and that there will be a substantial increase in pensions, which will be not just a cost of living increase but an increase in the basic allowance. As this new parliament presses onward, I hope that measures will be brought forward to eradicate the excesses and abuses of unemployment insurance and welfare, and that consideration will be given to the effects of excessive and rapid immigration into Canada.
Any announcements that have been made regarding the alleviation of the housing problem in Canada, let alone in the greater Vancouver area, have been woefully inadequate. I can only assume that major announcements are being saved for the Budget speech. I look forward to these announcements and to commenting upon them at that time.
The Address-Mr. Wenman
I should like to conclude with a short comment concerning one of the most serious problems involving my constituency. Simply put, we are threatened every year by the possibility of devastating floods. The time to talk about the flood protection program is not next May or June, but now. The record of past governments is anything but encouraging. It look 20 years, from 1948, to agree upon a 10 year program of diking and drainage of the lower mainland. In addition to the millions spent on studies and commission reports, the federal and provincial governments have committed some $60 million-certainly a goodly sum which one would think could produce some results.
Let us look at the results. I am sure hon. members on this side know what I am going to say. It took four years, from 1968 to 1972, to complete one of the 44 flood projects. With this track record, can we expect it will take another 172 years to complete the other 43? Is the government on the other side of the House saying to the people of the Fraser valley: "You may sleep safely in your beds in the year 2074? Is that the kind of promise or the kind of action that we are getting? That is what we are thinking and feeling in my area. This kind of progress is hardly acceptable when a flood of 1948 proportions, which experts agree could occur in any year-not four or five years hence but possibly next year, almost this year-would wipe out a good deal of the province's and nation's prime crop land, cause endless economic and social dislocation for the people who reside in the valley, and cost an estimated five times what the 1948 flood cost, that is approximately $100 million. If you allow that flood to occur, you spend $100 million, and on top of that you still have to spend $60 million on the project that will be required to protect the valley.
Let us look at the record. We had nature's fury in 1948. There were pictures of the flood and great concern over the damage and devastation to the Fraser valley. There was a signal to action by the press and the public expressed in such words as "let us get going; let us not have it happen again". We had a report with the program in 1948. Then, we had an interim report in 1949, and then we had that funny report called "The final report". What do you think is the year of the final report? Do you think it is 1972, 1973 or 1974? No, it is 1950. In 1950, we had the final report on what to do on the Fraser River. I have just started with the first three. We can look at reports year after year. The first one was in 1948; then one in 1951, another in 1952, another one in 1956, another one in 1957, 1958, and so on. Year after year promises have been made but nothing has happened. People of the Fraser valley in British Columbia are tired of waiting. We have shown tolerance in waiting for assistance with the ferries, as the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin) suggested earlier. We can build them on our own, but the safety of the people of Fraser valley cannot wait. We must have action in that regard forthwith, and I look forward to hearing the report of the minister on that.
My constituency stretches from the United States border 80 miles to the north border of Garibaldi Park. Fraser Valley West encompasses over 76,000 voters, the majority of whom reside in the southern portion in or around the cities of Port Moodie, Port Coquitlam, Pitt Meadows, Coquitlam, Maple Ridge, Langley, Matsqui and
28305-19Vi

October 10, 1974
The Address-Hon. D. S. Macdonald
Surrey. All these came to light in the 1974 election. I am very proud and pleased to be here as a federal member of parliament from the province of British Columbia.
Because the riding bisects the only available corridor to the greater Vancouver area, every transportation access to the nation's third largest city must pass through the constituency. I am, therefore, only too aware of the transportation mess referred to by the minister. A major transportation policy featuring a central corridor and relocation of existing rail beds is of utmost concern to my constituents. In any over-all transportation policy, two local objectives should be satisfied: first, the relocation of the railway tracks from White Rock-Surrey beaches, and second, the relocation of the north-south railway line from the Abbotsford city core. Both objectives, vital to my constituents, can be accomplished through the establishment of a single north-south line through the Sumas area, a line which would tie directly into a major east-west line through the valley, which would serve all major railroads. This objective is not only feasible, but it is certainly sensible from the standpoint of cost, efficiency, and a highly desirable over-all transportation policy for the lower mainland of British Columbia.
In conclusion, I should like to read a letter that I have received from a 16 year old high school student, president of a British Columbia high school, who wrote as follows regarding his impressions of the session so far:
We are following the political scene as best we can. I heard the Throne Speech the other day and I was angered. I wish someone would tell the Liberals that they should give first priority to the problem of providing the basic necessities of life (adequate housing, food and gasoline) at a reasonable cost, and settling once and for all a positive way of solving labour-management wage settlements without strikes which paralyze the economy.
Those are pretty intelligent thoughts. In conclusion, I want to say that it is not 60, 50 or 40 year olds, it is all Canadians who have this concern which I share, and it is on their behalf that I speak.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, at the outset of my speech, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Montmorency (Mr. Duclos) for having proposed the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. He spoke with the ease and eloquence which characterize all members in his area. His speech has shown that he really belongs to this proud line of Quebec members who, by their eloquence and the services they have rendered our country, have contributed to the success of our democratic and bilingual country.

I should like to express my congratulations as well to the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Lee) who, in a speech which I think all hon. members must have found eloquent and moving, expressed his support for the Speech from the Throne. At the same time we witnessed in his person the achievement of his own people, a people who have contributed so much to the development of our country. He is undoubtedly a distinguished representative of the Chinese Canadians, and through him that group, and indeed all immigrants to Canada as well as my own people, can take pride in the fact that we have a country

where, whatever their racial or ethnic origin, young men of this kind can come forward and attain the very highest positions.
Some hon.. Members: Hear, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: On a very personal and constituency note, I should like to express my congratulations to you, Mr. Speaker, in the recognition of your talents as Mr. Speaker in this chamber. I think it is fair to say that there is no other region in Canada which contributes such a strong delegation of members of parliament to this chamber as the region of Northern Ontario which you have represented with distinction in the last several parliaments.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I am convinced from our association over the years and from the days-one might perhaps say the nights-of deep discussion on important questions of church and state, that you will surely discharge your functions with great tact.
On behalf of those of my constituents who knew Mr. Speaker at Our Lady of Perpetual Help Separate School and St. Michael's College High School, I should like to say that their predictions of an outstanding career are being fulfilled. As one constituent has said to me, "The kid from Rosedale Heights Drive is doing all right". That is a proposition that I can second.

.. . and also the members from Beauharnois-Salaberry (Mr. Laniel) and Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Morin) for their respective nominations.

-and also to my colleague the hon. member for Thunder Bay (Mr. Penner) who once again is indicating the strength and quality of the representation from Northern Ontario in this House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Now, tell us about your cabinet colleagues. Where are they?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Unfortunately, my time is limited to 30 minutes and the qualities of my colleagues are such that not 30 minutes, perhaps, not even 30 days, would suffice to elaborate on all their talents and abilities and what they can do for Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But where are they? Not one of them is here.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That shows the great confidence they have in me, Mr. Speaker.
I should like to underline some of the major principles and accomplishments of the energy policies that my department and this government have developed and followed. I should like to refer to all five major sources of energy: oil, natural gas, hydro, coal and uranium-especially uranium as applied for nuclear purposes. Especially, however, I want to speak of oil which because of its availability, its mobility and its versatility is the major energy commodity. It is the standard not only in Canada
October 10, 1974

but throughout the world by which all other energy commodities are managed. Hence, a start on energy policy must commence with oil, and particularly the measures taken in the past 12 months to deal with an unprecedented change in the world oil economy.
Two events in the past 12 months have brought about change in oil policies and, in a very substantial degree, in all energy policies during the same period. The two events are the Arab oil embargo of just a year ago attendant upon the so-called Yom Kippur war, and the two-step increase by which the exporting country tax on oil increased by 410 per cent. As a result, for all importers of oil-North America, Western Europe and indeed throughout the world-the price of oil imported went up by the same percentage.
Canada was in a far better position than most of her OECD partners to sustain the shock during this period. Due to effective co-operative action by the government of Canada and industry, while citizens of other nations in the world suffered fuel shortages this past winter and spring, while our neighbours across the border had to endure frustrating lineups to get gasoline, we in Canada suffered no such problems.
This parliament created the Energy Supplies Allocation Board with the specific responsibility to develop contingency plans against the repetition of that event. At the same time, Canada participated in the development by the Energy Co-ordinating Group at Brussels, of the International Energy Plan. Under this proposal, at the international level the consuming nations may cushion themselves and each other against any future production cutback.
The price of oil for Canadian users was frozen through last winter and then following the meeting of first ministers in March, was restrained at a single price level across Canada-subject to transportation differences-giving Canadians the lowest average crude oil price of any nation in the western industrialized world. The national accord on price which has been accepted by all regions, producing and consuming, was enshrined in the Petroleum Administration Act, Bill C-18 of the last parliament, which will be reintroduced in this parliament.
Let me underscore the tenets of our petroleum policy. First, we have decided that the price of Canadian oil should be set at a level high enough to bring on additional supplies for Canadians without going to the high levels now set by the OPEC group. Second, we decided that there should be a single price of oil for all Canadians subject only to differences for transportation costs. And, third, we decided that in supply we should direct policy toward self-reliance by Canadians on our own oil supplies and that the Canadian pipeline network should be extended accordingly. The price until the end of June will be held at $6.70 per barrel at Edmonton. There is in prospect in the coming months further federal-provincial consultations of the kind that took place last winter to determine where the single oil price for Canadians should go.
In international sales, the National Energy Board determines every month that Canadian crude is being sold for a fair and reasonable return abroad. The difference between that export price and the domestic price is then collected as an export charge. The revenues from this charge are and have been used as a cushion for consumers in eastern
The Address-Hon. D. S. Macdonald Canada, primarily the Atlantic provinces and Quebec, for the purpose of attaining the one price policy for all Canadians.
Let me underline an essential point in this regard. Even if the revenues from this charge were not directed toward this cushion, Canadian crude would still be selling at the same international price in the export market. That is a point I have been stressing to our American customers. I should like to repeat the words that are used in a speech in Washington last week. I said:
The price to U.S. consumers did not go up because of the export tax; rather the Canadian price followed international prices-the prices that we have to pay for oil in eastern Canada. The export tax was a purely domestic impost-the means of determining among different Canadian interests, consuming and producing, who would get the benefit of the economic rents. To fulfil our aim of easing the burden of our eastern consumers of higher offshore prices, we used instead these new returns from export sales as a cushion. We believed then, and still do today, that this is purely domestic matter.
Those were my words, Mr. Speaker, and that is my belief. At the same time, I want to make it clear that Canada is as interested as any other consuming nation in seeing the international price of crude oil reduced by one, two or three dollars. As I told my American audience last week:
We in Canada, as consumers of imported oil, are as unhappy as anybody else about the dramatic nature of the price increase and would be as happy as anyone else to see a reduction in the costs of imported oil.
Further than that, Mr. Speaker, we are in full support of any attempt to negotiate a reduction in the international price for oil, and stand prepared to offer any aid we can to bring the oil producing nations and the oil consuming nations to the negotiating table.
There are two other features of our future planning of oil policy that I want to bring to the attention of honourable members. First is the study of crude oil supply and demand that the National Energy Board has completed after holding extensive hearings where all parties had the opportunity to put forth their views. I expect to receive from the board that report along with its recommendations toward the end of this month. The findings will give the government a sound foundation to continue to tailor federal energy policies to the future requirements of Canadians.

The second point I would like to stress and which concerns future plans in the field of oil is the following: our government will not renege on its promise to build a pipeline to Montreal.
I believe there is almost unanimous agreement in our country to improve the security of our supplies, support our policy and ensure that a greater number of Canadians may, in the future, count on safe Canadian sources for their oil needs. That is what I meant today when I said during the oral question period that we intended to continue with this project and negotiate if necessary with the companies to materialize this project which is so important for the security of Canadians.

October 10, 1974
The Address-Hon. D. S. Macdonald
Now I would like for a minute to turn to natural gas where again my department and this government have formed and are following a consistent and, above all, realistic policy.
Our policy is to bring the price of natural gas in line with the market values of competitive fuels, both to conserve a valuable non-renewable resource and to stimulate development. We intend to do so in a staged fashion to cushion the impact on both United States and Canadian consumers. As I have announced, the border price of a thousand cubic feet of gas will be set, with the exception of one contract in British Columbia, at $1 on January 1. The B.C. contract will be effective from November 1.
This announcement did not come as a bolt out of the blue to our American neighbours. More than a year ago in a speech delivered in Arizona on my behalf, we asserted and I quote:
It is important to note, as many of you are aware, that natural gas pricing is currently very inflexible in both Canada and the United States and it will require alteration of current export contracts and a flexible system of price redetermination if Canada is to receive full market value for its exports of natural gas to the United States.
It is not without interest to note that in the president's statement to congress the day before yesterday, he adopted the same approach with regard to the deregulation of natural gas in the United States. The decision to seek from congress authority to deregulate the gas price is so that the price of gas passing in interstate commerce in the United States can be subject to the same competitive developments of the kind we are trying to introduce in Canada. I assume they will follow the same policy we are following. They will stage increases to consumers over a period of years to make certain the impact is cushioned as far as that may be possible and so that the economic effects will not be disruptive.
This might be a good point to remark on one other important aspect of our policy on oil and gas, and that relates to transit. Some months ago this government initiated a proposal for a treaty between Canada and the United States covering the security of oil and natural gas pipelines. Canada has an abiding interest in this regard, since crude oil from the Canadian West moves by pipeline through the U.S. midwest to reach central Canada, while our refineries in the Montreal area are supplied with offshore oil by a pipeline from Portland, Maine. Some of the natural gas from the Canadian west also moves by pipeline through the U.S. to western Ontario.
We of course have never before felt the need for a treaty to cover the security of these pipelines on such friendly foreign territory, but since the United States has shown an interest in ensuring that the security of any pipeline along the Mackenzie River Valley is covered by treaty, the time would appear propitious to reach an official undertaking that would bestow mutual benefit.
Negotiations toward this treaty are advancing steadily and their success will have an added beneficial effect on the relations between our two countries. As you know, Mr. Speaker, there are some voices in the U.S. who for their own corporate self-interests are questioning the security

of a pipeline along the Mackenzie to move Alaskan gas by pipeline and then by tanker to the U.S. west coast.
A treaty will hopefully still these voices that attempt to aggravate the relations between our two countries that have long stood firmly on a tradition of trust. With these unfounded criticisms laid to rest, our two countries should be better able to judge if there are economic benefits for both in moving Alaskan gas to the lower 48 states and Mackenzie Delta gas to Canadian markets through a pipeline along the Mackenzie Valley.
I would like to turn next to coal. It is readily apparent that the domestic demand for coal of some 27 million tons last year will increase greatly in the years ahead. The study published by my department a year ago last June entitled "An Energy Policy for Canada" set the minimum target for Canadian coal production at 37 million tons per year by the end of this decade. Last year we produced 22.5 million tons, but about half of this production was exported from Alberta and British Columbia, principally to Japan. Meanwhile we imported more than 17 million tons from the United States, mainly into Ontario for both thermal and metallurgical purposes.
Moreover, in the current climate of coal supply in the United States, there is little chance of negotiating new long-term contracts because of the fluid price situation. As of April 1, the U.S. suppliers to Ontario Hydro, with long-term contracts amounting to nine million tons per year, have increased the f.o.b. mine price by 50 per cent. This, added to an increase in U.S. railway freight rates, has made western Canadian coal reserves not only important from a self-sufficiency standpoint, but also of interest in an economic context. Ontario Hydro has therefore focused its attention on locating coal reserves in western Canada as similar as possible to the U.S. high volatile bituminous coal currently being consumed in thermal stations.
The federal government has been following closely the development of arrangements through the national railways, particularly directed to a terminal at the Lakehead for the purpose of developing better coal shipments from western Canada. We have been concentrating attention as well on research and development in technical and economic problems of supplying markets in central Canada with western coal. I wonder if this might be an appropriate time to call it one o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.


Mr. Whitelaw:: Mr. Speaker, I wondered whether the minister would permit a question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have called it one o'clock. The minister can be asked a question when we resume.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
October 10, 1974
Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, before the House recessed for lunch I was setting out a conspectus of the energy scene in Canada, with particular reference to petroleum, natural gas and coal. With respect to coal I had referred to the fact that while the primary development of this resource, and indeed its use, has rested with the provincial governments, the federal government has been active from the standpoint of carrying out research and development on the technical and economic aspects of supplying western Canadian coal to eastern Canada, and in particular in improving the rail shipment and lakehead transfer of coal so that it will be available for users in the eastern part of the country.
Moving from the subject of coal to electric power, one of the principles set out at the first ministers' conference in January and agreed upon at that time, I think by all the participants, was the desirability, particularly in power-short parts of the country such as my own province and some of the Atlantic provinces, of shifting the generation of electricity from fossil fuels to a secure and economical source such as uranium. Federal policy in this regard has been to provide, as has already been done in the case of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, financing for one half of the cost of the first nuclear plant in each province. It was pursuant to this policy that Canada's third nuclear province was inaugurated yesterday with the announcement that the New Brunswick Electric Power Commission would proceed with the construction of a 600-megawatt equivalent nuclear plant at Point Lepreau in the Bay of Fundy. At the same time, as further federal policy we have provided an outstanding offer to carry half the cost of regional electrical interconnection studies, as well as half the cost of financing approved projects which result from those studies.
At the moment there is an extensive examination, with the province of Newfoundland, of the possibility of harnessing Churchill River Power, bringing it across the mainland and under the Strait of Belle Isle, to the island. As well, there has been extensive discussion with the other Atlantic provinces concerning inter connections in that area. One of the benefits to be achieved by the establishment of a nuclear plant in New Brunswick is the provision of a secure supply of power not only for New Brunswick but for the province of Prince Edward Island which, under present federal arrangements, will soon be receiving the benefits of an interconnection under the Northumberland Strait to that island.
On the question of uranium, early last month I announced new guidelines for the sale of uranium by Canada. In the next decade there will be a four-fold to six-fold increase in the annual demand for uranium, both within and outside Canada. Existing and potential production facilities will be strained to meet that demand. In order to provide orderly growth of the industry, while at the same time protecting the needs of our domestic nuclear program, we have concluded that protection of Canadian uranium consumers should be two-fold. First, we should ensure a long-term reserve of nuclear fuel for existing and committed reactors as well as for reactors which are planned for operation in Canada over a future period of ten years. Second, we must ensure that sufficient uranium productive capacity is available for the Canadian domestic nuclear power program to reach its potential.
The Address-Hon. D. S. Macdonald
Not only are we seeking to make certain, by reserve formulas and by our export policy, that there will be uranium available for Canada from existing sources, but through the Crown-owned nuclear corporation, Eldorado Nuclear, we have provided substantial additional budgetary funds to permit that corporation to undertake extensive exploration for uranium. This program is now under way. As part of the program of putting Eldorado Nuclear once again out into the prospecting field, we are pleased to have attracted to the service of this country Mr. Nicholas Ediger whose experience and success is well recognized in the private resource industry. He is undertaking the role of president and chief executive officer of Eldorado Nuclear.
Time does not permit me to review all the prospects for Canadian CANDU reactors. I merely say that with the increase in the cost of fossil fuels, the CANDU system-as evidenced by the outstanding performance of the Ontario Hydro plant at Pickering-has become very much in demand and inquiries are being received from many countries about the possibility of acquiring these reactors. And such sales would, of course, be subject to further safeguards, not only to ensure that nuclear material was not used for military purposes but to provide restrictions against its use for nuclear explosions whether deemed peaceful or not.
I have tried to put forward some of the major elements of our energy policy. In the coming weeks and months additional measures will be placed before the House. While it is true that Canada is well endowed with the five major source of energy, our policies must be tailored to ensure that Canadians continue to have access to these sources at reasonable cost both environmentally and in terms of dollars and cents. Threats to the environment, and the dramatic increase in the monetary cost of energy experienced in recent months, show the need for policies based on a firm federal overview of Canada's resources.
Before closing I would refer to a question raised by a previous speaker on the export of water from Canada. Since 1968, when I first became a member of cabinet, no proposition has been put to the cabinet proposing such export from Canada, and there is no grand scheme, as the hon. member intimated, for the export of this nation's water resources. Indeed, I am glad to repeat that since I have been in this House I have been unable to see any basis at all for Canada's ever agreeing to export so fundamental a product and commodity as water, particularly in the great plains area where water is so essential and valuable to Canada's ambitions in that area, both industrially and agriculturally.
With regard to the Chicago water diversion, the hon. member might want to refer to the record. Indeed, the Chicago water diversion at the start of this century was one of the reasons for establishing the boundaries water treaty. As a resident of the Great Lakes area, he may be assured-as all hon. members may-that as a member of this government I will make every effort to prevent any further diversion of water out of the Great Lakes' system into Lake Michigan, whether for industrial reasons or otherwise.

October 10, 1974
The Address-Hon. D. S. Macdonald
In the months to come we will be considering, as part of the government's program, the petroleum administration act. We will be considering, as well, the establishing of Petro-Canada, the national petroleum corporation. In particular, later in the year we will be dealing with guidelines regarding the ownership of Canadian uranium and Canadian uranium resources. We are looking forward to continued active discussion of those questions in the House and in committee, and I will be glad in private and in public to have exchanges on this important area with members from all sides of the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Malone) rising on a point of order?


Mr. Malone:: No, Mr. Speaker; I have a question for the minister.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question can be asked only if it is accepted by the minister.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Arnold John Malone: I should like to ask the minister a question through you, Mr. Speaker. Inasmuch as the minister talked about the equal price of gas and oil across Canada, and that it would be government policy to differentiate petroleum products from, say, textiles, automobiles and farm machinery, I ask the minister how petroleum products reach that particular status.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Basically, Mr. Speaker, most products in Canada are sold at the same basic price subject only to transportation charge differences. In this respect petroleum is treated no differently from any other product. The different aspect of the policy-one which, as I have said, has been agreed to by all ten premiers and the first minister of this government-is that, given the peculiar nature of petroleum, the essential character of petroleum not only in this but in all other industrial societies, the government views it in the interest of Canadians to ensure that the high price of international oil that has been set by the OPEC countries should not dictate petroleum prices in this country. For this reason we have set as a national policy a single price for petroleum, subject to transportation charge differences, maintaining that price at a level below that of the international commodity.


Mr. Woolliams:: Mr. Speaker, I realize hon. members want to participate in this debate, but may I put one question to the minister?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Certainly.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: My question concerns a Mackenzie delta pipeline for natural gas, not for oil. I am taking into consideration the fact that a regulatory body would have control over the pipeline, as the minister has pointed out. Has the government given serious consideration to a pipeline through which to transport natural gas, and has it worked out an equitable and reasonable agreement with the United States, in view of the high cost of building such a pipeline? Has the minister had discussion with the United States with a view to bringing natural gas down the Mackenzie delta in order to supply a product that is

important not only to western and eastern Canada but, indeed, to the United States itself?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, there has indeed been discussion of a Mackenzie Valley gas pipeline with the American authorities. As the hon. member knows, under a law of this parliament, parliament has entrusted, in the first instance, the National Energy Board with responsibility for scrutinizing this kind of pipeline application and making a decision thereon. What I say will be subject, of course, to the information that will come from the gas availability studies which the National Energy Board is now carrying out, and will be carrying out at hearings in Calgary and Vancouver, to determine the time-frame in which Canadian users will need so-called Arctic gas. But it is clear that within the same time-frame the availability of natural gas in Canada will depend upon delivery of gas from the frontier, whether the high Arctic, Labrador or the Mackenzie delta. In this sense, the question is not whether there will be a pipeline; ultimately there will have to be one if we are to have natural gas in this country. The only question, is, when. The government's conclusion in this regard is subject to the prior obligation of the National Energy Board to scrutinize proposals.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to ask a question which might clarify a brief reference the minister made?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas).


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister made a brief reference to safeguards with respect to nuclear power plants so as to ensure that nuclear power will be used solely for peaceful purposes. In view of the fact that these safeguards have so far proven ineffective, as demonstrated by the actions of India in producing the capacity for making a nuclear bomb, may I ask the minister what additional safeguards the government has in mind to ensure that safeguards will be much more effective than they have been up till now?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I must correct the hon. gentleman when he says the safeguards have been ineffective. It is clear from the nuclear explosion in India that they used the benefits of the research reactor supplied to them in the fifties by the United States and Canada at a time when safeguards were not established at the international level and before the present system of safeguards had evolved.
The subsequent Canadian nuclear reactor and technology supplied for power purposes are covered by safeguards, as indeed are further supplies of technology. In this sense one cannot blame the current system of safeguards for the action India may have taken, using a research reactor not covered by the safeguard systepa. The government of Canada over the years sought to include that research reactor under the safeguard system. For reasons now obvious, India refused to co-operate and I think we all regret that she took the action she did.
Since May 18, the date of the explosion in India, the policy of the government regarding the transfer of nuclear
October 10, 1974

technology and, indeed, the sale of uranium itself has been not only to stipulate the international level of safeguards but to stipulate a higher level of safeguards by bilateral agreement in order to ensure that uranium or technology in connection therewith will not be used for nuclear explosions whether described as peaceful or not.
The legal argument raised by the government of India was that the international system permits the development of an explosive for peaceful purposes. Canada does not accept that. Once you have this technology, it cannot be misapplied in other directions, and we have put this further requirement upon nuclear sales by this country.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Does that include the spent fuel, too?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, the safeguards include the spent fuel. I think one of the questions Canada should involve itself in over time is not only safeguard requirements and inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency but whether we should stipulate in all sales that the spent fuel, plutonium, be returned to this country so that it would not be available for other applications.


Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps what has just occurred shows that the question period will come to an end of its own volition even if we do not have a time limit. I should like to begin by congratulating the new Speaker upon the elevation to his high position in the House of Commons. I am sure all hon. members wish him success in the execution of the exacting duties that his office entails.
I wish to reflect briefly upon the recent election and devote the major part of my speech to the subject of national defence. Canada seems to have had two elections this summer, one in western Canada and the other in the rest of the country. The only similarity was in their both being on July 8. In the west, the Progressive Conservative Party gained seats-in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia-and they were denied doing so in Alberta only because they already held 100 per cent of the seats there. In my province of British Columbia, the Progressive Conservatives, who held no seats two years ago, now hold a majority of seats. During the recent election, the Conservative received approximately 42 per cent of the vote, the Liberals 33 per cent and the NDP 23 per cent. I have introduced this point to serve as a backdrop for a question that concerns me greatly, that is, the continuing and growing alienation of western Canada from the rest of the country. The conduct of the campaign and the result of the federal election have contributed to this alienation. Despite the fact that westerners are demonstrably on a three-party system, the four western provinces have for the second election in a row voted overwhelmingly Conservative. In the last election, 72 per cent of the western members returned to this House are of that party, yet the west is now faced with a government which does not understand their problems and has been manifestly incapable of solving them.
The election is over and the Liberals won. However, I do not think that those occupying the government benches are entirely pleased with the manner in which the election
The Address-Mr. McKinnon
was conducted by their party. I believe there are men and women of high principle in the Liberal party, and it is this group which must surely feel some disquiet or remorse over the methods employed during the campaign. The different approaches to the election seem to be typified in two quotations, one by the leader of the Conservative Party who at a very difficult time in the campaign said: There are some things in life more important than winning an election.
On the other hand, a well-known Liberal said:
Whatever is necessary to do to win the election, that I will do.
The second quotation typifies that which I found most objectionable about the election. Any party which subscribes to the motto, "Whatever is necessary to do to win the election, that I will do" is subscribing to a philosophy that many Canadians find abhorrent. Indeed, to honour such an expediency by giving it the status of a philosophy is little more than effrontery. This Liberal ethos may explain their lowering themselves to playing upon ethnic prejudices. How else is one to explain Liberal advertising in Quebec urging the Quebecois to vote against "Mr. Stanfield" and to vote for "Monsieur Trudeau"? The leader of the Progressive Conservatives is surely the last Canadian politician who deserves to be the object of such bigotry. Those who plead for votes for the Liberal Party as the party of unity should be deeply shamed by such racist attacks upon our leader during the last election campaign.
Let us consider, now, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), that man of integrity who can look into the colour TV cameras with his china-blue eyes and say, "I believe in levelling and being honest with the Canadian people". Why did this man remain silent when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was making promises that the Minister of Finance knew could not be kept? I can only conclude that his principles are not as lofty as he would wish us to believe and that he, too, would do whatever is necessary to win an election. In remaining mute on the mendacity implicit in the Prime Minister's promises, his expediency was that of silence and omission. Perhaps the minister feels there is moral superiority in committing sins of omission rather than sins of commission. I should like to remind him of the well-known quotation, "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem".
Another nefarious tactic of the Liberal Party was the blatant use of the Senate of Canada as a campaign headquarters. The national campaign chairman was a senator; the campaign chairman in British Columbia was also a senator. These people are appointed to office to serve their regions and all Canadians in their regions, not just to serve the Liberal Party. However, it is quite clear that not only does the Prime Minister expect them to serve the Liberal party during election campaigns but he rewards them for doing so. The Prime Minister speaks of reform of the Senate. The first reform should be to ensure that he does not use senators in the manner in which he used them last summer, when in fact a large part of the Liberal campaign committee was paid for, unwittingly, by the taxpayers. The government had four western ministers before the election. One was defeated, one was demoted and two were returned with reduced majorities. I would like to compliment the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) for narrowly avoiding the fate of the minister
294

October 10, 1974
The Address-Mr. McKinnon
of fisheries or the fate of the former minister of urban affairs.
It has become apparent over the last few years that the only opportunity one has to speak on defence in this House arises during either the throne speech or the budget speech. Despite the fact that defence is crucial to our national and international stature, it has served the purposes of the government to give the Department of National Defence the lowest possible profile among government departments. I would not like to imply that the Minister of National Defence and the government intentionally misled the Canadian people about Canada's defence position before the election, but there is a rather remarkable difference between the statements the minister made a year ago and those he has made recently.
What has changed most is that a year ago the government was in a minority position, faced with an election, and now it is in a majority position and will not have an election for some four years. This change in circumstances may account for the startling reversal of the minister. About a year ago, the minister put out a document explaining the wonderful things he was going to do for Canada's armed forces. Now, in the revealing light of post-election reality, he has changed that position drastically. I would be pleased to see the minister stand in the House and speak on defence. The hollowness of the minister's promises of last October, when he said he would be able to increase the capital budget of the armed forces substantially, to enable it to purchase additional and new equipment by virtue of this 7 per cent increase, I suggest is sheer mockery. Any housewife in Canada realizes that with a 7 per cent increase in your budget over that of 1973 one cannot do anything but cut losses and reduce purchases.
Inflation did not start on July 8; it started several years ago and was running at a much higher rate than 7 per cent at the time the minister made his statement. Now that the election is over, the minister said, after being questioned in the House, "Cuts will have to be considered in all areas-operating, personnel and capital expenditure." Our troops have been operating on a very skimpy budget over the past six years. They have been forced to reduce their numbers, to cut back on their equipment and to defer plans for modernization. Now a program is to be brought in which will make the past six years look like days of roses and wine to the troops. Whenever Liberal governments want to restrict expenditures, they always seem to look at defence. This is hardly surprising, I suppose, for one should remember these words of the Prime Minister:
I would like to have generals looking at our whole military machine and saying, "You know this is not really important today".
Something will have to give; the government cannot continue loading role on top of role upon the armed forces while simultaneously throttling their budgetery purchasing power. Let us consider the armed forces in somewhat greater detail. I shall, perhaps, be excused for referring to the navy, army and air force-terms meaningful to most Canadians. In their unification, the various "elements" share one dominant characteristic: they are all short of equipment. The navy, perhaps, has had slightly higher capital budgets relative to the other two forces. This seems

to have been due to a concept popular in the late 1940s when it was decreed that Canada would specialize in anti-submarine warfare. The military situation in the world has changed a great deal over the last 25 years. I believe that in the current situation this overly narrow specialization in the submarine detection role has been harmful to the general operating capability of the force. The central task required of Canadian marine forces in the near future is not likely to be submarine detection but, rather, the preservation of sovereignty over the waters adjacent to our coasts.
At the same time as Canada is extending claims of sovereignty over these areas and is hence demanding more of the navy, a cut-back in personnel has required our navy to lay up ship after ship. The minister has been, unsuccessfully, trotting around the countries of the world in an attempt to lease out these ships presumably on some sort of a "U-Drive" basis. What a sorry spectacle! However, in comparison with other services the navy is fortunate in that it has something in the way of new equipment: it has four DDH-280 destroyers which are probably among the world's finest anti-submarine vessels. They are doubtless among the world's most expensive. Their cost has never been fully divulged, and I hope that during this session the minister will see fit to answer questions which will appear on the order paper concerning the cost of the DDH-280s. Now that the last of the four has become operational with the fleet, there no longer exists the minister's faint excuse for not divulging the cost to the previous parliament.
No doubt these ships and their men are extremely efficient and well suited to a submarine detection role. But is this the role for which we should be preparing our navy, or shall we find ourselves in the unsatisfactory position of having the equipment determine the role? As I said a few moments ago, the role which I see for our navy in the foreseeable future will not be solely anti-submarine but protection of the sovereignty of our coastal waters. A more unlikely vessel than the 4,500-ton DDH-280 to accomplish this task is hard to conceive, particularly when one considers that the surface-to-surface capability of these $75 million destroyers is almost non-existent. We live in a world where surface-to-surface missiles with an over the horizon capability are being mounted on gunboats, and a match between a gunboat which costs around $6 million and our new destroyers would surely find the smart money being bet on the gunboat.
Let us now consider the air force. Here the capital equipment problem is most acute. The CF-104 located in Germany recently has gone through an expensive conversion to enable it to fire cannon instead of being armed with atomic weapons. Our allies in Europe are looking toward the next generation of fighters. They have developed the MRCA multiple-role combat aircraft. We have not yet been told why Canada was not involved in the research and development of this aircraft. In Canada we have two squadrons of CF-5s. The kindest thing I have heard said of the CF-5 is that every emerging nation should have one. The big and expensive concern in this area is, of course, the longrange patrol aircraft which is to replace the four maritime patrol squadrons of aging Argus aircraft which are with the maritime element. The cost of this replacement is edging close to the billion dollar mark,
October 10,1974

and as our modernization program apparently is to be geared to the availability of money and not the need for the aircraft, I wonder if this government is really likely to replace the Argus in the near future.
The interceptor squadrons of air defence command fly the F-101C aircraft, which probably is the only plane in our forces which is appropriate for the role it has been given. I am not at all convinced this role is right and proper for Canada. However, I will deal with that matter a little later. To sum up the situation in respect of the air element, we are looking at the replacement of two aircraft for an extremely large sum of money, something like $2 billion. For long-range patrol aircraft replacement the government has considered the Orion and a Lougheed redesigned 707. We have spent $11 million this year and have asked the aircraft company to submit further studies. In either case we are considering buying ten-year old foreign aircraft and will be replacing aged aircraft with middle-aged aircraft. We seem always to be hoping to get the last of the production run from an American factory.
Finally, let us consider our ground force, the army. It is a strange experience to visit army camps in Canada. Half of the army personnel appear to be living or training in an uncertain future, while the other half are living or training in the distant past. There are helicopters in use, on the one hand, and 25-year old guns on the other. Although this applies to many other pieces of equipment, I would mention as an example the handling by the Canadian government of the purchase of tanks for our army. One could quote Hansard chapter and verse over the last few years to illustrate that the army was to be given tanks almost immediately. Such statements go back to the days of Edgar Benson.
The government has procrastinated and equivocated on this matter and now Canada's finest armoured troops are equipped with 30 Centurion medium tanks of 1946 vintage. It might be of interest to the House to put this matter in perspective. The International Institute for Strategic Studies, military balance for 1973-74, at page 95 sets out the main battle tanks held in central Europe. NATO formations hold 6,755, Warsaw Pact nations 13,800, and Canada 30.
The minister, before the dissolution of the last parliament, announced that he did not intend to replace the Centurion tank at that time. I understand he will participate in this debate. I ask him to make a statement on the future of the Royal Canadian Armoured Corps so that the men of that force will know whether they will be given a replacement for the tank, whether it be an armoured car or another tank, or whether they are to be transferred willy-nilly into other corps. This is the lifetime occupation of these men, and I believe they have a right to know.
Having considered the equipment of the three components of our forces, it should be abundantly clear that, as General Simonds-one of the truly great military figures of our country-once said cynically, indeed Canada has a military policy: the forces will recruit troops in times of high unemployment and will buy equipment when the government desperately needs to keep an industry alive. The fact that the government has given the forces roles which demand modern equipment should carry with it a commitment that it will provide the necessary equipment.
The Address-Mr. McKinnon
I should like to say a few words about NORAD. The committee on external affairs and national defence tabled a report a year ago last April recommending that the NORAD agreement not be signed for another five years but for two years only, and that in the ensuing two years an extensive and in-depth examination of the value of our role in NORAD should be undertaken. That resulted in Canada signing a two-year agreement to extend NORAD, I believe on May 12, 1973. This agreement expires on May 12, 1975. Some 18 months have gone by, and not one meeting of the defence committee has been held with that subject on the agenda. Again the time is becoming short before the treaty must be renewed or cancelled. In a very few months from now we will be forced to make another hasty decision on one of our most important international agreements.
I do not wish to make a definitive statement about the value of NORAD because I realize, if the government does not, that there is need for such a study before members make up their minds on this important matter. NORAD is not an ordinary alliance between two countries; it is an intermeshing of the components of our forces which are engaged in the air defence of our continent. We should know what we are doing before we try to upgrade NORAD. Let us study the matter to see whether the role Canada is playing is the one that Canadians want to play. We must think of the cost to Canada of being involved in NORAD.
A cost that we must consider is that in the attempt to counteract 7 per cent of the atomic threat to this country we agreed to accept, and still accept, atomic warheads on Canadian soil. That was some 15 years ago, so it is time we took another look at that program. I do not praise it or condemn it, but I want members of parliament to study the matter and know what they are voting for when the next vote takes place. I hope we will find it a satisfactory arrangement and will be able to offer advice to improve intercountry co-ordination and possibly diminish the enmeshment of our troops so that we will have a little more independence than at present. As an aside on the parliamentary level, let me point out that when the Prime Minister considers reforming parliament he should take into account the fact that the combination of defence and external affairs in one standing committee serves only to hinder the operation of both departments. We should have two committees to deal with matters concerning two departments. Both major parties in the House have for some time two-platooned that committee. I believe this has been to the detriment of both external affairs and national defence. A good example of this is at hand. Last Monday, the external affairs and national defence committee elected its chairman, who was immediately sent to New York. He will be coming back next Monday or Tuesday and we will hold a meeting of the steering committee, at which I expect we will set aside some time to discuss the estimates of the Department of National Defence. However, those estimates must be back in the House by the following Monday, so we shall have only two or three days to consider them in committee. This is a less than 'cursory examination of a $2 billion budget.
2 83 05-2 O1/!

October 10, 1974
The Address-Mr. McKinnon
To sum up, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me there are very few bright spots in the Canadian defence picture. The only one-and it never ceases to impress me-is the dedication, professionalism and expertise of the troops in our armed forces.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Bruce McKinnon: They are able to take on roles that would try the patience of saints, and they do this under political direction which seems implacably opposed to treating them as the valuable members of our society that they are. As a member of NATO, Canada should find it embarrassing that in our defence expenditure, expressed as a percentage of the gross national product, we are second to last among the 13 nations listed. If we look at the percentage of people serving in our armed forces, out of men of military age in North America-that is, Canada and the United States-as well as the 19 European nations of NATO and the Warsaw Pact, it shows us to be last on the list.
Worse than that, small as is the budget that we allot to national defence, a more critical statistic demonstrates how the budget is allotted. The International Institute for Strategic Studies points out that in the category "Pay and allowances plus maintenance" Canada spends 89.8 per cent of her military budget. Of the other five nations listed, namely, Britain, France, Germany, Japan and the U.S.A., none spends within 20 per cent of Canada's figure. To understand this one should consider this matter in another way. The percentage of each budget which goes for research and development, equipment and capital costs, shows Canada at 10.2 per cent while the other five nations are listed at over 30 per cent. This is the true test of whether or not a nation is keeping a modern force, properly equipped. It seems to me that in the world situation today one can say there are possibilities for only two types of war-nuclear and non-nuclear. There is no third type. There cannot be a partly nuclear or a limited nuclear war. I do not think the present minister or the government have ever clearly understood that these two types of war are completely dissimilar. Therefore, we find ourselves between two stools: part of our forces are training and planning for a possible nuclear war or a partly nuclear war, and other parts are training to participate in a conventional war. The lack of clear definition from their political masters is the main reason for this uncertainty.
The minister's replies to questions on October 4 and 7 indicate that the budgetary situation of the forces is critical. The minister has been forcing them to subsist on a barebones budget for years, always with the promise that he would use the money saved to buy equipment. His predecessor did the same thing, as did the minister before him. There are always two promises which the Liberals make- I am repeating what I said last November 15 as recorded in Hansard-and one is that they will reduce the forces while the other is that they will use the money saved to buy equipment. They always keep the first promise and break the second.
The minister is now speaking of a 50,000-man force that is well equipped. I do not think the forces can be forever deceived in this manner. They have been told too often that if they will take cuts in personnel, they will get

equipment. The minister has tried this tactic once too often. I spoke to a financial man today, asking if the cuts referred to could possibly be put into effect. He left me with the impression that the Department of National Defence might be the first government department ever to be declared bankrupt. His final words were, "Mr. McKinnon, tell the minister to put the department in his wife's name".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Our defence situation is serious. Funds seem to be low, but no lower than morale in the services. The result of years of neglect is beginning to show. The minister cannot further reduce the stringent budget of the forces without doing them serious harm. It is the responsibility of the minister to ensure that this does not happen. Above all, let us have no more pre-election type press releases promising the moon to the forces and cutting them down as soon as the voting is over.


Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, please accept greetings directed at yourself and all honourable members of this House from the constituents of the Northwest Territories. I represent the largest constituency in the world. I believe we are in the Guiness Book of Records. But it is a record of which no one can be very proud. We in the Northwest Territories would gladly give up that honour in the interest of having more representation in this House. In the Northwest Territories there are 1,350,000 square miles, with 40,000 people scattered in some 80 communities, separated not only by large distances, made more difficult by the harsh climate, but also by cultural differences and by language. All this makes the job of representation more difficult than that of any other member of the House. The Northwest Territories comprise a very large land which is very thinly populated. But in fact it has not the smallest population in the country; a number of other ridings have smaller populations. One of these, of course, is the Yukon. Although they have a more compact constituency, at least they have a few more roads than the Northwest Territories.
Of the four ridings in Prince Edward Island, three have smaller populations than the Northwest Territories. In the case of P.E.I. it has been recognized that the principle of strict representation by population cannot always be followed and safeguards have traditionally been applied to ensure that the representation of P.E.I. does not fall below a certain number. This is all to the good; it should be this way. But it should be clear to anyone who has looked carefully at the case that the same principle must apply to the Northwest Territories. It is not possible for one man effectively to represent the whole of the Northwest Territories. To give honourable members some idea of the problems that a member from the Northwest Territories must face, I would mention that the size of my riding is literally the distance from one of our oceans to the other. Simply to visit each community and to spend two days in each would take up eight months of each year. A good deal of this is travelling time alone, and that can change depending on the weather. The weather up there changes very rapidly, especially along the Arctic coast. Some communities cannot even be reached for part of the year, and some can only be reached by charter aircraft. It is impos-
October 10, 1974

sible to get into many communities during the fall freeze-up and the spring break-up.
It is also impossible to get to many of my people through the mails or the newspapers, because many of them cannot read. And in addition to French and English, the people of the Northwest Territories speak at least six separate native dialects. They are separated not only by distance and by climate but by huge cultural differences and equally huge language problems. Travel is made much more difficult, also, by the poorly developed facilities in the north. All our supplies have to be brought in either by boat, in the summer, or by airplane, In most parts of the Northwest Territories the airplane is the only way to get around arid air travel costs much more than in the southern parts of Canada. Here are a few examples, Mr. Speaker. The return fare from Montreal to Toronto is $74, while the return fare from Cambridge Bay to Spence Bay- which is about 40 miles less, in a straight line-is $230. That is a big difference. The return fare from Montreal to Winnipeg is $178, while the return fare from Edmonton to Inuvik, an equal distance, is $312.
There are no government offices for most of my constituents. They cannot walk down the street to a Canada Manpower centre or jump on a bus and go to a government office. It is for these reasons, among others, that I will reintroduce my private member's bill calling for at least two members to represent the Northwest Territories. This will be the third time I have introduced such a bill, and I urge every member of this hon. House to seriously consider it when it comes before them. It is particularly appropriate and important that we look at this issue now, for in the next few weeks we will be considering the question of redistributing seats in the House of Commons. If this issue is not dealt with now, it will be several years before we can look at it again.
While we are on the subject of representation in the Northwest Territories, I would like to mention another important issue. The Northwest Territories do not yet have responsible government. The history books tell us that Joseph Howe, in the first half of the nineteenth century, was called the father of responsible government. I am sorry to say, Mr. Speaker, that in the last half of the twentieth century the Northwest Territories are still not part of that family.
Provincial status for the Northwest Territories has been talked about for years, but it has never been taken seriously. In the next few years this question will become more and more important as the population of the Northwest Territories grows and as vast economic developments take place-developments over which the people of the Northwest Territories have little or no control-and in most cases, no control. It is time to talk about bringing responsible government to the Northwest Territories as the first step to this area being made a province some time in the future. I do not say the Northwest Territories should become a province next week, or even next year. The people of the Northwest Territories must first have some experience in governing themselves. But this will not happen unless we are allowed to elect our own government and unless that government has some control over
The Address-Mr. Firth
funds, over resources and over the economic and social development of the territory.
This lack of control can be seen not only in government but also in administration. There are very few native employees in the territorial government, and very few of these are in positions of responsibility. Out of a total of over 1,600 Northwest Territories employees working in the Northwest Territories in 1972, only 305 were native people. Of the 182 of these classified as scientific and professional, none was native. Neither of the two executives was native. Our governors are imported from the south, and the administrators who carry out their orders for the most part are imported along with them.
Mr. Speaker, the Northwest Territories remains as it was before it was ceded by the Hudson's Bay Company over a hundred years ago, a territory run by and for an absentee governor-a kind of government by remote control. We desperately need programs and services that are taken for granted in other parts of the country, this great land of ours known as Canada. Health services are not just poor; they do not exist for most people in the Northwest Territories for most of the year. The health of my constituents is surely the worst in Canada. In all of the Northwest Territories there are only 16 doctors and 15 dentists. Dental care does not exist in most parts of the Northwest Territories.
I should like now to quote briefly from a newscast on CFFB Frobisher Bay on September 3, 1974, and I would ask hon. members to listen very carefully. Here it is in part;
The lowest nutrition standards and the highest infant mortality rate in North America. That is the grim statistic and according to a Frobisher Bay doctor, the situation is getting worse.
In a random series of tests conducted by Dr. Alex Williams of the Frobisher General Hospital, over 75 per cent of the pregnant Inuit women and young Inuit children examined, showed critically low nutrition levels. In a number of cases, said the former chief of medical staff, vitamin A and vitamin C necessary for the prevention of infection and skin disease, simply were not present. The results, he said, were children, if they survived, who at as little as eight days old, had perforated ear drums, systematic infections, skin sores and almost no resistance to disease. Not only that, the IQ level of children born with these vitamin deficiencies was 20 per cent to 40 per cent lower than average.
Much of this could be improved with training programs for northerners. We can handle many of our own problems if we are given a chance to do it. A government training program that would turn out only ten pilots a year over the next five years would be wonders for this situation. But this would be only a beginning. We need pilots and mechanics, doctors, dentists and nurses. We need airstrips, and we need airplanes to use the airstrips. We need many more navigational aids to facilitate the aviation industry up there. Because of the great distances involved, it is one of the most important industries. Railways in the southern part of this country have been subsidized for generations to the tune of several hundred million dollars. The federal government subsidy for the short takeoff and landing commuter plane between Ottawa and Montreal was over $25 million, by its own figures. In the north, where transportation problems are much more serious, we need the same kind of subsidization. The result of high transportation costs is a cost of living higher than anywhere else in Canada.

October 10, 1974
The Address-Mr. Firth
For example, Yellowknife food prices are 20.13 per cent higher than those in Edmonton. Here are a few price comparisons for hon. members to think about: chicken in Edmonton is about 87 cents per pound; in Yellowknife, $1.19; medium eggs are 90 cents a dozen in Edmonton, while the Yellowknife price is $1.09. Orange juice is 61 cents in Edmonton; 85 cents in Yellowknife. These prices are low compared with prices along the Arctic coast or the Mackenzie River. In the villages along the river a dozen eggs cost $1.98 or $2, if they are available.
We need funds, not hand-outs, for economic development. We would like funds that we can put to use where we see need, whether it be training programs, setting up small businesses or whatever is necessary. The government of the Northwest Territories develops programs that look good on paper, but when people come to apply for a loan to set up a small business somewhere, or a restaurant or a shipping company, they run into a lot of red tape. All hon. members know what I am talking about when I say we have to cut red tape. Down here you can at least cut it. We have more serious problems. Up there we have to cut the tape lengthwise.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter (Wally) Firth: I would like to talk briefly about another group that I think I can call my people-native people all over Canada. They suffer the same problems as my constituents, neglect and paternalism. When Statistics Canada does its surveys on income distribution, it does not include my people. When it does its surveys on unemployment, it does not include my people. Statistics Canada says that its "sample frame" does not yet extend to the Northwest Territories or the Yukon. It does not extend to Indians on reservations. Is it because they would make the figures look worse than they are, or is it because they have just forgotten to include these people?
The amount of space devoted to northern problems and to native problems in the throne speech suggests that we have just been forgotten, or overlooked. Having seen what the government has been able to come up with for the rest of Canada in its throne speech, I am tempted to say that it is not really so bad to be overlooked.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter (Wally) Firth: If the unemployment rate goes up in the next few months, as it probably will, it will make little real difference. The people of the north, and native people all over Canada, are in a permanent depression that makes the 1929 crash look tame by comparison. The Metis people of northern Saskatchewan, for instance, have an unemployment rate that is easily ten times the national average. The Senate report on poverty discovered that nearly half the status Indians in Canada at the time were unemployed. There are few jobs to be lost because so few of the people whom I represent have been unable to get worthwhile jobs either from the government or from the resource corporations that have lately become so interested in the north.
Restraints on government spending are nothing new for the north or for native people in general. It has never been

any other way. I would like to know just how much of the Indian Affairs program budget of some $366 million this year will actually reach native people in a form which is useful to them. I have a feeling it will not be very much. It is time this government stopped overlooking these people. It is time the government stopped looking at native land claims as a nuisance and starting looking at them as an opportunity to provide the original inhabitants of this country with a decent standard of life, with dignity. It is time for imaginative and bold measures to give the north some measure of self-government. It is time for the government to provide the funds and the training so that northern poeple can become full members of this country, of this just society.
This country will face huge problems in the years ahead. The problem with the resource corporations which want to take all the wealth out of the north without putting anything back is one that all Canadians have had and will continue to have, as I and other members of my party have pointed out many times. The task of providing everyone in the country with a decent standard of life, with dignity, has not yet been carried out. The problem of northerners and of native people in general is only the most extreme example of a problem that all ordinary Canadians have when they confront a system that values profits more highly than people. In solving it for these people, we may learn how to solve it for all Canadians.
The people of whom I have just spoken need assurance that they will share equally in the nation's progress in the years to come. I am disappointed that the government did not see fit to give such assurance in its throne speech. The problems of which I have spoken may not be the only problems the government will face in the coming months and years, but they are among the most serious. There are three important areas of concern for the north. I hope hon. members will bear them in mind, study them and try to find ways of solving our problems. I refer to providing more responsible government for the Northwest Territories, more representation in terms of two members from the Northwest Territories and, of prime importance, the problems of native people all across Canada.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to begin by congratulating you and your deputies upon your appointments. I am confident you will carry out your responsibilities with skill and distinction in the great tradition of your predecessor. I also wish to congratulate the mover and the seconder on their remarks, remarks which demonstrated their ability and indicated the promise of future achievement.
I am understandably pleased that the Speech from the Throne carries forward much of my work as minister of consumer and corporate affairs. The speech proposes the reintroduction of the first stage combines bill amendments, the Canada Business Corporations Act and its Canadian director provisions,, and the anti-profiteering legislation, all of which I presented to the House during the last parliament. The speech also mentions a comprehensive overhaul of consumer credit legislation, total revision of our bankruptcy law, improved safety of consumer electrical products, and the establishment of more consumer storefront offices. All these are measures involve initiatives which I took, work which I did and which I
October 10, 1974

announced prior to July 8. These measures are important to the well-being of all Canadians as consumers. I believe these were among the measures Canadian voters had in mind when they gave the government such a strong vote of confidence on election day.
The government, in the throne speech, identifies inflation as Canada's most serious problem and says "it is necessary to both deal with its causes and mitigate its effects". There is as yet no clearcut final consensus among economists today as to the causes of inflation, nor of the best way to achieve its cure. But increasingly economists are saying that it is wrong to rely solely on macro-economic policies, broad brush policies involving monetary and fiscal measures affecting the entire economy in a general way. Instead, they say that more attention must be paid to micro-economic matters, to particular situations in the economy as well as to its general operation. In other words, they say there are structural problems in the Canadian and world economy lying behind many of the upward pressures on prices that we have seen in our country.
They argue that concentrations of economic power may well be able to achieve higher prices for their products and pass these prices on to the rest of the economy, free from the total pressures of the marketplace. These prices would then, in turn, help bring about price increases in other goods and services, and on and on in the inflationary spiral. While monetary and fiscal policies may ultimately be able to deal with these effects of concentrations of economic power, this could well be a lengthy process and in the meantime the impact of these general policies could bring about a disastrous slowdown to the economy as a whole.
If it is the case, as I think it is, that structural rigidities are among the important causes of today's inflation, then the government must have available to it the means to strike at them directly instead of relying solely on monetary and fiscal policies. Certainly, with the evidence we have of economic stagnation in Canada today, we should not take the risk of relying solely on these policies whose impact against inflation is primarily to slow down the entire economy. This is why I believe the government must have the stage one competition policy bill and the anti-profiteering bill among its primary weapons in its fight against inflation. They must be given very high legislative priority to ensure that their benefits will be available to Canadians as soon as possible.
I recognized that the time available to the House before Christmas for the consideration of legislation is limited. This is because of the time required for the debate on the Speech from the Throne and on the budget and for dealing with estimates. I understand that the government, therefore, intends to present only a small number of rather technical bills which are necessary to increase lending limits under certain programs such as that of the Export Development Corporation. Unless these bills are passed, the programs would cease to function. There is also the bill to increase veterans' benefits. But none of these measures is highly controversial. Surely it should, and must, be possible for the House leaders to negotiate limits to debate
The Address-Mr. Gray
on them so that all these bills could go through the House in a very few days.
The result would be that the House could move immediately thereafter-and before Christmas-to the first stage competition bill and the anti-profiteering legislation. The first stage bill received second reading, that is, approval in principle, from the House and was well into consideration by the finance committee when the election came. At that time I had already submitted to the finance committee a series of amendments aimed at dealing with many of the valid points raised in public and parliamentary debate on the bill up to that point. I would, therefore, urge that the House agree to give the first stage competition bill second reading without another full second reading debate and refer it immediately to the finance committee so that its consideration could continue from the point at which the committee left off before election day.
If it is important to the fight against inflation that the first stage competition bill should become law as soon as possible, I believe it is equally important for the government to make the necessary policy decisions and present to the House, also as soon as possible, a bill to implement the second stage of the new competition policy. The first stage bill, which was given first reading last week, is identical to the one I presented before the election. That bill proposed strengthening the law against misleading advertising and giving new consumer protection in the field of warranties and guarantees as well as against certain undesirable selling practices. Also, it would give the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission new civil jurisdiction to make orders against practices such as refusal to deal which could have adverse effects on competition.
The bill would make it easier for the courts to find, on the facts, that there had been unlawful combinations in restraint of trade. It would extend the Combines Investigation Act generally to apply to the field of services. It would authorize higher penalties by the courts, both in terms of fines and imprisonment, for those convicted of offences against the act. In addition, for the first time it would give those injured by breaches of the act the right to sue for civil damages. These are all important and necessary steps in improving our competition law so that it would do more to help competitive pressures work more actively against rising prices in the economy.
The government decided during the last parliament that other possible changes in the anti-trust law pertaining to mergers, monopolies and specialization agreements would be dealt with in the second stage of legislative consideration. But these aspects, also, are highly relevant to dealing with the structural causes of inflation. I believe it is essential, therefore, that the second stage bill be produced without delay.
In my view, it should not be necessary for a further round of formal consultations with business and other groups to take place before the government makes up its mind as to the contents of the bill. After all, the process of review of competition policy has been going on since 1966 when the government referred the matter to the Economic Council for study and recommendation. The council issued its report in 1969. There was much public debate on the

October 10, 1974
The Address-Mr. Gray
contents of the report, as there was was after the first competition bill was presented in 1971.
A series of seminars was held by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in 1972 as a means of further consultation with business and other groups on all aspects of competition policy. Then there was the public and parliamentary debate when I presented the stage one bill to parliament in the fall of 1973. During all this period, briefs and recommendations were submitted to the government by interested groups. I believe, therefore, that the government is now in a position to make decisions as to the contents of the second stage bill. I believe that now is the time for decision and action on the bills covering both stages of legislative reform. There would still be ample opportunity for the views of all interested groups and individuals on the proposals in the second stage bill to be considered as it proceeded through the parliamentary process, especially during the committee stage.
I think the Speech from the Throne should also have made reference to plans by the government to present the second stage competition bill. The Speech from the Throne which we are considering announces the welcome decision by the government to extend the life of the Food Prices Review Board to the end of 1975. By this expression of confidence, the government confirms the credibility and degree of achievement I forecast the board would develop when I was speaking out in support of, and in defence of, the board here in the House and before the media during its first months of activity. However, in announcing the decision to extend the board's life to December, 1975, the Speech from the Throne is marked by what I consider to be a serious omission. If this omission represents the government's intentions, it means the board will lose much of its hard-won credibility and usefulness.
The Speech from the Throne says the board's mandate will be renewed "so that it may continue to report regularly on trends in food prices and analyse the reasons for price changes in specific areas." But these are only two of the three important terms of reference under which the board is presently operating. The third is that in reporting its findings it can make recommendations for action by the government and by the private sector. It was by virtue of this authority that it was able to make recommendations for the subsidy programs which have been helping to restrain increases in the prices of bread and milk. I shall have more to say about the milk subsidy in a few moments. This authority also helped make it possible for the board to recommend that action be taken in respect of what it found to be unwarranted increases in bread prices late last February.
As the House will recall, on the basis of these findings I personally intervened and was able to get the bakery industry to roll back bread prices to levels which the board found acceptable, levels which generally prevailed until the recently announced increases. These are increases about which, I might say, no one in government has so far had anything to say. I would call attention, also, to the board's recommendations for action with respect to egg marketing, recommendations which helped the government decide to begin dealing with that deteriorating situation.
To continue its present and growing usefulness, the board must be able to go on making recommendations for action and to report its findings of fact and its recommendations directly to the public as it does at the present time. To take away this authority would make the renewal of the board's mandate largely meaningless. The government should indicate without delay its commitment to letting the board continue to exercise this authority to make recommendations for government and private action.
The government has rightly said in the Speech from the Throne that it does not intend "to deliberately generate slack in the economy in order to combat inflation." I think this means that parliament, and Canadians generally, must be vigilant to ensure that the government does not bring about such a result unintentionally rather than deliberately as an inadvertent side effect of measures whose ostensible purposes are quite different. Along with inflation there are disturbing signs of slowdown, of recession in the economy. Great care must be taken by the government not to do things which would precipitate the economy into deeper recession, or worse, in view of what this would obviously mean in terms of high unemployment and harm, particularly for the less fortunate groups in our economy.
There must be an equitable sharing of the burdens of dealing with inflation. These burdens must not be thrown disproportionately on the shoulders of the working people and small business people of our country. Of course, the government has said in the throne speech no one group should shoulder an unfair burden. This statement is one which we all welcome. However, the test of the government's effectiveness in reaching this objective lies in what is actually happening now and what will be happening over the coming months.
The government has said it will "exercise restraint in its own expenditures with particular emphasis on improving effectiveness and efficiency in existing operations." But frankly, when it comes to restraining government expenditures, I do not believe that the subsidy on fluid milk was the place to start. And yet we had an announcement last August that this subsidy to help restrain increases in the price of milk would be phased out over the next few months. I do not think that this step is consistent with a fair sharing of the burdens of inflation. It is one which will inevitably bring about a sizeable increase in the price of milk, a basic food so important to Canadian children. And the burden of this increase will fall primarily on lower income families, who pay a higher proportion of their incomes for food than other Canadian families.
The Food Prices Review Board has urged that this decision be changed. As the board said in its September 24 statement, "to withdraw the five-cent subsidy in the present circumstances and to do so over a scant four-month period appears to the board to impose an undesirably heavy burden on the Canadian consumer-In these circumstances, the board calls on government to take measures to moderate the rapid fluid milk price increases facing Canadians." The Food Prices Review Board made that statement on September 24, but no one in the government has as yet spoken out in support of this sensible and humane recommendation of the board.

October 10, 1974

It has been argued that increases in family allowances and other social benefits, and their indexing, will make up for the ending of this subsidy. But the government did not cancel the subsidy when it put into effect the increased family allowances and indexing schemes early in 1974. I believe the government should reverse its decision to eliminate the milk subsidy and, as the Food Prices Review Board said, "allow it to continue in the absence of discernible progress in the development of a long-term national dairy policy in view of the other food price increases which consumers currently face." So I hope there will soon be an announcement, in the interests of Canadian children and Canadian families, that the milk subsidy will not be cancelled.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: In the throne speech the government has said, as it has said many times in the past, that higher production will be the way we will achieve, if not lower prices or stable prices, at least, as the speech puts it, "the slowing down of price advances." But this can be so only if an increased supply of goods is allowed by the government to exert downward pressures on prices. Increasing the supply of goods and services will do little, if anything, to lower prices if suppliers, because of their economic power, can keep their prices at the same level or even increase them. Increasing supply will not bring about lower prices if government policy itself serves to maintain prices, even when supply increases, or if government policy ratchets them even higher with each increase in the level of supply.
The American economist, Henrik Houthaker, has proposed an urgent examination of all his federal government's regulations and programs to see if they are in fact helping keep prices up. He presented a list of 45 such programs that may be having this effect in the United States. I am sure we could easily develop a similar list in Canada. We should carry out this kind of review in our country and the government should take action, in light of it, on an urgent basis.
Speaking about this kind of approach, another American economist, Gardner Ackley, has said that "this means a concerted attack on structural rigidities in our economy and an energetic effort to dismantle the many institutional, largely governmental, arrangements which raise particular costs and prices." As I said earlier in my remarks, we must make efforts to remove structural rigidities that contribute to inflation. The increasing of flexibility and of competitive pressures in our economy is a key micro-economic way of dealing with our inflation problems. I have already referred to the need in this context to move speedily to implement a reformed and tougher competition policy as well as the anti-profiteering legislation.
Another area which also requires urgent attention is our evolving national farm products marketing system. The will of parliament, as expressed in section 22 of the Farm Products Marketing Act, is that agencies set up under it are "to have due regard to the interests of producers and consumers." However, the recent reports of the Food Prices Review Board on egg marketing indicate that this direction from parliament is not being followed by at least the first of the farm product marketing agencies set up under that act, since CEMA appears up to now to have
The Address-Mr. Gray
been geared to operate primarily in the producers' interest, to increase returns to them and to inhibit the benefits of increased production from being passed on to consumers in the form of lower prices.
Last week the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) announced the government would be appointing additional members to the Farm Products Marketing Council. These members, he said, would not represent the producer interest but instead would be linked with consumers, business and labour. This announcement is welcome. In fact, it is long overdue. This is action I have long advocated and pressed for. The political atmosphere created in very recent weeks by the disclosure of the tragic and wasteful destruction of 28 million eggs finally gave the cabinet the will to take this kind of decision. But welcome as this step is, its true value for consumers should be kept in perspective. Producers will still make up the majority of members on the Farm Products Marketing Council and, in fact, this is required by the National Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act. The role of the council itself is very limited; it is to make recommendations to the Minister of Agriculture on whether national marketing agencies should be set up by the federal government. Also it reports to the Minister of Agriculture on their operation once they are created. But the real decisions on the supply and price of a commodity covered by a national marketing agency are made by the members of that agency. This is where the real power lies at present.
Nothing whatsoever has as yet been said by the government about any formal government decision to appoint consumer representatives to national marketing agencies as distinct from the Farm Products Marketing Council. With respect to provincial marketing agencies, I recognize it would be a lengthy and difficult task for the federal government to convince provincial governments to appoint consumer representatives to all provincial marketing boards. But this is an effort the government must also begin.
However, it is quite a different matter when it comes to the national agencies or boards set up by the federal governor in council by proclamation under the Farm Products Marketing Act. The act provides that the governor in council can designate the members of these agencies by proclamation. The act does provide that a majority of members of these agencies must be producers. But, in any event, I believe the government should proceed as quickly as possible to appoint consumer representatives to existing national marketing agencies. It should also state its commitment to appoint consumer representatives to any national agencies that may be created in future. All these appointments should be in sufficient numbers so that they can have a real impact on the decision-making by these agencies, and this means a commitment to amending the act, where necessary, to achieve this purpose.
If all this is not done, the gesture announced by the Minister of Agriculture last week will be largely without meaning. The Windsor Star of September 24, reported that Gordon Hill, president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, said that "he felt it would only be fair to let a consumer spokesman sit on the Ontario Farm Products Marketing Board and on the federal government's National Farm Products Marketing Council. One vote on the

October 10, 1974
The Address-Mr. Gray
regulatory boards would not swing much weight, he added, but it might give consumers a better insight into what goes on in the marketing of products." However, what is required is not simply a means of giving consumers a better insight into farm products marketing. Instead, they must in fact swing sufficient weight for them to play a meaningful role in decision-making. This can only come from proper representation of consumer and other nonproducer interests on the farm products marketing agencies themselves, and not just on the Farm Products Marketing Council.
The appointment of consumers to these agencies is not an unwarranted intrusion into the private business of farming. Many farmers may not be willing to admit it, but marketing boards and agencies are a form of monopoly or a form of combination in restraint of trade. They fix prices, they regulate supply and they allocate markets. The members of these boards and the farmers dealing with them would, therefore, be subject to investigation and possible prosecution under the combines law if it were not for the clause in the Farm Products Marketing Act specifically excluding such national agencies from the impact of the combines act, our anti-trust law.
In other words, farmers could not lawfully organize their production through national marketing schemes without the authorization of the people of Canada generally, as given through parliament when it passed the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act. When parliament did this, the Canadian people in effect authorized the government to set up bodies which are forms of monopolies or combines in restraint of trade. It follows, therefore, that the Canadian people must have an adequate means of ensuring that such bodies operate in the interests not just of one group but of all groups in Canada through the right kind of public supervision and regulation.
I believe that supply-management programs, if properly run and if constructed to operate in a way that balances the interests of farmers and consumers, can be essential in dealing with and stabilizing the food price situation in Canada. The recent disclosures about CEMA have shown what can go wrong with national marketing schemes. Fortunately, this knowledge has come early in the creation of national marketing agencies. Now is the time to appoint consumer representatives in sufficient number to ensure that both consumer and producer interests are taken into account in the decisions of these agencies. Now is also the time to review and amend the National Farm Products Marketing Act and other legislation where necessary to ensure that, in the words of the throne speech of last February, "guarantees against unduly low prices to producers must be coupled with guarantees against unduly high prices to consumers". These words, which I have quoted verbatim from the throne speech, unfortunately did not appear again in the present speech. I believe, therefore, that there should be a renewed public commitment by the government to this objective before this debate ends.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, let me say that the Canadian people, in giving the government a majority mandate on July 8, did so in the expectation of meaningful action on inflation and other problems that confront us. They expect

that the words of the throne speech will be translated into that kind of action as quickly as possible. In voting, they said they wanted a government that was Liberal not only in name but also liberal when it came to both policy orientation and action in terms of concern for people, of ongoing economic and social reform and of strengthening Canadian economic and cultural independence. When Canadian voters gave the government a majority on July 8, they were not simply challenging the government to show what it could do; they were saying, instead, that they expected a definite commitment from the government-a commitment to action, not acting, and a commitment to results, not rhetoric.
It is up to all members of this House of Commons, but especially to those on the government side, to see that the carrying out of this commitment in this positive way is in fact what happens, particularly during this first session and also throughout the entire life of this thirtieth parliament.


Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, may I have the pleasure of joining those who spoke before me to offer my congratulations to the movers of the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne who acquitted themselves magnificently.
I would also like to congratulate the hon. leader of the House who was named to preside over our deliberations, a difficult task that he kindly accepted to see that parliamentary impartiality is respected both at the level of political parties and official languages.
It is with pride and joy that we can express ourselves in French and in English in a Parliament which always respects the established customs.
We hope that this freedom of expression in the two official languages will be respected from coast to coast so that each Canadian may feel at home everywhere in his country.
We also hope that this fair play will be felt more and more, not only in the official languages area, but also in the distribution of those goods which are essential to life, the natural goods which do not come to us from France or England, but directly from our national production so that all the most elementary needs of each citizen might be satisfied.
The first aim of the Parliament of Canada is to ensure the reign of distributory justice for all citizens of all classes. It is on this essential point that I would like to draw the attention of all the ministers and members of Parliament who were elected or re-elected during the last general election.
Mr. Speaker, I am very optimistic when confronted with life's obligations and I have always managed to face the economic problems of my family. However, I cannot help but see how my fellow Canadians in the riding of Rimouski and the rest of Canada lack the money or the purchasing power which would allow them to adequately participate in the riches of our country and the production of all working Canadians.
I am saddened by this and I am still seeking means to alleviate this tragic situation. To this end, I dared become
October 10, 1974

a member of the Parliament of Canada, with the belief that there lied the supreme authority of the country, where it would be possible to proceed to an adequate and just distribution of this country's wealth and production. I want my right to speak to be recognized and I insist on being taken seriously, especially when I speak of national product and of a better distribution among Canadians.
I see that this Parliament is composed of 57 new members and that 207 members or ministers belonged to the last Parliament. I also note that the former minority Liberal government has been returned to power with a majority sufficient to take its responsibilities without blaming its numerical weakness for its shortcomings. If it cannot settle the problems of Canada, it will only be because of the weakness of its aptitudes or of its character, or because it does not know its obligations and duties.
I am afraid the 57 new members will be as surprised as I was in the last few years at the uselessness of their presence, or their efforts here in Parliament.
Already in the Speech from the Throne and the speech of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), I see to what extent the international or world-wise character of inflation is being used as an excuse not to introduce decent reforms towards a fairer redistribution of the national product among all Canadians.
Instead of continuing to talk about inflation, unemployment and poverty, three of the main consequences of the poor distribution of income, work or purchasing power, why could we not, together, look at the magnificent results of the Canadian production in 1974, which reached $137 billion, that is $6,000 per citizen. If that is so, why do we not all live in affluence or at least in relative comfort?
Why is it that 22.5 million Canadian citizens, with an average per capita income of $6,000, are not satisfied with this production and that the people mainly responsible for the economy are always talking about the need to further increase this production? Have not the members of Parliament themselves asked this same question to the present ministers? It is not enough to produce what we need. We must also ensure a better distribution of this production and this is the responsibility of Parliament.
Mr. Speaker, even though our economy is very dependent upon our relations with foreign countries, far and near, our whole income and tax policy is the business of members of Parliament alone. No citizen of another country, whether from Rome, Paris, London or Washington, has the right to come and solve our problems in matters of family allowances, old age pensions or guaranteed personal incomes, in other words to interfere in business which concerns Canadians only from the moment of their birth to the day of their death. It is therefore in this House, on behalf of all the voters in each constituency, on behalf of all Canadian citizens, that we can best organize the distribution of income and taxes so that we may restore the economic balance between all Canadian citizens and eliminate inflation, unemployment and poverty, thanks to our great national product of $137 billion.
This, Mr. Speaker, is our most important work and responsibility, in other words, it is our only problem. We can consider our impressive national product-without
The Address-Mr. Allard
thinking about inflation, unemployment, poverty. We must be careful not to let ourselves be conditioned by our old habits of considering the economic problems of distribution instead of considering the situation with a new approach, as the 57 new members will probably do. We shall perhaps then be able to find a solution to inflation, poverty and unemployment. If all Canadians enjoy an adequate purchasing power, if all production sells better and more, and the needs of each and everyone are met, then certainly in all areas, towns or parishes, all businesses will be more flourishing, all goods will find buyers, and all production of all goods and services will bring back all available unemployed everywhere.
Let us not blame anyone for the past. There is no use in it. Let us take a good look at the present. Let us know better our present situation and let us look at it as it is without letting ourselves be intimidated by past patters, and I am convinced we will have good surprises.
The right hon. Prime Minister seems to have lofty views about bringing home the constitution of Canada, about drafting a new constitution. Let us wish him every success in this endeavour which may be called for; but what is most important is not changes in the constitution but changes in the distribution of our production for the well being of all Canadians. Let us deal with the first, and then it will be easier, or perhaps unnecessary, to amend the constitution.
One thing remains certain, we can better distribute what we currently produce, and nothing in the constitution steps us from making a proper and fair distribution of incomes and taxes. Everything is there. Let us look at all the powers the government has under the present constitution.
Let us go over section 91 of the BNA Act and take good note of the following subsections stating that the federal government has all powers concerning trade and exchanges, the raising of public money through all modes of taxation, currency, monetary exchanges and coinage, banks and issue of paper money, and interest rates. I am referring to subsections (2), (3), (14), (15) and (19) of section 91 of the BNA Act.
Even if the earth and all the universe have existed for billions of years, even if manking has lived here for several thousand years it was only a few centuries ago that banks, monetary systems, forms of money, capital and credit as means of exchange were created. And money is continually taking new forms.
The monetary, credit, capital, banking and exchange systems, the national and multinational companies are all man-made institutions which must facilitate the lives of men within society, the exchange of goods, products and services which all are based on natural resources.
Mr. Speaker, it is not our debates-for we debate much too much-but our laws which must be blessed by the Almighty, Who may be talking to us through the mouths and pens of our greatest businessmen who are personally concerned about inflation.
The illness has reached its culminating point. Now, the big guns are thundering. It is no longer economists or university professors who are talking, but two of the highest administrators of our million-rich banks and com-

October 10, 1974
The Address-Mr. Allard
panies who are dealing with their shareholders as chairmen of the Royal Bank of Canada and the Bank of Montreal respectively, at the end of the financial year on October 31, 1973. The reference is exact and the documents in question are available at any branch of both these banks.
Let us be glad that these men are finally impressed by this everlasting situation of inflation, unemployment and poverty and that they sould request from the government the political rectifications necessary to restore national economic balance between all regions of our prosperous Canada. Everybody can find there most valuable advice.
Here are a few passages from the speech delivered by Mr. G. Arnold Hart, chairman of the Bank of Montreal, but the whole speech should be studied, it is as if it were directed to us, in this House. I quote:
There is no doubt that our economy is still corroded by inflation and it is increasingly urgent to heal it as times goes by.
All of us are collectively responsible in some way or other. But this question overrides the interests of all groups in our society; and neither capital, nor labour nor any single interest group, good as its organization may be, has the capacity and the responsibility for taking an overall view of the situation.
Only the state can do this and it alone has the responsibility for doing so.
Canadians generally want all members in the community to benefit from a higher living standard and quality of life made possible by economic achievements of this great country of ours.
I know Canadians will be ready to take up the challenge if the problem is put forward to them frankly.
The time has come for fundamental alteratives.
Will our elected representatives become aware of it?
This is talking frankly and sincerely!
Here now a few excerpts from the speech of Royal Bank of Canada Chairman Earle McLaughlin, administrator almighty.
We tried to outline the vital links between the bank and the society it serves.
Not only do economic disparities have an economic impact, they also frequently have painful human repercussions.
Those are real problems as people live them in their bodies and their souls. Thus, the rate of unemployment and the average per capita income are empty abstractions which do not bear witness to the ordeal of the jobless father trying to find the means to provide for his family.
We are one of the wealthiest countries in the world nowadays, and we enjoy an envied rate of living and prosperity.
Our national economic prosperity seems to dig ever wider the gap between "have" and "have not" areas.
The problem of economic disparities however conceals human situations that are too outrageous to be born simply with resignation.
National economic development is more than a simple matter of statistics and national gross product. It urgently calls for an orderly redistribution of the fruit of prosperity throughout the country.
How indeed could we take pride in our general economic growth if many of our fellow citizens do not get a fair share of that prosperity?
It seems that the most advantageous approach to regional disparities would be to consider the problem in a national context and not at the regional level.
This is speaking frankly and sincerely!
As we can see, the appeal comes from high authority, and it is the government of Canada that is called on to take action having full authority to plan our economy.

Mr. Speaker, the chairmen of the two largest banks in Canada who are also serving as directors of the largest multimillionaire companies, must know a few things about the administration of our country. They are calling on the government to take decisive and efficient action in reestablishing the national economic balance between all Canadian citizens, thus removing at the same time inflation, unemployment and poverty.
Those are the major principles on which is based a total policy dictated to us by the most influential Canadians, a policy desired by all Canadians. The government is called upon to take action and we, in the opposition, are prepared to support it along this line.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: Mr. Speaker, this is a great day in my life. For 15 years I have wanted to serve as a member of the House of Commons. I grant you that my reasons over the 15 years have changed, but my enthusiasm certainly has not. I consider that being a member of this House is an honourable profession. As a matter of fact, the member who has brought to this House the most honour, certainly in my lifetime, has been the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). So today I pay him tribute. It would be remiss of me not to mention another hon. member who for the past four years represented the riding of Selkirk, namely, Doug Rowland. Although he is not in the same political party as I am, he is an honest man and one of whom we were proud when he was a member of parliament.
Today I will deal with two basic areas. First, I wish to address some remarks on a more philosophical basis regarding the direction in which I think this government should be going. Second, I will tell you a story of a great naval battle which took place on the prairies. No doubt this will be of particular interest to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) and the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. Finally, I will be much more parochial and will speak about Selkirk in particular.
Every member of parliament works from a basically philosophical principle-a pivotal point. My pivot centres around Biblical principles. I believe there are certain basic principles that are morally right, and certain that are morally wrong. I think that this government, and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in particular, would be well advised to give some heed to those Biblical principles which are as applicable today to modern man as they have ever been. In particular, sir, I think it would be well for this government to realize that in Canada it is not the government that is sovereign, nor is the Queen or the Crown. In fact, we must go back to the sovereignty of God.
I point out to this government that it should give some measure of tribute, however small and insignificant it may be, to those basic scriptural principles on which our civilization was built. Furthermore, I think that this government would do well to understand that the government should rule from a principle of justice, not from a principle of power. I feel that the Prime Minister and his cabinet have not yet come to grips with this principle and have not made the choice between government by power and government by justice, even though they have used that
October 10, 1974

hollow phrase "the just society" since 1968. I think that this government would be well advised to agree that we should be the world leaders in establishing a massive development program, because if we are to consider justice for Canadians we cannot really apply justice in Canada unless we are prepared to do it in an honest way.
We should all agree that justice extends beyond our national boundaries to every man on the face of the earth. In terms of both our reserves and our natural resources, we probably can be considered one of the richest nations in the world. For us to think always in terms of nationalistic policy is both naive and provincial. I do not think the government can be commended for its infantile approach to this matter, as demonstrated by the fact that the CIDA program amounts to a commitment to world development of only 1 per cent of our gross national product. I wish also to warn the government and caution them against adopting an attitude of economic assimilation of other countries, believing that somehow these other countries should mould themselves to our viewpoint with regard to their economic development. I do not think the government would be well advised to take an ethnocentric development perspective. Rather, we should understand that perhaps other countries, although not developed to the same degree as we are, nevertheless on occasion may have stumbled upon some element of truth.
I should like to speak more on these basic philosophical principles but I want to leave myself enough time to refer to matters which pertain to the Selkirk riding. Therefore, I will now go into story time. I remember very well a morning early in May. I arose and the sun was shining as it usually does in Manitoba. A warm, gentle wind was blowing. As I walked out of my apartment on to the sidewalk, I found some alarm among the people there. The cry I heard was "The Liberals are coming, the Liberals are coming". You know, Mr. Speaker, Manitoba is very flat and that is why we have a great perspective; we can see a long way out.
I remember looking to the east into the distance and seeing this great Liberal armada making its way through the prairies. As it came closer, I noticed a great flagship and on the ship was Admiral Trudeau. On his right I saw a most impressive battleship on which was Rear-Admiral Richardson, or maybe I should say Rear-Rear-Rear-Rear-Admiral Richardson. On the left side of the ship was an aircraft carrier laden with 707 airplanes bound for the port of Winnipeg. There was some suggestion that perhaps there were some Air Canada planes on that ship as well. In total, there were some 45 most impressive ships in the fleet, with banners waving in the western wind.
I want to be honest in relating this story, so I must tell you that to meet this great fleet was but a small task force of loyal westerners, two Manitobans. That in itself would not have been bad, were we not facing a war on two fronts, because it seemed that over the previous 18 months the Liberals had allies and were coming from the rear with land forces. Now I want to dispose of the third party in the war, Mr. Speaker. As I remember, as the battle progressed this third element was somewhat confused and in disarray, not knowing whether they were fighting us or the oncoming Liberal fleet. What happened to that third force is well known on the prairies.
The Address-Mr. Whiteway
As I led my very small task force in Selkirk to meet this great fleet, I remembered the legend of a battleship which was tied up at the port of Prince Albert and allegedly was due to join the mothball fleet. With all the reserves I could muster, I called upon this great battleship of Prince Albert, and it was ready. Mr. Speaker, when a volley of shots came from this mighty Prince Albert battleship it hit that Liberal fleet with deadly accuracy and it hit Prime Minister with the sting of a thousand hornets.
In the early stages of this great battle it became very apparent to Rear-Admiral Richardson that he was losing, so he decided to call out the reserves from Halifax. It would seem that there were ships ready to go, but no crews to man them. Mr. Speaker, if the civil service were sailors, there would not be enough ships in the entire Dominion of Canada to accommodate them. Those ships were without a crew and could not come to the aid of the minister. This battle waged fiercely. It was an awesome battle for some eight weeks. When the smoke cleared late in the evening of July 8, the Liberal fleet had been sunk on the prairies and Rear-Admiral Richardson's ship was listing heavily to the left. There were only five survivors. Lieutenant-Colonel Lang was directing survival operations, encouraging the five men who were desperately clinging to a life-raft. Sir, that is a true story.


Some hon. Members:: Hear hear!


Dean Waldon Whiteway: Mr. Speaker, that great fleet from the east was an impressive sight. I want to make another point before I leave that great battle. Many members might wonder what happened to the flagship. Before the battle reached its height, the flagship had left to sail the waters of the St. Lawrence under more favourable conditions. This great fleet was only dwarfed in size by a fleet of Liberal pirate ships seen going from west to east with the plunder and booty they had stolen from western Canada. It is now believed, on the corner of Portage and Main in Winnipeg, that the aircraft carrier lost in battle did not have a cargo 707s bound for Winnipeg at all, but had some 28 million eggs.


An hon. Member:: All rotten.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: Their condition probably would not have been conducive of consumption, Mr. Speaker. For the next few minutes I should like to speak about the riding of Selkirk. The great philosopher, Mr. John Locke, once said that a man could not be converted by a one-time brilliant argument. Even if I were capable of delivering a brilliant argument, Mr. Speaker, I am certain I could not convert the Prime Minister-mainly because, I suppose, he is not even in the House to convert. I should be surprised if I, a novice, could bring the Prime Minister to his knees, in tears, in repentance, promising to bring forward better policies for this nation.
My role is not to convert the Prime Minister, but to be a depth-sounder. Anyone from the maritimes or who has travelled the oceans will know what a depth-sounder is. It is an instrument that sends an electronic wave to the bottom of the sea; the wave then bounces back and is measured, and from that they can tell how deep the water

October 10, 1974
The Address-Mr. Whiteway
is. Depth of water is usually measured in fathoms, which is about the span of an average man's arms, about six feet. I believe my role is to be a depth-sounder for the government of this country, to measure the depth of water for the ship of state in western Canada. I can tell you, Madam Speaker, if some government policies were a popsicle stick they would go aground in western Canada.
As a mere deckhand, I would not in my wildest moments of imagination even remotely consider advising the captain, the Prime Minister, as to the course his great ship of state should take in the west. But one thing I can do: I can watch diligently for the west and I can point out the reefs and the rocks, and I can tell the captain when the ship is nearing the shore. I want to be a depth-sounder in a few areas, particularly for the riding of Selkirk.
I may mention some towns that the Prime Minister and the government have never heard of, but I will take that chance. I might even have the honour of having the Prime Minister's eyes, even for a fleeting moment, look at the words that I speak today as they will appear in Hansard. There is in the Selkirk riding a town by the name of Gimli. Former ministers of defence know Gimli well, because they took from it an air force base that was vital to its survival. Only through the intestinal fortitude of the Vikings of Gimli, the town survived in spite of the federal government.
In Gimli there is a firm called Saunders Aircraft. I will not comment on whether it is a particularly viable industry at the present time. I am not one of those trigger-happy politicians who is willing to take a shot at Saunders Aircraft for any reason, but I will say that this Liberal government should extend the same kind of aid to it as is being given to eastern aircraft companies. The government should show us the formula they used in deciding the kind of subsidies and grants given to aircraft companies, so that we can understand their reasoning with respect to Saunders. They have recently paid token appreciation to the company's attempts to establish a viable industry in the town.
Some 15 years ago, the federal government-I must say it was not a Liberal government-built a great breakwater in Gimli but made no provision for its maintenance. Fifteen years later that breakwater is shifting. It is certainly inadequate in its present condition. I know that to some degree the government of Manitoba must assume responsibility because they raised the level of the lake two feet more than its level when the breakwater was built. However, we will not solve the problem by simply passing the buck and saying it is not the fault of the federal government that the water is rising. The fact is that the water has risen by two feet, the breakwater is inadequate and the town is in trouble. That is not the only deep water there is in Manitoba for this government.
Moving southerly down the lake from Gimli, we come to Sandy Hook. Counting all the dogs, cats and other living matter, I suppose the population of Sandy Hook is not in excess of 85 or 90 people. However, they have a problem. That problem is the post office. I know I should not take the time of the House to bring to the attention of this government a problem concerning only 80 people. Never-

theless, I hope this government will be responsive, no matter how small the group. The problem is that the post office in Sandy Hook closes at noon. No one can get their mail, because when the post office is open, everyone works. Let me say that everyone in western Canada works.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Dean Waldon Whiteway: Perhaps I ought not to use the word "work" in this House. I do not mean to use foul language or to be offensive toward the government. However, this is a word that we in western Canada understand. We not only preach it, we practice it. I have a few comments to make about that. I do not want to let the government off the hook so easily. I want to bring to the attention of this government that if I have to, I will pitch a tent on the doorstep of the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) until this problem in Sandy Hook is solved.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Dean Waldon Whiteway: Moving down the coastline of Lake Winnipeg, we come to Selkirk, a most historic town. When you walk the streets of Selkirk, you can smell the history in the air. This town is probably of some importance to the Minister of State responsible for the fisheries (Mr. LeBlanc). Some years ago a study was undertaken to determine whether a fish processing plant should be built somewhere in Manitoba, under the auspices of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Board. I am sure hon. members from the maritimes and from British Columbia will appreciate this. Where is the most logical place to build a fish processing plant? It should be along the lake where the fish are caught. However, in the wisdom of this government the fish processing plant was built in the middle of a wheat field in Transcona.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Dean Waldon Whiteway: You cannot see it because it is always in the shadow of the grain elevators. I would not suggest that the fact Transcona is in the constituency of the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) had any rationale; however, it seems to have more rationale than any other reason for building the plant in Transcona.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Dean Waldon Whiteway: This fish processing plant has capital assets of approximately $6 million. Last year they had a net loss of $1.5 million. The government does not understand that because this plant is 20 miles from the lake it had an inventory loss.
I am only a deckhand. I do not understand the matters of the great ship of state. In my naivete, I suggested very simply that it would make sense to move the fish processing plant from Transcona to Selkirk. But oh no, they could not do that. There are $6 million worth of fixed assets in Transcona; whatever will they do with those? My point is that in three years they will lose more money through keeping the plant in Transcona than the fixed assets ever will be worth. However, that simple attitude, that schoolboy arithmetic, certainly did not hold any water with this government. The people of Selkirk are sick and tired of
October 10, 1974

these fish stories coming from the ranks of those on the government benches. The government can keep the plant in Transcona until they or the people of Canada go broke, but for the sake of reason I ask them to build a small, token fish processing plant in Selkirk otherwise the ship of state will be on the rocks.
I have been watching the clock, Mr. Speaker, and I see my time is running out. Nevertheless, I will take the liberty of mentioning another problem. All along the eastern and western shores of Lake Winnipeg there has been tremendous erosion due to the abnormally high level of the lake because of the abnormal run-off levels this year and the fact that the provincial government has allowed the basic level to increase from 713 to 715 feet. Once again, the problem is provincial. It was never a problem before. The old cliche that an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure holds true in this case. However, to solve this problem we need several hundred thousand tons of prevention in order to stop further shoreline erosion. This government would be well advised to consider rip-rap, pilings and provide an adequate breakwater system all along the shoreline.
I could continue and speak about the city of Winnipeg, a large portion of which lies within Selkirk constituency. The basic problems of Winnipeg are not very different from those of any other city-urban transportation, housing, railroad relocation, and a hundred other things. However, my time is running out and I want to bring to light a matter which I mentioned very briefly. It concerns work. I believe that in western Canada there are jobs for most Canadians who really want to work. We in western Canada believe in the work ethic. This country was moulded by people who knew what it was to put in a hard day's work. They did not rely on winter works programs, unemployment insurance, LIP or LEAP grants or a hundred other make-work programs which this government has devised as a substitute for work.
I do not want to be accused of suggesting overly simplistic solutions. In fact, I am only discussing the problems, not suggesting in-depth solutions. However, I want this government to be aware that the water is very shallow. In western Canada we hear it said that Canadians are being paid $2.2 billion not to work. This government would be well advised to accept the idea that it is better for a man to work at any job than to not work at all. The pendulum has swung far enough to the left. I do not accept the idea that Canadians have a right to the natural resources of this country, if they are not prepared to put any work into them.
I believe in the basic Biblical principle and the basic practical principle that unless a man is prepared by the sweat of his brow or the labour of his mind to put some effort forward, he has not earned the right to any of the rewards which this country can offer. I am not referring to those who through no fault of their own cannot earn their own way. I will not mention Bill 22 and the Official Languages Act. I shall save that story for another time.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order. I regret to inform the hon. member that his time has expired.
The Address-Mr. Gillespie


Alastair William Gillespie: Madam Speaker, I should like to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker and his deputies, upon your election to the service of this House. I speak for many when I say we know you will be effective members and, indeed, elegant servants of the House. I should also like to congratulate the two new members who moved and seconded the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. I think they left a deep impression and served notice of their promise as parliamentarians. I should like, also, to congratulate the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Whiteway) who has just concluded his maiden speech. It was an entertaining, witty and memorable speech. I should like to commend him, too, on his highly developed nautical sense of metaphor.
In the time at my disposal this afternoon it is my intention to deal with two subjects. I wish to deal briefly with the current trade situation and our prospects for the future, and then with the question of foreign investment, as fully as I can in the time available to me. The trade situation in the first eight months of this year clearly demonstrates that Canada has enjoyed a very good trade year to date and the near-term prospects are, I think, equally good. Exports are up 26 per cent. The estimate for the year is pretty close to $31 billion; that is what our sales abroad will amount to. This compares with close to $25 billion in the past year.
The increase has been noticeable in some important markets where we have been aiming to expand. Our exports to the EEC are up 42 per cent, and to the Commonwealth, not including the United Kingdom, by 34 per cent. Exports to Latin America are up by 58 per cent, to the United States and the United Kingdom by 22 per cent, and to Japan by 39 per cent. I regret the fact that our exports to the United States and the United Kingdom have not increased by as much as our total average. But there are some soft spots. Two products in particular are feeling the pinch very severely. First, the automobile industry, in the sense that it has not been able to export what it might have been able to export had the United States market been stronger. The United States automobile market this past year declined by 25 per cent, whereas the Canadian market improved.
Another industry adversely affected is the lumber industry, and part of the story is the housing record in the United States. Hon. members are concerned, as I am concerned, about the effect on the lumber industry of a very significant slowdown in the United States housing market. One-third of the lumber produced in Canada is consumed by Canadians in meeting the demands of housing and other business and commercial needs. Two-thirds of the production is exported, and by far the larger part of these exports go to the United States-very close to 80 per cent. Indeed, the United States market is about double the size of the Canadian market and the current situation as far as lumber is concerned is a reminder to Canadians that when we rely so heavily on a particular market and that market is disturbed, for example, by the high price of oil, by high interest rates and their effect on mortgages, as well as by high lumber prices themselves, consumer resistance is inevitable sooner or later.

October 10, 1974
The Address-Mr. Gillespie
The strength of our export effort will always depend on the strength of the economies of our major customers. The other side is that the strength of our imports will always depend, very largely if not entirely, on the strength of the Canadian economy. That is really the story of Canadian exports and imports. Our exports are up by something like 26 per cent but our imports are up by some 34 per cent, reflecting the relatively better performance of the Canadian economy at the present time. Thus, our commodity trade surplus has narrowed to $460 million this year compared with over $1 billion for the same period last year. However, I expect there will be some further additions to our commodity trade surplus. To date, seasonally adjusted data suggests a surplus for the year in the neighbourhood of $1 billion. Well, where do we go from here? What are our prospects for the future? I wish to emphasize that a major trading country such as Canada cannot hope to pass unscathed through the current difficult international economic situation. Economic growth in our principal markets will be subdued during the coming year. At the same time, I believe that in terms of value, Canada's exports will continue to rise.
I wish to turn, now, to the foreign investment question to which I referred in my opening remarks. I introduce this subject by saying that mention of foreign investment or foreign control or foreign ownership evokes strong feelings in certain quarters. Too often in the past, debate on the subject has been confused and emotional. For example, distinctions are often not made between foreign control and foreign ownership. Nor are distinctions made between foreign direct investment and foreign portfolio investment, though in terms of their economic impact they are almost as different as day from night. All too often, even within the category of foreign direct investment no distinction is made between equity and debt investment. This confusion has bedevilled any intelligent discussion of this important area in the past and it recurs from time to time, though, I believe, less frequently. It is my impression that in Canada today there is a very much more rational climate for examining these important issues.
I believe the work done by the hon. member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray), who spoke so eloquently earlier this afternoon, and the work of the former member for St. Paul's, Mr. Ian Wahn, former chairman of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, has played an important part in establishing this more rational climate and contributing to public understanding. I also believe that the first bill, the bill of my predecessor, Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin, which provided for the screening of takeovers contributed to that understanding. I believe parliament's consideration of Bill C-132, which I introduced, also contributed remarkably to that understanding. This was the bill that extended the screening process to include the establishment of new businesses by non-eligible persons outside of Canada, and the establishment of new businesses by non-eligible persons already in Canada, into unrelated areas. It became law, as hon. members will remember, with the proclamation of the first part last April. Since then, the foreign investment review agency has received certifiable applications for approximately 70 screenable transactions.

There is not time this afternoon to go into a lengthy analysis of the significant benefits to Canada that were negotiated with the applicants, but I want to emphasize three particular points. I think it is fair to say that the takeovers which have been allowed will mean healthier Canadian enterprises. They will mean more competitive enterprises. They will means more jobs for Canadians now and in the future. The second point I wish to make is that it is apparent that some foreign takeovers have not gone forward which would have taken place in the absence of the act. It is not possible to quantify such a statement, but information that comes to my attention from time to time indicates that some foreign investors who had been thinking of takeovers which clearly would not have satisfied the significant benefit test sensibly chose not to go to the trouble of making an application.
My third point is that it has not been possible to complete many reviews of proposed acquisitions within 60 days. If the minister is not satisfied with the initial undertakings given by an applicant, he must-this is an obligation imposed upon him by the act-before disallowing such an application give the applicant a second chance to clarify or to increase the undertakings in order to meet the test of significant benefit to Canada. As the Canadian corporate sector and their advisors-their lawyers and accountants-gain more experience with the operation of the agency, I expect that the length of time required to process an application will diminish. I suspect that initially these groups, or some of them, may have wanted to feel out the agency. Perhaps some of them were also a litte naive, not believing that we would indeed insist upon the test of significant benefit to Canada.
In this connection, I must emphasize that the results being obtained would not have been possible if the arguments of some hon. members opposite, and some Senators, had prevailed, namely that we adopt a no detriment test instead of the test that was adopted, that of significant benefit. When asked during the hearings by the standing committee when I would expect the proclamation of the second stage of the act, that is, the stage which would screen the establishment of a new business by a non-eligible person not then in the country as well as the establishment of a new business by a non-eligible person in the country into unrelated areas of activity, I said that two things had to happen first. First, the agency needed to gain experience in screening takeovers. Second, I wanted to consult with the provinces on the mechanism of consultation itself.
From a standing start early this year, the agency has made, I believe, very considerable progress in administering the first part of the act. In this regard, I am able to report to the House that co-operation between provincial governments and the agency in relation to current takeover cases has thus far been encouraging. The consultations with the provinces are well along and will be completed in the relatively near future. I would expect, therefore, that phase two should be proclaimed before the end of the year.
I should now like to draw attention to a new and important aspect of foreign investment policy. Members will be aware of the election promise made by the Prime
October 10, 1974

Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in the Sault. The Prime Minister said that the Liberal Party of Canada sets as its objective that new, major projects in the natural resources field should have at least 50 per cent, and preferably 60 per cent, Canadian equity ownership. As there are overlapping responsibilities for the development of Canada's natural resources shared by both the federal government and the provinces, he said we would hope to pursue this objective jointly with the provinces.
Such an objective, it seems to me, should have the support of the vast majority of Canadians. Public attitudes all across Canada have been moving toward more government initiatives in this area. By way of example, earlier this year a national Gallup poll asked this question. I want to emphasize that the question was asked after royal assent had been given to Bill C-132. The question was: "Would you favour, or oppose, legislation that would significantly restrict and control further foreign investment in Canada?" It is significant that a large majority of Canadians answered in the affirmative. And I believe it is just as significant that this support was strong in regions all across Canada. This was a view that was by no means shared, as is sometimes alleged, by a few people in Toronto; it is a view and a sense that is felt by Canadians from coast to coast. Such a policy, Madam Speaker, with respect to the resources industry-equity ownership and Canadian participation-it seems to me should be underlined in these terms.
The objective places particular emphasis on the natural resources of Canada which have been of such central importance to the Canadian economy. It is not too much to say that the strength and vitality of our economy in the past has been based on the successful exploitation of our resources. It seems to me just as important to make the point that the exploitation of these natural resources continues to be the underpinning of our economy today and will be, albeit in greater upgraded form such as the further processing of resources in Canada, in the future. More than that, those who direct and control the large resource companies also have a very significant influence on secondary manufacturing in Canada, such as the location of plants in Canada or outside or the kind of upgrading that takes place in Canada. The process of vertical integration from the raw material through to the semi-fabricated product, and in some cases the fully manufactured product, extends the influence of those who control our resource companies right through the manufacturing sector.
Such a policy objective recognizes that the natural resources of Canada are part of the patrimony, the birthright, of Canadians. It recognizes that many of the natural resources of Canada are non-renewable and are being depleted. It recognizes that ownership and control of many of the companies engaged in the development of these resources is held outside Canada. But the policy objective is not retroactive; instead it looks to the future. It recognizes that by insisting upon 50 per cent, and preferably 60 per cent, equity ownership in major new projects over a period of time we can achieve a repatriation of majority ownership and control of the resource companies in Canada. Quite clearly, if each new, major project in a non-renewable resource development requires 50 per cent, and preferably 60 per cent, equity ownership
The Address-Mr. Gillespie
by Canadians, and the existing properties continue to deplete, sooner or later there will be significantly greater Canadian participation.
Such a shift in ownership could also bring with it shifts in control to Canadians. And with shifts in control, the direction of a firm would be more and more sensitive to Canadian opportunities in Canada and opportunities for Canadian companies abroad. Let us not delude ourselves, because if Canada is to play its full role in international development, Canadian-based multinational companies should be major contributors. Too often now, Canadians are not enjoying the same opportunities in developing markets because the Canadian companies which have expertise in a particular area are subsidiaries of multinational firms. Too often the head office of the multinational firm decides who goes where, and the chances are that it will not be the Canadian subsidiary that gets the assignment.
I have heard it argued that there could be difficulties with such a policy because there will not be enough Canadian money to finance such a policy. At the moment there is a real problem in financing long-term projects wherever they may be. The capital markets of the world have been severely disrupted by inflationary forces and balance of payments considerations. Both equity and longterm debt financing have been affected. But those who assume that there will not be enough Canadian money around are not usually referring to the present condition of the capital markets. Indeed, they are not distinguishing between debt and equity investment.
It is true that originally many of our resource projects were financed by both debt and equity from abroad. But in the past decade a major source of funds for the development of Canadian natural resources has been developed internally, within Canada-within the company or corporation-in the form of debt financing raised on the Canadian capital markets. Relatively small amounts of equity capital have continued to come from outside. To illustrate this, a report prepared by my department on foreign-owned subsidiaries in Canada between 1965 and 1972 shows that of total funds available to companies of about $7 billion, more than $6 billion-or 90 per cent- came from funds either generated within the company in Canada or borrowed on the Canadian capital markets, and debt capital raised in Canada amounted to more than $500 million. This compares with equity capital from abroad of about $700 million and a decline of about $100 million in debt owing abroad. For those who are still worried about the sums of money involved, I can reassure them by saying that the typical new project in a natural resource industry involves about four times as much debt as equity. That is a ratio of close to four to one in the new project.
Clearly, it seems to me, we should concentrate much more in the future on raising equity in Canada rather than abroad, and to the extent necessary we should be raising the larger amounts of debt capital, that is, the part that is four times as great-the four to one ratio to which I referred-from abroad. In considering this policy objective, I think it is clear that a lot of consultation needs to be undertaken with the provinces and with those in the industry itself if we are to realize this as a national objective. This is not a project which can be put into place

October 10, 1974
The Address-Mr. Malone
overnight. We need to define a number of important criteria. What industries? For starters I would suggest the fishing industry, the forest industry, the petroleum industry, that is oil and gas, the mining industry, and pipelines.
As I have already noted, we hope to have the co-operation of the provinces in working out the mechanics of attaining such an objective. In that connection I can report that I have already started the process; I have already raised the question in a preliminary way with some provincial premiers and provincial ministers of industry. I hope to continue these discussions across Canada both at the ministerial and official levels. I believe this policy initiative will in the long term be one of the most important measures taken in a series of measures aimed at providing for Canadians greater control over their domestic economy, of providing greater participation for Canadians in working out the priorities and objectives of their economic development, and greater participation for Canadians in the benefits of that economic development.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I feel very privileged in having the opportunity to rise in this chamber and make my maiden address. It will not be, perhaps, as flowery as the one earlier today and might even be considered morre like a cauliflower, but I look forward to my experiences in this distinguished place among the kind of people who have contributed so much to the traditions of this House. I look forward to serving the constituents of the Battle River area, situated in the province of Alberta. This area was served by the late Harry Kuntz, who passed away last November. There is one thing I can say as a tribute to Mr. Kuntz: if there was anything that stood out in his character, it was that he was a humble man. During my very short experience as a member of this House, I have realized that this is at least one tribute that I hope to retain in serving the people of Battle River.
There are a number of things one might speak about in a maiden speech. I should like to spend some of my time referring to specific problems in my constituency, but I should like to take up most of my allotted time speaking about a subject I consider of tremendous importance not only to the people of my area but to mankind as a whole. I refer to the lack of status as far as agriculture is concerned. I will deal first with a specific problem, whichh is not a small problem to those who are faced with it. In the east end of my constituency, television reception is very inferior to that received elsewhere in the mainstream of Canadian life. If television were only a source of entertainment, or an entertaining media, one might be inclined to ask, "So what?" The fact is that television provides far more than just entertainment. It is a means by which children develop language and a way in which people learn to conceptualize ideas and learn about the country in which they live.
While the area of which I speak does not have the density of population of many other areas-and I concede that there are no major centres there from which stations spring-the fact is that there is a void in the development of language and culture among the young. We, as Canadians as a whole, cannot allow such a void to exist anywhere in this country. A few days ago reference was made in the

House to our senior citizens being a class or group of people who do not receive the status they should receive in Canada. I asked the minister responsible for the sending out of old age pension cheques whether any consideration was being given to removing the term "old age". His response was that never had any cheques returned because they were called old age pension cheques. I am sure no one in this House will return our cheques because they carry the words "Government of Canada".
Madam Speaker, I think it is very important that we reflect upon this class and realize it has earned its status through years of dedication to this country. I believe this country ought to thank them with a language which denotes a higher degree of respect than the words "old age". I cannot think of anything more insulting than the expression "old age", lest it be having to live in the glowing embers wing of Sunset's Glow old folks' home. These citizens command our respect. For a few moments, before getting to the major thesis of my maiden speech, I should like to share some of the feelings I have about LIP grants and some of the disparities which exist in respect of those grants. If we look at the situation, we see that the province of Quebec receives from such grants an amount of $34,601,000, compared to the province of Manitoba, the province of Saskatchewan, the province of Alberta, the province of British Columbia and the Northwest Territories which receive only $13,695,000 collectively.
I am well aware that this is based on unemployment. Obviously, unemployment in Quebec is larger than in these other areas. I have chosen these two areas because they have populations which are almost equal. However, there is a factor which is not being observed. In essence, the prairies export their unemployment. The need for jobs on the prairies is just as great as anywhere in Canada. If we look at the statistics concerning what has happened between 1961 and 1971, we find that in the rural population of Alberta we have lost 57,113 people. In Saskatchewan, in the same decade, we lost 91,000 people. In Manitoba there was a loss of 31,000. While there was an increase in population in rural British Columbia, there was a net loss of farm population in that province.
Anyone who has had the experience of driving through the small, dying towns of the prairies must realize that because there is no unemployment is no reason to believe there is no need for the creation of employment. I say it is an unjustifiable situation to find $34 million being applied to one province while another area of equal population, but much larger in size, receives $13 million.
I should now like to turn to what I call the thesis of my maiden address. Agriculture at the producer level is not treated as an industry. There are many reasons for this. It is not treated as an industry because it is a soil resource. It is not treated as an industry because of the market situation. I should like to deal with some of these points in depth, in order to show what the situation is and its implications. The Niagara peninsula in Canada essentially has been wiped out by other industries. The Okanagan Valley has been exploited in order to encourage development other than agriculture.
October 10, 1974

I think one myth which exists in this country is that Canada has a large amount of good soil. The fact is that there are only 24 million acres of agricultural land in Canada. Only about 2 million of those acres fall into the category of first-class soil, while about 10 million acres fall in the second class. We might ask ourselves, what seems to be the problem? The problem is that when industry develops, it does so right in the heart of agricultural land. This should not come as a surprise. In the historical context we find that very often cities are built right in the midst of prime soil. Our great cities on the prairies, Winnipeg, Saskatoon, Regina, Lethbridge, Red Deer and Edmonton-which essentially, with the exception of Calgary, include every major city-were built right in the middle of old geological lakebeds, on silted-out soil; some of the finest soil we have. While all of that takes place, about 12,000 people a day die of starvation or malnutrition. In this situation, I think we can simply say this: neither this country nor any other country can afford to give up a single square inch of agricultural land for non-agricultural use without first making the important decision as to whether or not there is an alternative.
Because it might seem that there are other alternatives, we might ask whether cities should be allowed to expand over a space if under that space there are known to be tar sands, copper ore, iron ore or any other kind of resource. The fact is that because the cities do extend across agricultural land, farming is viewed as a life style rather than an industry, because no other industry would allow its resource to be simply taken away, especially when the need for them is so great.
There is another myth, that is, that in Canada there is a great deal of good land. The fact is that if this country doubled its population by the year 1995, we would have tremendous difficulty feeding ourselves at the level of nutrition we now enjoy. The situation is extremely serious. While we see acres and acres of prime land being used as backfill for factories and for places on which to build houses, we find elsewhere a situation such as was described to me by a friend who worked for CUSO. He worked in a leper colony. While there, he sent a sample of soil to be tested. When it was returned he found that it contained no nitrogen, no phosphorous and no potassium.
At the same time, we in Canada have no ethical value for what is the most important of our resources. It is so important, in fact, that in the 50,000 years man has inhabited this earth he has had, in each and every day, food or has been in search of food. It is only in the last 100 or 200 years that resources such as oil and iron ore have been popularly used. In no way would we put in roadbeds, or develop cities in areas where there are only mines, without any thought for protecting the areas in which they exist.
Another thing I can say about the agricultural industry which shows it has not had the protection it should, is that in 1964 the farmer's portion of the food dollar was 42 per cent. In 1967 it was only 40 per cent. In 1971 it was 36 per cent of what we spent on food. In order to bring to the attention of the House and to those who think that the farmer is getting a good return for his grain, I would point out that only 3Vz cents of the price of a 25-cent loaf of bread is received by the farmer. That means that on what
The Address-Mr. Malone
is normally a 25-cent loaf of bread we would still have to pay 21.5 cents if the farmer gave his wheat away. I think it behooves us to recognize on that point that the prices of agricultural products have not been as high as we assume them to be. Also of importance is to know that the output per man on our farms has increased threefold in the last 20 years. By comparison, other industries have increased by only 1.7 fold. This is a piece of information which again points out the necessity of giving our agricultural producers a higher status than they presently enjoy.
Lately we have heard references to putting consumers on marketing boards such as CEMA. I do not oppose that in principle, but I think we should ask ourselves the following question about the agricultural situation: Why is it that when it comes to the consumption of food we give a different status to agriculture? To be sure, when we look at situations such as exist in the automobile industry and the farm machinery industry, the consumer certainly has no say with regard to what the price of those products ought to be. If we treated farming as we treat other industries, we would pay it the same respect as all other industries. If we believe that the consumer has the right to speak out, we should grant the same right to everyone throughout industry.
I also think we discriminate against agriculture by the establishment of unfair freight rates such as those which exist in a large portion of the farm producing area, namely, the prairie provinces. When you consider that it costs twice as much to ship processed rapeseed-meal from Toronto to Lethbridge as it does to ship the raw rapeseed from Lethbridge to Toronto on the same rolling stock, you realize that obviously something is wrong, to the extent that we should ask ourselves where the whole agricultural processing industry is bound to be, because we have to compete against an unfair freight system. When we consider that it is possible to ship products from Toronto to Vancouver and back to Calgary cheaper than sending them directly to Calgary, we realize that the prairie provinces are in jeopardy because they simply cannot compete. That is partly what is stifling the area. While the rationale for cheaper rates to the west coast is based on competition with the water route, the fact is that competition does not really exist in the landlocked provinces. Trucks simply cannot compete with water transportation.
With regard to the status of agriculture, I should like to say that the need for food is so great that the world has not yet really measured the crisis in which it finds itself. We must realize that an additional 77 million people are born in India every year. That is almost four times the present population of Canada. There is no way in which we can neglect the importance of giving agriculture a very high status and the importance of pouring an increasing amount of money into the development of agricultural research, for undoubtedly in that area we find the most important problems facing us today.
The government must abondon its placid attitude while going amidst the haste and noise, because the fact is this universe is not unfolding as it should. Although 12,000 people a day are dying of starvation, those who are studying the problem say that this number is insignificant in the perspective of what will happen. It is even more

October 10, 1974
Adjournment Motion
insignificant in light of the fact that we are experiencing throughout the world a tremendous decrease in this year's agricultural production. We cannot wish for a miracle which will allow us to feed the multitudes with five little fishes and three loaves of bread. Do not think that I am trying to paint a picture of doom whereby the world will end at 10 a.m. tomorrow, which would be 10.30 in Newfoundland, but the situation is critical. It is of such importance and needs so much attention that every effort should be made to increase the status of agricultural production and of agricultural research; for the issue is mankind.
Food comes from two sources only, from the soil and from the water. If we were to distribute food evenly amongst the people of the world today, there would be barely enough carbohydrate to go around, and certainly not enough protein. That, coupled with the fact that on the South American and African continents 45 per cent of the population is under the age of 15, an age at which nearly two times the amount of protein intake of adults is required, should make us realize that the world is heading into a crisis unlike it has ever experienced before. It cannot be too late to concentrate our efforts on the improvement of our agriculture, for indeed if we do not the result will be mass starvation and we will go down in history as people who have not paid attention to what we have known the facts to be.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 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 Egmont (Mr. MacDonald)-House of Commons-Suggested reform of procedures-Guidelines on access to information-Request for public discussion; the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau)-Consumers-Possible solution to conflict between employees and employer at the Saint-Hilaire refinery; the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Wise)-Finance-Alleged denial of loans by chartered banks under Small Businesses and Farm Improvement Loans Acts.


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.
Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate you, as well as the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Jerome), for his appointment as Speaker of the House. I have known the hon. member for Sudbury for over six years. I met him at the language school at CFB Saint-Jean, Quebec, where members were taking French courses. He benefited a lot from the French immersion course given there. He speaks both official languages of this country with ease.
I would also like to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne.

Mr. Speaker, I believe I have something of a unique record in this House. I have contested six federal elections and won every second one. I have a batting average of 500. Nevertheless, as I say to my friends, I do not look forward to the next one one with any great enthusiasm at this point. In the constituency of Ottawa West nearly 85 per cent of the polls were taken from a historic riding known as Carleton. In the 97 years from Confederation until 1963, that riding was represented by the Conservative Party in an unbroken record. I had the honour to be the first Liberal ever to be elected to that seat.

Mr. Speaker, the ridings in the Ottawa area, even in Ontario, are not the same. In my riding, for example, only 11.2 per cent of my voters are French-speaking.

Ottawa West is not like many of the other Ottawa area ridings. The socio-economic characteristics of the majority of its residents are much closer to those of the ridings represented by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carle-ton (Mr. Dick), and in some respects the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt). I have to admit that the voters have not entirely seen the error of their ways and have not been generally sympathetic to the Liberal Party.
An ex-member of parliament, now a member of the press gallery, devoted his column one day to Ottawa area MPs. He said that they were a strange breed with a strange local disease-that was an excessive and partisan support of the public service, a subject of much less concern to MPs from other parts of the country. Indeed, the majority of members of parliament who take an interest in the public service are not on the whole sympathetic to it. Their view is, I regret to say, to regard it as a large organization somewhat parasitic on the taxpayers. I admit that I am concerned and sympathetic to the public service in which I served for some nine years as an economist. If an Ottawa area MP does not show concern and sympathy, I do not know who will. In Ottawa West I tend to hear a different side of the problem from that known to many other members, even many of those from the Ottawa region.
I have to report that in my opinion a serious problem exists in the public service today. It is reflected in part in the degree to which the staff associations are chosing the strike route rather than the arbitration route in the legislation available to them. Unless the government acts, I
October 10, 1974

fear we will face a series of increasingly militant staff associations and strikes. Some measures can be taken right away by the government. It is now seven years since the basic legislation establishing collective bargaining was enacted, and changes in the law are overdue. In this connection, I was pleased to read in the Speech from the Throne that the government proposes to enact changes to the Public Service Staff Relations Act.
Some four years ago, the government appointed the Bryden committee to deal with the whole question of changes to be made to existing legislation, but its report was apparently unsatisfactory. In April of this year we received the Finkelman report, some of whose recommendations will no doubt be reflected in the legislation to be placed before parliament. In the near future I hope that a parliamentary committee will have referred to it not only the proposed amendments to the Public Service Staff Relations Act but also the Finkelman report itself, with opportunities for staff associations and individuals to appear and present briefs. I sincerely hope that these hearings will not be prolonged and that a report generally acceptable to all parties in the House of Commons can be adopted. We could then expect legislation to be drafted and passed in the second or third session of this parliament.
The second subject I want to raise today is the development of bilingualism in the public service. This was referred to by the mover in this debate (Mr. Duclos) and by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in his statement. With the adoption of the 1973 guidelines, with the designation of positions by specific language requirements and the protection of those employees with long service under the grandfather clause, many of the sharp edges of the policy have been blunted. There still remains a great deal of fear, misunderstanding and concern on the part of many public servants, however, and it would be folly to deny that this situation exists. Many unilingual public servants genuinely believe that their careers have been prejudiced by the policy. I have found that a number refuse to take their cases to the language commissioner because of some unfortunate remarks that he was quoted as making in the press.
A special situation exists in government departments that have been moved or are about to be moved to Hull. A recently reported resolution of Hull city council, objecting to the presence of federal departments which dilute the francophone character of Hull, has been severely criticized by some people in Ottawa, including Mayor Pierre Benoit. If the unanimous resolution of the federal-provincial conference in February, 1969 is to be adopted, to the effect that the national capital include parts of Quebec as well as of Ontario, then I do not understand how federal language policies for public servants can be different in Hull from what they are in Ottawa. The enactment of Bill 22 in Quebec cannot change the matter, since it is a principle of constitutional law, as I understand it, that a province cannot legislate with regard to the federal government any more than a municipality can in respect of a province. In this connection, Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased with the reply of the Prime Minister to the question I put to him today concerning the effect of Bill 22 on the public service in Hull.
The Address-Mr. Francis
Perhaps I could cite a few case histories of complaints brought to me. It is always dangerous to cite case histories because one is perhaps hearing one side and no doubt cases can be offered on the other side. One family in the west end of my riding has lived, on both the mother's and the father's side, in the Ottawa Valley for four generations. She is of French-speaking origin, he is English, and no better examples of religious and cultural tolerance could be cited anywhere. After over 30 years in the public service, he is now employed as a supervisor of maintenance in the government printing bureau in Hull. Men and women with whom he has worked for years will no longer speak English to him. Some of them say that Bill 22 in Quebec makes it illegal for them to speak English at work. At the age of 59, this man is taking early retirement. Fortunately, he will not be penalized unduly in his pension, but he did not plan to retire at this point.
In the same family, a teenage daughter has been employed as a casual clerk, first for a period of six months, then a second period of six months. She is called in and complimented on her work and told she will be made permanent. Shortly afterwards she is laid off and replaced by a bilingual clerk. I know that the process of replacement of anglophone public servants in ensuring a more substantial presence of francophones in the public service is endorsed by all parties in this House. I accept that, but I have to report that a constituency such as mine has to bear the brunt of the changes. I also respect the fact that the changes will probably be accelerated. I am simply calling attention to certain situations because these people are in the constituency I represent.
Another employee of the printing bureau was engaged in the reproduction of background papers on Danish achievements in Greenland, to be offered to the public on the occasion of a special display in the national gallery at Ottawa. The original display had been presented in New York. At the last minute, someone realized that no French translation of the background papers was available although they had been reproduced in English. The display was held mainly with visual materials, and none of the special background papers which were available only in English were distributed.
To the credit of the person who spoke to me, when I asked what would have happened if the display had originated in French and distributed without any form of French background material, he replied that of course these should have been distributed. We have to be mature enough to realize that someone loses in displays like this if the material is not made available. I know this is a small matter, but I should like to call the attention of the House to a situation where the work is done, papers are printed, material is produced and then it is not used. It appears to the people who work in such situations that the procedure is wasteful.
A woman supervisor is offered a French language course, after which it is indicated that she might receive a promotion. She is only three years away from retirement age, however, and fears that she might not do well. Furthermore, she believes it is a waste of public funds to give her priority to attend a language school ahead of a younger woman who might do better. She declines the language

October 10, 1974
The Address-Mr. Francis
training and the possible promotion which would have made a substantial difference to her pension.
I could go on. I cite these case examples of the kind of things I hear about, the kind of things we will have to do our best to work out in terms of fair rules. As I said, there are no doubt injustices on the francophone side. I do not know how we can rewrite history. In many ways, I wish we could. I wish there were ways of compensating for the injustices that have occurred in the past. The fact is, we cannot do it in that kind of order.
I believe we have an obligation to make rules work. That is what I will attempt to do as a member of this House. It should be possible for a unilingual person to enter the public service and plan a career with confidence in the knowledge of which positions will be open to him or her. I find too many young people under the mistaken impression that all positions and all careers will require knowledge of two languages. Hopefully, the completion of the process of designation of positions by language requirements will clarify the choices available. At the same time, competence in the two official languages will always be desirable, and essential for some positions.
As far as language training is concerned, it may be that our language schools will have to become more efficient. I must say, I have the highest regard for those who gave me instruction in St. Jean, Quebec. I do not think we could have had better instruction. I have the highest confidence in the way the staff went about their job. In making these schools more efficient, this may best be achieved by selecting younger candidates and those with higher aptitudes for language training. Those now in language schools who are not making progress may find that training will not continue to be available to them.
Over the longer view, I believe the government of Canada will have to consider how the public service is handled in cabinet. The recent British experience may or may not be helpful in this regard. Great Britain created a ministry of the public service, under the direction of a junior minister who reports to the prime minister in cabinet. The independent public service commission which had previously selected and placed new applicants was abolished and its functions combined with the new ministry.
One of the unforeseen consequences of collective bargaining in the Canadian public service has been the expansion of the power and responsibilities of Treasury Board. Treasury Board is the employer voice. It bargains for the employer in negotiations with the staff associations. In this regard, I congratulate the new President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) for the spirit in which he has undertaken his duties. I know he is examining the structure in an effort to see what he can possibly do to make the system work.
I believe there is no need to create a new department of government in Canada, but I have not closed my mind on the subject. Certainly, those functions of the government related to the public service which are not now exercised by Treasury Board will have to be more closely co-ordinated. I offer the following examples. First, take the question of who will deal with the Finkelman report. The Bryden

committee was named by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) when he was solicitor general. Disposition of the report became the responsibility of the House leader, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen). Presumably the new House leader will be responsible for the Finkelman report.
Second, the public service commission normally reports to parliament through the Secretary of State. A former member of the commission claimed that the Secretary of State's department was merely the mailbox through which the commission's report was transmitted to parliament. The public service commission claims that it reports directly to parliament. That was the testimony given before the miscellaneous estimates committee two years ago. I was told by a senior minister of the Crown that if I, as a member of parliament, wanted to say anything to or about the commission, I should appear at the hearings of the miscellaneous estimates committee. Once per year the commission presents its estimates to that committee, sometimes for as brief a period as half an hour, and not always every year.
I ask those present in this chamber if anyone believes that this procedure can give effective direction or guidance to the commission. A member of parliament has to be alert indeed to catch the appearance before the miscellaneous estimate committee. Meanwhile, members of the public service commission, at least prior to 1973, felt free at any time to make speeches and announce policies that had a substantial political impact. The chairman actually argued in a letter to me that while he was free to speak, I as a member of parliament could only reply to him when he appeared, usually once per year, before the miscellaneous estimates committee. I do not accept those ground rules.
Third, a similar situation exists with regard to the Commissioner of Official Languages who reports to parliament. Surely a position as important as this should receive more specific guidance and direction from the executive branch of government. I believe the commissioner also once per year presents his estimates to the miscellaneous estimates committee, presumably to receive his direction from parliament on the conduct of his office. I am a member of that committee. I made a request in writing to its chairman that the Commissioner of Official Languages be one of the witnesses called. I am not on the striking committee. If the striking committee approves this, he will be called. However, there is no assurance he will be called even once per year. How can this possibly be a satisfactory arrangement? The commissioner, who is a missionary in his work, attempts also to be a language ombudsman. In my opinion, he has impaired his role as a language ombudsman. He would profit from more direct supervision by a cabinet minister.
Fourth, we hear a good deal these days about underrepresentation of women in the public service. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Mun.ro) supervises the women's bureau and is also responsible for implementation of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That has been changed: it is the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
October 10, 1974


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I stand corrected. That illustrates my problem more clearly in terms of who I have to deal with to work out this matter. The public service commission has special advisers on the recruitment of women, and Treasury Board also has a special assignment regarding women's problems. Fifth, the whole question of the extension of collective bargaining to sectors of the public service where it does now exist, also has to be examined. Presumably, Treasury Board must take the initiative before anything will happen. To take one example, I am sure many Canadians were as concerned as I to learn of the steps to create an association in the RCMP. In this case the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) is the responsible minister. I believe he is a very competent, sincere and conscientious minister and I do not wish this to be a reflection on him. I do not feel confident, however, that the matter has been resolved to date.
The list could go on and on. The British created a separate ministry to co-ordinate these functions and bring them together under one roof. In the British case, those members of Treasury Board were dealing with staff associations in an employer capacity appear to be the nucleus of the new ministry. I have some doubt about the wisdom of such a step for Canada. I have suggested that a minister of the Crown, who could be presumed to be sympathetic to organized employees, co-ordinate all those functions not presently exercised by Treasury Board. The Minister of Labour comes to mind. This is the day of sympathetic ministers. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) is sympathetic to the farmers, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) and Mrs. Plumptre to the consumers, the Minister of State responsible for the fisheries (Mr. LeBlanc), to the fishermen, and so on. Why not one minister sympathetic to public servants who could counterbalance the strong employer voice of Treasury Board in cabinet?
The last subject with which I should like to deal today is the subject of parliamentary reform, to which reference was made by the Prime Minister. I see that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has a motion down to abolish the Senate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is the best kind of reform!


Cyril Lloyd Francis: It may be that in its wisdom this House will endorse such a measure. I know there were some very useful suggestions made by the Prime Minister, many of which I shall be pleased to support. But there is one aspect of them which causes me concern. It relates to Senate appointments. The Prime Minister is reported on page 44 of Hansard for October 2 as saying:
First, we should limit the duration of Senatorial appointments to a certain number of years, seven, for instance, with the option of reappointing Senators when they have well served their country.


Stanley Howard Knowles: When they have been good.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Speaker, who is to determine when Senators have well served their country? What objective tests are there for determining this? Would members of
The Address-Mr. Francis
the Senate decide among themselves? I do not know how they would do it. If the suggestion implies that the executive branch of government should make the decision, I ask hon. members to think it through very carefully because it would apply not only to government supporters in the Senate but also to members of the opposition in the Senate, a small and dwindling group.
I am not talking in terms of any individual prime minister. I pose the question generally: what would be the chance of reappointment of a Senator who had taken sharp issue with the government of the day on a fundamental matter of policy? I know it is usual in many quarters to picture Senators as wealthy business directors, former party bagmen, and so on. But there are many distinguished members of the other place who do not have private resources available to them, and they are full-time Senators. As they neared the end of a seven-year term, how many could resist looking over their shoulders to make sure that the cabinet, especially the prime minister, was not offended by anything they said or did? What would be the effect on their independence, the very quality which is supposed to be the essence of the Senate?
I believe the greatest weakness in the Senate is the lack of a strong parliamentary opposition. Any proposal which would make reappointment subject to the discretion of the executive branch should be thought through very carefully indeed.
The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) raised a whole series of points concerning the functioning of the National Capital Commission and its relationship to the federal government structure in this area. I understand that a special committee will be dealing with this matter and, as one member of this House, I certainly intend to take a conscientious interest in the work of that committee. The report of the former chairman of the Commission, Mr. Douglas Fullerton, will, no doubt, be the basis of the examination which is to be carried out.
I wish to pay tribute to Mr. Fullerton for his imaginative and innovative use of public funds and public lands. However, I wish to take issue with him on one score and express quiet but firm disagreement with him. He may have been right in a number of things, but I do not think he was right when he proposed that part of the Experimental Farm should be used for housing. Despite the fact that there is a serious housing shortage in this area I do not think my constituents would choose to sacrifice an open space which is such a precious thing for the community.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the speech just made by the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) and, because he complained publicly that his defeat in 1972 was due to the language policy of the federal government, I would simply like to ask him if he can say whether his voters finally understood the language policy of the federal government having reelected him in 1974, or whether he gave the necessary explanations! In any case, Mr. Speaker, I congratulate him on his reelection.

October 10, 1974
The Address-Mr. Hnatyshyn


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I listened to the hon. member in French and had a little difficulty with the question. I propose to answer the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle) at the appropriate time and in an appropriate place. When I was a member of a previous parliament he attacked me on a number of occasions in the press. I did not choose to reply then. I am simply speaking for my constituents. I am sure there will be an appropriate time at which to reply to the hon. member.


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: On this question of privilege-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That is not a question of privilege.


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: The fight is not over.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill C-12, to provide for the resumption of grain handling operations on the west coast of Canada, without any amendment.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

['It will be understood that the hon. member will resume his remarks after the adjournment.']
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received the following communication:
Ottawa, October 10, 1974 Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that His Excellency the Right Honourable Bora Laskin, P.C., Administrator of the Government of Canada, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 10th day of October, at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to a Bill.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
Andre Garneau Brigadier General
Administrative Secretary to the Governor General



[Stage Direction]
The House resumed 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. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time to take part in the debate on the Speech from the Throne for the purpose of making my first remarks to this House as Member of Parliament for Saskatoon-Biggar. I should like to express, with great sincerity my appreciation to my wife and my family for the wonderful assistance they rendered in my election bid to

win a seat in the House of Commons. On rising on this occasion I am reminded of the fact that my father had the great honour of serving in the other place.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I listened with great interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) and, in particular, to his remarks about Senate reform. Speaking from some experience I think the matter raised by the reference in the Speech from the Throne will get a lot of attention in due course.
At the outset I would like to extend to you, Mr. Speaker, congratulations on your election to your very onerous responsibility, that of presiding over the affairs of the House of Commons. Your initial days in this position have demonstrated your desire to exercise this responsibility with fairness.
It seems to me the position of Speaker may in fact be more difficult when one presides over a House in which there is a majority government in the sense that, after all is said and done, the rights of the minority opposition must be guarded and preserved in order that a valid and constructive scrutiny of government legislation, expenditures and actions can be undertaken in the interests of the people of Canada and of democracy. In this pursuit I know you will be constant and dispense even handed justice.
I extend my congratulations as well to the Deputy Speaker, the Deputy Chairman of the committee of the whole, and also to the Assistant Deputy Chairman of the committee of the whole.
I would like at this point to pay a special tribute as well to the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefen-baker) who has, as far as I personally am concerned, been a very great influence in my political life, a gentleman who has exercised great influence over the affairs of this country to the benefit of all Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: We in western Canada are particularly proud of the right hon. member, who continues to serve a record number of terms, and to serve them with diligence and excellence. It is my privilege to serve with him in the House of Commons as he continues his magnificence in debate, just as in the past.
I would be remiss at this point, Mr. Speaker, if I did not also recognize my friend, the Clerk of the House of Commons, Alistair Fraser, Esq., with whom I was previously associated in the other place. I am a newcomer to the House of Commons, as you will appreciate, Mr. Speaker, and, contrary to the normal sequence of events, I had my previous experience in parliament in the Senate. I came from there to the House of Commons and am now a member here, but I spent three years as an executive assistant to the government leader in the Senate, at which time I had the privilege of meeting the Clerk for the first time. I am glad to say that our friendship has subsisted since those days, and he has been most helpful to me as I have assumed my duties as a member of parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
October 10, 1974


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I seem to have the honour of speaking today at a time when I propose to give some food for thought, although food for the stomach is on everyone's minds, and at a time when I think we are also waiting for a visitor. I will therefore commence my remarks and continue after the dinner hour. I should also like to follow the tradition of congratulating the mover of the Speech from the Throne, the hon. member for Montmorency (Mr. Duclos), and the seconder, the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Lee). I follow this tradition of congratulations, but I must be quick to add that these congratulations are in fact sincere, since their speeches were most worthy endeavours in support of the Speech from the Throne, though I must take fundamental issue with what was not said as opposed to what was said in the speech itself.
I have the very great honour to represent the constituency of Saskatoon-Biggar in this thirtieth parliament. It is a constituency encompassing half of the city of Saskatoon and a substantial area west of the South Saskatchewan River which bisects the city of Saskatoon. This constituency is one that encompasses within its boundaries urban and rural areas. The urban area includes the downtown core of the city of Saskatoon, the warehouse and manufacturing areas of the city, and a substantial, growing residential area. In the rural areas there is an important agricultural industry in grain and livestock production, and a potash mining industry.
The population of my constituency is, in a sense, a microcosm of Canada as a whole inasmuch as it includes the city dweller, the farmer, the small town resident, the various ethnic groups represented in our country, and the various vocations, professions and other interest groups of Canada. It is with this background that I approach my duties as member of parliament for the constituency of Saskatoon-Biggar and as I consider the contents of the Speech from the Throne.
The election campaign which took place prior to this session of parliament was not only an opportunity for me to discuss with the electorate my concepts of the issues facing our country today, but, equally important, it was an opportunity for me to receive the benefit of the viewpoints of many of my constituents during my extensive travels throughout the riding.
Both before the election, and since, there has been no question in my mind that the issue preoccupying the average citizen is that of the ever-rising cost of living and spiralling inflation. In hearing and reviewing the Speech from the Throne I was therefore naturally chagrined that the matter most concerning the citizens of our country was given only perfunctory attention. One does not have to be reminded by Statistics Canada of the scope and extent of the rise in the cost of living, as most people in our country face this increase on a day to day basis in the purchase of groceries, clothing, household supplies, agricultural equipment and materials, building supplies, and in the cost of business expenses and other necessities.
Following the election, and in view of the fact that a majority government had been elected to office, it was my hope that the government would take measures to deal with this most pressing problem. The Speech from the Throne can only be described in this context as a document which is measured in volume rather than in context.
Royal Assent
I waited in vain for some indication from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) that his government was in fact prepared to deal with the spiralling inflation which threatens the very fabric of our society in Canada today. Unfortunately, in my view, the Prime Minister avoided any discussion of this area and dealt rather with matters which are of secondary importance in our time of national crisis.
I would urge upon the Prime Minister and the government that they come forward immediately with constructive programs of a priority nature to deal with what I consider to be a crisis. I suggest to the government that there is a general feeling of foreboding among the people of Canada in respect of our economic future; that the average citizen is looking toward this newly elected government to take steps within its constitutional ability to deal realistically with the inflationary threat, and further to take the initiative on the international front and obtain co-operation to overcome the western world's problems of stagflation and international monetary instability.
I was encouraged to learn that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) is engaged in international discussion of the inflation question. I think it is incumbent upon the government of this country to take the initiative, in the interest of its own population, in encouraging international co-operation for the purpose of combatting the plague of inflation. It is of the greatest importance that the national economy provide a correct mix of economic policies that will curb inefficient government spending while protecting the real incomes of those hardest hit by inflation.
During the remarks of the Prime Minister I detected a slip of the tongue when he referred to the creation of a new department involved in interdepartmental relations, which he later corrected to intergovernmental or interprovincial relations.
I hear a knock at the door, Mr. Speaker. I presume I will be able to resume my remarks later.


Mr. Speaker:: It will be understood that the hon. member will resume his remarks after the adjournment.



[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major A. G. Vandelac, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the House that His Excellency the Administrator of the Government of Canada had been pleased to give in Her Majesty's name the Royal Assent to the following bill:
318
[Stage Direction]
October 10, 1974
The Address-Mr. Hnatyshyn
Bill C-12, an Act to provide for the resumption of grain handling operations on the west coast of Canada.
['Hear, hear!', 'October 10, 1974\nAdjournment Debate']
Mr. Speaker:: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m. this day.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed 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.
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, in my first address to this House I was interrupted by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod. We have since supped, and now welcome your presence. I am sure it means something not only to the chamber but to myself to have you preside during my speech.
When I was interrupted by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod I was referring to a speech delivered by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in the debate on the Address in Reply when his turn came on leaders' day. I referred to the fact that I detected a slip of the tongue when the Prime Minister, referring to things the government proposed to do during the course of this parliament, mentioned the establishment of an interdepartmental agency under the direction of his office. Later, however, in correcting himself he immediately said that he was referring to an interprovincial agency within his own office. I suggest this may have been a Freudian slip on his part.
It is hoped the government will as a high priority in fact set up an office to deal with and review all government departmental spending in order to place some sort of significant restraint on government expenditures generally. On the basis of my own observation, after an absence of some years from Ottawa and parliament, I could not avoid being amazed at some of the considerable changes which have taken place with regard to the proliferation of government in the sense that there is a very high increase, for example, in the number of public servants.
The complexity is most baffling to a novice member of parliament. It is baffling to me even though I had an opportunity to observe parliament for some three years. On my return I found that there were so many new departments, agencies of departments, and Crown corporations that it was rather difficult to sort out the particular facets of government. Members of Parliament now have increased assistance but this, in my estimation, is absolutely necessary simply in order to aid them when looking into the complexities of government as it now

stands, a government which, of course, is the largest business in our country.
I suggest to the government it is absolutely essential that it bring forward some plans to make an exhaustive assessment of government spending and, at the same time, bring forward some sort of legislation to ameliorate the social consequences of inflation. The position has now become more than an economic or fiscal problem. Inflation has risen and continues to increase, and must be dealt with as a political problem on political terms, that is to say, in the form of legislation.
Government action must be taken to deal with the effects of inflation on those people unable to protect themselves against the ravages caused by the increased cost of living. I ask the Prime Minister, what of the plight of the elderly, the disabled and the unemployed? These people on fixed incomes, on pensions, in effect are receiving an economic and social scorching, and it is the responsibility of the government to take immediate steps to put out the fire.
When one considers the incredible increase in government budgets, over the past ten years, and the very considerable increase in tax moneys being received by our federal government, one cannot but be astounded at the failure of the government to place the interests of the disadvantaged at the very top of the list of priorities, especially in view of the inflationary problem. The government has been in receipt of considerably increased income through taxation, including the relatively new source of tax on capital gains. In fact it can be said that the government has, in terms of tax income, benefitted from inflation.
The Prime Minister and the government must set an example for the country. Economic and other observers suggest that there is an inflationary psychology which affects the rate of inflation in a national economy. If the government will undertake immediately a realistic appraisal of government expenditures combined with the equally important assessment of assistance to the disadvantaged in our society, the people of Canada will receive this course of action with approbation and will, in fact, join with the government, voluntarily and co-operatively, to meet our most pressing problem head on.
I would like to deal with other aspects of the Speech from the Throne of interest to my constituents but, if I may be permitted to say, also of interest to people generally in Canada. The constituency of Saskatoon-Biggar is primarily reliant on the agricultural industry. I note the general references made in the Speech from the Throne to incentives to farmers and fishermen, including the stabilization of incomes and markets geared to the increase in food production.
The constituents of Saskatoon-Biggar understand the moral responsibility which we have in Canada to maximize agricultural production and to maintain a strong and vibrant industry. This responsibility will weigh heavily upon us as long as we are surrounded by a starving world.
I look forward to the introduction of specific legislation to be brought in by the government in the area of stabilization of farm incomes and markets.
October 10, 1974

Indeed, Madam Speaker, I remind the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Lang) that he was quoted in the Biggar Independent of June 12, 1974, and the Rosthern Saskatchewan Valley News of June 13, 1974, as pledging that a western grain stabilization plan bill would be introduced in parliament within seven days after the new parliament opened. I quote from the Saskatchewan Valley News of June 13, 1974, as follows:
If the Liberal party is elected to form the next federal government, Wheat Board minister Otto Lang will introduce a Western Grain Stabilization Plan within seven days after the new parliament opens.
Mr. Lang made that pledge at a meeting here June 11. He promised Saskatchewan producers if he and the Liberals are re-elected, he will personally introduce such a bill for first reading within the first week of parliament.
The plan, said Mr. Lang, will protect the incomes of prairie grain farmers from being squeezed between rising production costs and low grain prices, should grain prices drop from their current high levels. The farmer's income will be protected whether the squeeze develops from lower revenues or higher costs. This is the only effective and fair way to protect grain producers against inflation.
Knowing the minister represents the other Saskatoon constituency in this House, and knowing that in Saskatoon and surrounding area a man's word is his bond, I call on him now to bring forward the legislation in question for the scrutiny of the western farmers and members of parliament.
We are all aware of the pressures being experienced today by municipalities in connection with their costs, which are escalating at a phenomenal rate and which are being passed on to the taxpayer. Heretofore, many municipalities were granted exemption from sales tax on materials purchased for their own use in a number of areas, such as materials for storm and sanitary sewers and water pollution control plants, equipment with a unit value in excess of $500 used in fire-fighting and road making,-and the material element in buildings to be used as libraries, hospitals and the like.
The budget of last May indicated that the federal sales tax would be removed from articles and materials purchased by local governments for use in the construction of water distribution systems, and from buses and other public transportation equipment purchased by local governments.
I am aware of representations made by the mayor of the City of Saskatoon to the government that, in the forthcoming budget, the list of items used by the municipalities which would be exempt from sales tax should be extended and that it should include materials used in the construction of all municipal buildings, especially buildings housing or fire fighting and police facilities. I urge the government to endorse this suggestion which, if implemented, would in the final analysis lessen the burden on the municipal taxpayer.
The pressure on municipalities due to economic conditions today has resulted in rising prices and costs preventing the construction of much needed hospitals and related facilities, such as senior citizens' homes. At present the ceiling on allowances set by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is $10,000 per bed. Having regard to the escalation in the cost of materials and labour, the allowance ceiling on nursing homes should now be raised to a more realistic level. Municipalities simply are not able to
The Address-Mr. Hnatyshyn
finance the construction of these facilities in view of this limitation on the amount of loans available through the CMHC as the burden falls, with a direct and an immediate thrust, on the municipal taxpayer and he is unable to meet it.
I hope and trust that the government will give immediate attention to increasing the ceiling on loans for such worthwhile projects. In my opinion such an increase would not involve, government expenditures to any significant degree, but would have the effect of softening the burden of expenditures placed on municipalities in the creation of much needed social and medical facilities.
Within and immediately adjacent to the boundaries of my constituency lie the historically important areas of Batoche, Duck Lake, Fort Carlton and Fish Creek. These areas are rich in historic sites, dating back to the Northwest Rebellion of 1885 and beyond that time. An initiative has been taken, Madam Speaker, by residents of this area to develop and maintain the sites for posterity, and they are to be commended for their unceasing endeavours in this connection. There is in the area, at the present time, federal, provincial and local involvement, and representations have been made by the residents of the area for increased federal participation in the development of this complex.
In this regard the assistance of the federal government through its national museums program would be of great assistance and value in preserving artifacts to ensure that they are not lost but are retained for the benefit of the general public. I would urge the government to give favourable consideration to the representations being made by the citizens of these areas, and I hope that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Buchanan) will take a personal interest in the development of national historic parks relating to this area which has been the scene of developments which have significantly affected our history.
The increasing influx of tourists from all parts of our country, notwithstanding the many deficiencies in facilities and access roads to these sites should, I trust, be a significant inducement to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to give his immediate consideration to the representations I have mentioned.
I have another suggestion with respect to our senior citizens, that group of people who, in my estimation at least, have not received the attention and priority that they so richly deserve. It seems to me that there are a number of ways in which governments, aside from the giving of moneys and raising of pensions, can recognize the contribution made by our senior citizens.
Sometimes we can learn an occasional lesson from our neighbour to the south, the U.S.A. I have been impressed with a policy which has been adopted in the United States with respect to senior citizens, and I should like to bring it to the attention of our government, and of the minister responsible for our national parks, with a view to seeing whether something in a similar vein could not be carried out in Canada. I refer to what is termed in the United States "a golden age passport."
Such a passport is issued without charge to any person 62 years of age or over, and entitles the bearer, and any
28305-21'/2

October 10,1974
The Address-Mr. McRae
person accompanying him or her in a single, private, non-commercial vehicle, to enter any designated entrance fee area of the national parks system administered by the responsible department.
The bearer is also entitled to use any designated special recreation facility provided at any federal outdoor recreation area, excluding those provided by a concessionaire, at 50 per cent of the established daily special recreation use fee.
It seems to me that if the government has its priorities in the right order it should be looking at the introduction of some change in the regulations which would be of benefit to this group. It would not involve a very substantial outlay of funds to allow our senior citizens the same right of access as is enjoyed by United States citizens in their country to those parts of our country under federal jurisdiction. I urge this suggestion on the government and hope it will do something about it very soon.
I think I have come close to using all my time or even a little more, Madam Speaker. I appreciate your indulgence, and I look forward to making some contribution in this parliament.


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Fort William):: Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to be able to congratulate the Speaker on his election. I am especially pleased to do so because we in Northern Ontario are very proud to have the Speaker come from our area. As we are aware, Northern Ontario is the very centre of this country, and of course while the Speaker does not come from the exact centre, since the exact centre is Thunder Bay, he does come from that satellite of Thunder Bay, the city of Sudbury, which is about 700 miles away. I think he has already demonstrated the kind of flexibility, the keen grasp of difficult situations, and sense of humour that bode very well for his work in the future.
I should also like to congratulate the mover (Mr. Duclos) and seconder (Mr. Lee) of the Address in Reply, as well as the other members who have been elected to the very important positions of Deputy Speaker, Deputy Chairman of Committees, and the Assistant Deputy Chairman of Committees, the latter being yourself, Madam Speaker.
To form a government in these times is a most difficult task. It has often been said that it would be much easier to be sitting in opposition at this time.


An hon. Member:: Do you want to trade?


Paul Edmund McRae: I do not say that is what I want to do, but I say it is much easier to be there. I think we have to look upon these times as being totally unique.
A great deal has been said about inflation, but we have always had some inflation. We have had rapid inflation in places like China and parts of Europe, and an endemic sort of inflation in South America which has lasted through generations.
Since World War II there has been about 2 per cent or 3 per cent inflation annually. There has been inflation associated with unemployment, which is a peculiarity, and

we ascribe to administered pricing. I do not however think there has been any period in history, except for very short periods, when inflation reached the present level and was sustained at that level. This is inflation which tends to be caused by excessive demand.
I am just using inflation to show how our times are unique, Madam Speaker, but I do not wish to deal with this topic at this time. Since we have not had comparable problems in the past, the traditional attempts to cure them have not worked. I should like to discuss the matter of demand, and study some solution for inflation in terms of doing something about demand, rather than constantly looking at the supply side of the situation.
I agree that we must continue to increase supply, but we must be careful not to create more tense and inflationary situations than we can cure. I should like to examine the demand side in the areas of energy and foods as I think these are extremely important areas and becoming more so all the time.
Before doing that, however, I should like to look at a couple of reasons why demands in energy and food have become almost intolerable. The first reason, I believe, is the relative affluence of the developed countries like Canada and the United States, which has put tremendous pressure on the demand side. This means that supply situations are very difficult to fulfil, and I should like to illustrate that when I speak later about energy.
Certainly the affluent people are consuming a far greater proportion of the world's goods than they did 20 or 30 years ago. I understand that consumption of beef in Canada has increased by about 20 pounds per capita in 12 years. These things create real demand problems.
Another factor is the growing world population. It is increasing by about 2.1 per cent annually; that is 75 million more mouths to feed each year. By the turn of the century the world's population will have doubled. It was something like 3.8 billion in 1970 and will be close to 8 billion by the year 2000 given the present trends, which seem difficult to reverse.
The third factor that contributes to the problem is the fact that more countries are becoming developed, although I do not think this is as large a factor as the two previously mentioned, particularly in the area of food.
I should like to deal with the question of energy now because I think this is one area where we can take action to lessen demand. An article in Oilweek magazine of September 16, 1974, at page 10 quotes Mr. A. E. Pallister, Vice Chairman of the Science Council of Canada, as saying that we must do something about levelling out the demand curve for energy, particularly oil.
He points out that supply curves tend to level off and even decrease under given circumstances. He says that even with the western reserves, the islands and the far north and so on, the supply curves tend to fall short of the demand curves, and even decrease. On the other hand, the demand curve rises steadily and tends to increase its slope through these periods, so that when we get to the mid 1980s where the supply and demand curves cross we will not be able to continue meeting demand.
I think this situation in oil and natural gas applies not only in Canada but throughout the rest of the world. In
October 10, 1974

the case of hydro power we have long passed the stage where supply can be increased substantially. The areas where this can be done are rather limited.
This over emphasis in attempting to meet demand by increasing supply in the energy field is creating some tremendous distortions in our economy and in our environment, as well as tremendous social distortions.
I wish to name one or two of these areas where the distortions are particularly evident. The James Bay project is most disturbing. Parts of the project make sense and may be carried out very easily. However, when we talk about the James Bay project in terms of $10 billion or $12 billion, along with the South Indian Lake project, the proposed Mackenzie Valley Pipeline, and the tar sands investment when we speak about $100 billion of energy investment in the next 10 years, $100 billion, we are talking about creating tremendous problems and a very serious dislocation of our economy. We must ask ourselves whether these projects are worth it? Are there better ways of doing this?
I mentioned the environmental situation. When costing these projects, we must start internalizing some of the external costs. We must internalize the environmental and social costs to the native population.
The South Indian Lake project is not as costly in terms of investment. However, it is very costly in terms of the environment and what it will do to our native people.
There are many things to be taken into consideration. For example, if the James Bay project and several others were being undertaken at the same time with the use of foreign funds, this would distort the picture through increased value of the Canadian dollar. What happens when the Canadian dollar rises to $1.10, $1.15 or $1.20 in terms of an important industry like pulp and paper so sensitive to dollar fluctuation? This is a very important industry in Quebec, northern Ontario, British Columbia and other parts of the country. Industries such as this will suffer with this kind of dislocation.
We must begin rationalizing our efforts to increase supply. Although it is necessary to increase supply naturally, we must look at it very carefully.
I now wish to deal with the Mackenzie Valley pipeline. It appears that perhaps the bottom has fallen out due to the proposition of EL PASSO to run the gas across the Valdez cut. However, it looks as though the oil pipeline will go ahead. The United States government has again mentioned it.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Does the hon. member wish to put a question?


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: The hon. member has just spoken of the James Bay development, now in progress in my riding; before he changes the subject, I wonder if he would be willing to answer a question.
The Address-Mr. McRae


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Does the hon. member for Fort William wish to answer this question?


Paul Edmund McRae: Yes, Madam Speaker.


Gérard Laprise: The hon. member is concerned about the effects of the development of the James Bay energy resources. Would he have anything to suggest other than the hydroelectric development in that area to meet the needs of the province of Quebec in terms of energy?


Paul Edmund McRae: I do not want to get into a long debate on this topic, but I do agree that part of the James Bay project may have some merit as a hydro scheme. However, I also suggest the CANDU reactor type of program has a great deal of merit. I have an interest in this program. It is the kind of thing we should be examining. However, it is a matter of opinion. I feel we should look at alternate ways of doing this.
The Mackenzie Valley oil pipeline is another very large project. It will be a good deal more expensive than the gas project, and much more difficult to engineer by reason of the fact that the oil must be heated to 180 degrees in order to flow through the pipeline. There is also the problem of going through the tundra. There is the very special problem of going through the semi-tundra. Some areas have perma frost, others do not. This will create many problems.
I am very concerned about the Mackenzie Valley situation. A group of members of this House talked to members of the United States congress about a year ago. They indicated they would like this Mackenzie Valley oil pipeline in 1982. I think there is some honesty there.
We have another problem and it is becoming a very dangerous situation. It has to do with the Cherry Point situation. When we talked to the Americans last summer we were assured beyond any doubt that the super tankers that would be plying the waters around the Strait of Juan de Fuca and Cherry Point would be double skinned. There was no question about their being double bottomed. We now find this is not to be the case. These are single skin ships.
On August 29 a Canadian delegation met with the Americans. It is my understanding that this matter was not even raised. We had a commitment that these ships would have double bottoms and there would be other precautions. These precautions are not being taken. It is almost a certainty that a collision will occur, and the whole area around Cherry Point and the islands around Vancouver will be polluted by oil. They will be virtually destroyed environmentally. Situations of this kind must be carefully studied.
I am concerned about ways and means of reducing our demand for all types of energy. This must be done in the most intelligent way possible. For example, we have an office of energy conservation. That office must be given all help possible. We must be prepared to spend money in order to reduce this demand for energy. Money spent in this way would be far more productive than the vast sums

October 10, 1974
The Address-Mr. McRae
of money that will have to be spent if we continue on the path of increasing supply to meet demand.
I wish to spend a moment on the world food situation. Here, increasing supply is all we can do. I well remember sitting in an auditorium in Thunder Bay in the mid sixties when the headmasters of the province of Ontario were being addressed by Dr. Brock Chisholm, a very famous Canadian, and executive director of the World Health Organization. He drew a vivid picture of food problems that would develop in the world in the next 10 to 15 years. He talked about what would happen in the early seventies. His predictions have proven very accurate.
Throughout the sixties there was an increase in food production, not only in the developed world but also the underdeveloped world. However, in 1972, due to a combination of bad weather conditions in various parts of the world and a series of other events, cereal crops were reduced by 33 million tons from a total production of 1200 million tons. In the meantime, while this was going on, 75 million more mouths had to be fed, using 25 additional tons of cereals. So there was a net loss of 58 million tons in 1972. The year 1973 was more favourable but there was still a net loss.
In 1974 the situation may be very grave. There was an extremely wet spring in parts of Canada and the United States, a very dry summer, and an early frost in the fall- the worst possible combination of events. I understand that the crop situation in the U.S.S.R. is also not measuring up to expectations. We find the Sahara desert spreading annually and there is a major famine there.
According to the Canadian Conference on the World Food problem held this week, the world has about 26 days' supply of cereal grains in storage. In other words, if there was a serious stoppage of production of cereal grain, the world could survive 26 days before stocks ran out. A few people are becoming very concerned about the world food situation.


An hon. Member:: You are doing all right!


Paul Edmund McRae: I admit I am one who should, perhaps, be more concerned personally. Earlier I mentioned the causes which led to the present situation, and they certainly have to do with the relative affluence of a few people like myself and a few others around here.
I think the FAO Conference in Rome in November must be regarded as of extreme importance. Something will have to be done. The papers I have seen for use as a basis for the Rome meeting indicate there will be strong pressure in this direction. Here we find a situation in which we must increase the food supply. One way of doing this is to put more land into production. Another is to prevent our cities eating up rich agricultural land. Another is to increase the production of fertilizer, especially of synthetic fertilizer.
We ought to convert more fuel energy into fertilizer. I believe that today 7.9 per cent of our gasoline and 17 per cent of our diesel fuel is used on farms. Vast amounts of natural gas, particularly, are required in fertilizer production today. It is important that natural gas be used for
[Mr. McRae.)
fertilizer in an effort to increase the world food supply rather than being used in directions which are less important.
We should also show more concern about constructing adequate facilities for food storage. We cannot rest easy with 26 days' supply on hand.


Mr. Horner:: Or throwing away 42 million eggs.


Paul Edmund McRae: We must increase supply in order to meet increased demand and, in another area, we must do more than we have yet done to discourage population growth. I was not happy with the results which came out of the recent conference on world population. A great deal of thinking needs to go into this. While the world population continues to double every 33 years there is bound to be a continuing shortage of food.
We must increase the food supply, but at the same time we ought to take a careful look at whether increasing demand should be encouraged. I should like to quote from an address given by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) to the Canadian Conference on Banking in Ottawa on September 16:
I propose to press our view that the best and most effective way to overcome the problem of inflation is through policies aimed at encouraging an increase in output and supply. It is important to moderate demand so as to ensure that output does not press too hard against the physical limits of capacity, which would itself serve to generate inflationary pressures.
That is particularly true in the fuel area.
In the few minutes which are left to me I should like to deal, as is customary on this occasion, with a situation in my own riding, particularly with the transportation facilities at Thunder Bay the part they play in the economic and social life of the country.
If we can picture transportation routes in Canada west of Thunder Bay as being two super highways running almost to Thunder Bay, and Canada east of Thunder Bay as being two village roads running east of Thunder Bay, that is more or less the situation. I will explain it a little further. There is the Trans-Canada Highway. We have two of them with paved shoulders and four lanes in many places running right from Vancouver to the Ontario border, and then we have a country road at the Ontario border, an absolute disgrace, a winding highway with unpaved shoulders. While, this is not what I really wanted to spend time on today, I must say we must do something to improve the Trans-Canada Highway. It is a disgrace. It is time the federal government and the province got together and did something about it.
It is the rail connections I want to talk about because I do not think we all realize the kind of situation we have in this country. We have virtually four lines of rail traffic going into Thunder Bay. We have double trackage on the northern line of the CN, or at least we have two lines running along there. We have a lot of double trackage on the CP west of Thunder Bay coming from the Rockies. We have a line from Sioux Look-out, we have the main line of the CP, and a CN line from Winnipeg through Rainy River. These are all, relatively speaking, good lines, lines built for heavy traffic. I know they are not maintained the way they should be maintained, but that is another story.
October 10, 1974

East of Thunder Bay you find only two tracks, which form second and third rate roads, railroad tracks which cannot take the kind of heavy loading which occurs west of Thunder Bay. Therein lies the importance of the harbour of Thunder Bay. All of the traffic comes from the west and very little flows east by rail. Most of it goes by ship.


An hon. Member:: Not in the last few months.


Paul Edmund McRae: That is right. It has also worried me a great deal that Thunder Bay, through which passes more than twice as much grain as passes through the port of Vancouver, hardly rated in terms of newspaper discussion about the strike.


An hon. Member:: What about the percentage increase?


Paul Edmund McRae: Well, you can talk about percentages if you like. What I am saying is that the port of Thunder Bay, now taking about 20 million tons of all cargo a year, about half the volume of the port of Vancouver, but handling about twice as much coarse grain as Vancouver, is now being asked to take another 10 to 20 million tons per year of coal shipped from the west to the east. We are going to have a growth problem in our harbour, situated in the centre of this country, which must be dealt with soon.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The Chair has been listening to the hon. member and must tell him that the time allotted to him has expired.


Mr. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: I wish to congratulate Mr. Speaker on his election to what I consider to be the most important position of impartiality and justice in this venerable and vital institution, and without being facetious, Madam Speaker, I must say that you are the most attractive Speaker to grace this chair. I hold too in special esteem the Clerks at the table, the backbone of this House, and whose unseen hands in so many ways guide the destiny of the House.
The throne speech pays considerable attention to inflation, a situation in this country that is fast becoming a crisis. Nevertheless the Trudeau government, elected to office with a clear majority on July 8, apparently did not feel the situation sufficiently serious to call parliament into session before September 30. There is something reminiscent of Alice in Wonderland in this attitude of indifference to reality.
It could be said in truth that there is a world wide inflationary situation that affects our economy; but it is less than accurate to say that we can do nothing about it. All of the world's trading nations must do something about world inflation, and soon; each must start by putting its own house in order as far as it can, financially and economically. Regardless of our respective points of view, the problem is squarely before us, and its solution is imperative.
While I have great respect for every committee of this House that deals with the estimates and expenditures of government, and for ministers involved in the preparation of budget estimates, I believe the time has come to take a giant step forward in examining the total impact of gov-
The Address-Mr. Howie
ernment expenditures, and studying new systems and methods that can streamline our operation and lighten the burden on the Canadian taxpayers. As a corollary to this I believe we should examine the impact of government spending on the Canadian economy and its relationship to the inflationary spiral.
Since the royal commission on government organization, commonly called the Glassco Commission, reported in 1962, the $6.5 billion expenditure of that year has tripled in the 12 year interval to some $22 billion, shown in the main estimates before the 29th parliament, and those before this parliament are substantially the same.
In the 12 years since the Glassco Commission reported some outstanding social legislation has been enacted, and federal government assistance to disabled and disadvantaged Canadians has improved immeasurably, both in its quality and amount. Indeed in respect to disabled people, particularly the blind, and in respect to our senior citizens 1 find it easy to support the proposals of my colleagues in this House for even more generous treatment. I personally hope the day will come when the old age pension will no longer be regarded as income for tax purposes.
At the same time I believe we can make some real progress in identifying areas within each department of government which can, and should, provide a service for other departments of government, thus avoiding costly duplication and the tremendous expense of hiring outside professional and other services, and of consulting with experts outside the departments of government.
In department after department of government, estimated expenditures climb. The estimates I referred to earlier show that justice and the administration of our courts had an allocation of $23 million, more than double the previous year's budget. Correctional services were increased by $34 million to $172 million. The RCMP budget increased by $20 million to $125 million. The Food Prices Review Board rose to $1.9 million, up 90 per cent over the previous year. The CBC increased its budgeted expenditures by 25 per cent to $298.8 million. The Post Office went up 17 per cent to $689.7 million. The Commission on Official Languages was up 36 per cent to $1.9 million.
It is imperative that every expenditure receive the closest possible scrutiny, but the time allocated to our House committees to perform this function, and the research facilities needed to dig into it are not sufficient to do the best possible job for the Canadian people. I am sure the ministers of the Crown have done their utmost to cut the fat, and I am confident the opposition will demand every economy; but I feel too that the very essence of our administrative system should also be examined so that, through the combined efforts of all of us, we give the Canadian taxpayer the best break possible.
Our system, despite all its shortcomings, is good, but I think it can be improved. I feel that, considering the tremendous increase in the complexity of government organization since the Glassco Commission of 12 years ago, we need to examine our administrative process in the light of the vast improvements and changes that have taken place in business, accounting, policy auditing, and computerization, and thus ensure that the total delivery system of government best serves the challenge the

October 10, 1974
The Address-Mr. Howie
Canadian people have given us. We need another Glassco type commission now.
Socially and economically rural Canada faces a crisis. The social problems are caused by increased and disastrous depopulation; the economic problems by vulnerable markets and the cost-price squeeze. In my province of New Brunswick, since 1900 approximately 25,000 acres of farmland per year have been lost to agriculture for the purposes of forestry, housing, industrial and commercial development. In 1951 there were 26,431 census farms; in 1971 there were 5,485 census farms in New Brunswick. Rural non-farming inhabitants represent 39 per cent of the population of New Brunswick, a much larger percentage than elsewhere in Canada.
As a major step in revitalizing the agricultural industry I suggest we consider a program to expand the scope and volume of research programs designed to assist agriculture; undertake a comprehensive and sustained program of research into prospective domestic and world market demands for agricultural products, develop and expand secure markets for Canadian agricultural products, and help translate Canada's tremendous agricultural potential into reasonably priced food on the table for Canadians and, indeed, for hungry people throughout the world.
We should also undertake a comprehensive review of transportation requirements to find ways to improve the transport of agricultural products between the regions of Canada and into export position, and to reduce transportation costs to the farmer. We must mount an aggressive campaign to lower world tariffs on farm products, and to overcome other impediments to agricultural exports. We must also design a program to assist farmers to finance the purchase or modernizing of machinery, and to assist in developing a structure of service and community facilities in rural areas.
Each of the Atlantic provinces has developed a very significant livestock and poultry industry, which in New Brunswick alone during 1973 resulted in a farm cash income in excess of $46 million and represented nearly 50 per cent of the total cash income from all farming operations. The farm cash income from poultry, meat and eggs represented nearly 32 per cent of the cash income from all livestock and livestock products, including poultry.
The national policy on feed freight assistance was instituted to assist eastern Canada in producing more food during World War II, and was most successful in achieving this goal. This assistance is of major importance to the poultry and livestock industries in the Atlantic provinces, particularly in view of increasing freight rates and rising costs associated with this area of food production.
Poultry feed must have wheat or corn as the major basic ingredient. Neither of these grains has been grown very successfully in these provinces as yet, and we should be very sure that local grain can and will be grown before freight assistance is reduced. Without freight assistance our livestock and poultry industry, especially hogs and poultry, would be at a great disadvantage in competing even for our own markets against provinces or areas with a shorter rail haul. Wifhout feed freight assistance in New Brunswick we would be in an impossible position.

Recently we have been hearing about becoming self-sufficient in home grown grains. Experience over the years has shown this to be very difficult to achieve. Statistics show that we are subject to three to five crop failures for every good one we enjoy. It is evident that a great deal of work needs to be done to develop new varieties and new techniques before we can even hope to come near being self-sufficient.
At present we produce 30 per cent to 40 per cent of our feed grains and must rely on western Canada for the balance. We have a long way to go before we are nearly self-sufficient enough in feed grains, especially in high energy feed that we must have for poultry feed. Any deterioration in these types of production will result in the loss of many thousands of jobs.
I suggest that realistic assistance to Maritime farmers should include; (1), the expansion of the feed freight assistance program to include all grain, corn, livestock feed protein and phosphates, and that the assistance be indexed to reflect, at all times, the actual and increasing cost of movement; (2) the development of an Atlantic grain program that would include comprehensive handling, drying, storage, marketing and transportation assistance provisions; (3), a crash program to support more extensively research to be conducted in the Mari-times to assist in the development of a hardy species of grain indigenous to Maritime growing conditions and that can be integrated with the potato growing and harvest season; and (4), the development of a system of grain elevators near our ports to purchase and store early in the season a year's supply of needed western grain, to be sold at a constant price throughout the season to Maritime farmers.
I should now like to say a word about our woodlots. In the long run society will derive greater benefits from privately owned woodlots if they are operated by owners who have an interest in their continuing value and yield, rather than be persons who purchase woodlots for cutting rights for the purpose of liquidating the merchantable standing timber in the near future, and who have little or no interest in their other potential value.
Under the rules which currently govern the application of the Income Tax Act, the net returns to an owner-operator of a woodlot are classed and taxed as income. The stumpage value of the trees cut is included. But if a woodlot owner sells cutting rights, called stumpage, to an operator, the proceeds of the sale are classed as the disposal of capital, and only one-half of the increase in value since "V day" is taxable as capital gain. If a woodlot owner has a taxable income, the advantage to him of selling cutting rights, rather than operating the woodlot himself, is obvious.
The operator who purchases cutting rights can claim the cost of the stumpage as an operating cost against the returns from the operation, and the stumpage value is not taxable in his hands. It is true that if an operator-owner can establish a cost base for a woodlot he can claim a capital cost or depletion allowance. However, if the woodlot was purchased several decades ago, or acquired in a way that makes it difficult to establish a cost base, the depletion allowance is likely to be only a small fraction of the stumpage value. There is also the risk that if excessive
October 10, 1974

depletion is claimed, "recaptured depletion" will be taxed as income if and when the property is sold. This provision is less attractive to a woodlot owner than the sale of cutting rights which, as I say, we call stumpage.
The forest resources study in New Brunswick recommends a substantial expansion of the forest extension service, and investment of public funds to encourage more effective operations by woodlot owners. Assessment rolls indicate that there are about 37,000 woodlot owners in New Brunswick, and collectively they own about 25 per cent of the forest land in the province. The percentage of forest land in woodlots is even higher in Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island.
The discrimination against the woodlot owner-operator should be removed by ruling that the stumpage value of the timber he cuts be regarded as the disposal of capital, and subject to capital gains rules instead of being taxed as income. This would do much to increase production while reducing costs and stabilizing the market.
Let me say a word about tidal power, which has long been advocated by the hon. member for Cumberland-Col-chester North (Mr. Coates). We have a great and immediate problem in this country regarding a most vital situation, a matter which will drastically affect our whole social and economic structure; the energy situation.
Unless the government takes early and appropriate action the Atlantic provinces, which are now starting to narrow the gap of their economic disparity with the rest of the country, will be the section of the country which will particularly receive a severe blow if some long-range and constructive national energy policy is not implemented soon. This is because of the dependence on imported foreign oil for a high percentage of our energy needs at the present time. Yet the Atlantic provinces' region of Canada has within its area some of the greatest energy potentials in the world.
At the head of the Bay of Fundy, between New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, the tides rise and fall some 50 feet twice a day, day in and day out, and this phenomenon will go on forever into the future. The magnitude of this tidal range is higher than anywhere else in the world. The volume of water, which regularly and predictably rushes into this unique funnel-shaped topography between our two provinces, amounts to many times the flow of water in the St. Lawrence River. The energy which this volume of water could generate when passing through turbines, amounts to billions of kilowatt hours when converted into electric energy, and in turn represents millions of barrels of oil available every year, and year after year.
The feasibility of tidal power development in the Bay of Fundy was studied and reported upon in 1969 by a board having representation from New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and the federal government. I learned from that report that the three sites which were studied in some detail could produce over 87 billion kilowatt hours of electrical energy every year. Some 125 million barrels of oil would be required to generate that amount of electrical energy.
Another analysis contained in the 1969 Tidal Board's Report states that under a double effect scheme of development, 8.7 million kilowatts of installed capacity would generate 17 billion kilowatt hours of energy. The
The Address-Mr. Howie
total capital cost of this scheme was estimated to be some $2 billion, and the estimated energy cost of one site was 5.5 mills per kilowatt hour. The estimate was based upon 7 per cent cost of money, but was compared with oil-fired thermal generation when oil was costing in the vicinity of $1 per barrel.
It is time that the tidal potential of the Atlantic region be actively reviewed and all avenues of innovation implemented. I have discussed the energy potential of the Bay of Fundy tides with engineers who feel that other sites are available which were not studied, even in a preliminary way, by the 1969 board because of the magnitude of the power potential and the corresponding large capital cost. Conditions have changed drastically since 1969 when it was considered prudent not to proceed further with the tidal power concept because of the magnitude of the project, and because at that time oil would produce electrical energy at a slightly cheaper cost.
What a gold mine the Atlantic region and Canada would have today if governments of that day had been less cautious and had proceeded with the construction of this renewable resource and brought it into production!
There must be more positive action taken by government now in meeting the energy problems of our Atlantic region and of the country as a whole. We must not only be concerned about the supply and the use of our non-renewable energy resources such as oil, gas and coal, but more thought must be given to our renewable energy resources such as tidal and conventional hydro power. As long as the moon is in the sky we will have our tides, and as long as the rains come we will have falling water, all of which can produce energy and can be converted into equivalent barrels of oil, which can be used or sold independently of the whims of the Arabs or any other foreign influence.
The sooner these great sources of renewable wealth can be developed for the benefit of the citizens of Canada, the better. I would suggest that it is time for a policy to be implemented whereby we in this country start to recognize the great and unique potentials which we have in renewable energy resources, and put them to use, rather than letting them go to waste while we use up our nonrenewable resources or import fossil fuels from others at blackmail prices.
As I see our need in the Atlantic region, we should be developing our tremendously large tidal potential as rapidly as possible. Newfoundland in particular has undeveloped hydro potential equal to or greater than Churchill Falls. The extension of very heavy electric transmission grid systems should be part of this program. Our initial surplus of energy should be sold to our neighbours, first to neighbouring provinces and then to the United States on a recallable basis. The price for such energy to the United States should be based upon its alternate cost of generation. We would then be amortizing our capital investment at an accelerated rate during the period of supply surplus to our requirements, and we would be building our plants at lower costs than would be indicated in the future because of our ever persistent inflationary trends.
326

October 10, 1974
The Address-Hon. D. J. MacDonald
The profits which would be accumulated from sale of surplus energy could be used to develop still more of our renewable energy resources.
Through this kind of policy, which would require massive capital expenditure and could only be undertaken by the federal government financing the projects for the provinces, some of the advantages would be: (1), we could make ourselves independent regarding our energy requirements; (2), we could improve our balance of payments position through selling energy which would be initially surplus to our requirements into a receptive market area; (3), we would have for our own use more economic energy, with less risk from ever increasing fuel costs, over a long period of time; (4), we would accelerate the write-off of our investment and have a valuable asset to pass on to future generations; (5), energy would be produced not only on a renewable basis, but also without degradation to the environment; (6), problem of regional disparity of the Atlantic region would be solved. In fact, by development of these resources the Atlantic region could be contributing to the well being of the rest of the country.
A very strong national power transmission system, with inter-connection and ties into a North American continental transmission grid, is greatly needed. Surplus energy from one region would be put into the grid, and areas with deficiencies would buy from the gird. With gas and oil pipelines, which would extend across Canada from coast to coast and allow the flexible interchange of fuels, plus a super electrical transmission grid, this country would lead the world in social and economic development, and our bargaining power, especially with the United States would be greatly improved.
To make use of the advantages which our country has, second to none in the world, we must have more courage in taking our place as world leaders. We must better co-ordinate and stimulate the efforts of industry, government, labour and universities, so that not only may the vast energy potentials of the tides of the Bay of Fundy be developed for the benefit of Canada, but so that we might become less complacent and more innovative.
There must be more research and development in many new technological fields, especially in those fields where we have such tremendous wealth of resources, particularly in the renewable resource areas. Many others will wish to exploit our great potentials. We must be ahead of the pack in technology, in courage, and in management skills in order to protect our environment, to assure that we are not exploited, to assure we assume the kind of leadership that will have great benefit for Canada, and to assure that we use our advantages to give world leadership.


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to join other hon. members in congratulating our newly elected Speaker, yourself and your associates. I should also like to extend good wishes to our Governor General for his speedy recovery.
I feel I would be remiss if I did not thank the people of Cardigan once again for the honour they bestowed on me, by electing me for the second time to be their representative in Ottawa. The carrying out of my responsibility to

the people of Cardigan is indeed a continuing challenge which I look forward to meeting with renewed vigour in this new Parliament.
Hon. members will recall that a comprehensive development plan for Prince Edward Island was signed in March 1969. During Phase I of the plan many of the programs which have been successful on the Island-are being considered nationally. Phase II, which is now being negotiated, will, I am certain, produce many more programs which can be used by all Canadians. Co-operation between the federal and provincial governements has helped make this plan a success, and the basic plan is being used as a model for agreements with other provinces.
Testimony to the fact that the plan is working is that the number of people leaving the Island has declined substantially, to the point where we now have a real population growth on the Island. This means that a whole new generation of young people can find interesting and challenging opportunities on Prince Edward Island instead of having to move to other parts of Canada or to the United States.
Being from a small geographic area which has an abundance of peaceful charm, we realized that those from large urban areas envy us. We wish to try to avoid some of the mistakes made in those areas by balancing our development and continuing to offer our younger generation better opportunities for work. I want to assure you that we are not prepared to have development simply for the sake of development. What we are looking for are certain kinds of development which will allow us a reasonable standard of living and, at the same time, let us retain and further develop those environmental qualities which have become so precious today.
The basis of Prince Edward Island's economy has long been and will continue to be the agricultural and fishing industries. I am sure that all Islanders applaud the stated objective in the throne speech to increase food production by providing incentives to our farmers and fishermen, including the stabilization of incomes and markets. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) has demonstrated great leadership in this direction already.
Island fishermen are extremely pleased with the government's action to ensure Canada's right to manage its coastal resources and environment. Meetings will be held shortly to discuss further measures to conserve our declining fish stocks, as well as the need to regulate licensing of the existing fishery.
Fishermen on the Island are in agreement with the continuing program of up-grading small craft harbours. Results of the last two years are quite evident following federal government expenditures of approximately $1 million on these facilities.
In the government's fight against unemployment, approximately $4 million has been allocated to Prince Edward Island in the Local Initiative Program's budgets of the last three years. Many hundreds of jobs were created during the winters, and the program has been most beneficial to the economy of the area. In the same vein, the Opportunities for Youth program with a budget of $1,300,000 in Prince Edward Island over the last four years, has
October 10, 1974

funded more than 300 projects and made a major contribution toward student employment.
All hon. members must heartily approve the government's projected plans in the housing field to assist those hardest hit by inflation. In line with this, already in this calendar year senior citizens on the Island have learned of CMHC loans to the PEI Housing Authority totalling $2,500,000 for construction of senior citizens' complexes across the Island. The construction of four two-storey apartment buildings in Charlottetown containing 96 one-bedroom apartments, as well as of 38 row housing units in six communities, has been approved for this very extensive program.
This assistance to senior citizens was only one of the measures carried out and planned. Government plans, in this session, regarding increases in maximum pensionable earnings and payments of allowances to spouses of old age security recipients will be very welcome indeed to our elderly.
I also welcome this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to speak to hon. members about the Department of Veterans Affairs.
The senior members of the House are aware that my portfolio includes four other very important agencies which are autonomous but which report to parliament through me. If you will permit me, Mr. Speaker, I would like to describe briefly the agencies and their functions for the benefit of new hon. members who are sitting in this House for the first time. These four agencies are the Canadian Pension Commission, the War Veterans Allowance Board, the Pension Review Board and the Bureau of Pensions Advocates.
The Canadian Pension Commission operates under the legislation contained in the Pension Act. It is concerned with the adjudication of applications for pension entitlement and with the administration of pensions which are granted. I am referring to disability pensions which are awarded as a direct result of injuries, or illness incurred during wartime service. It also awards and administers the pensions paid to the eligible widows and children of those who were killed or died as a result of their war service.
The War Veterans Allowance Board's activities are concerned with the administration of the War Veterans Allowance Act and the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act. These acts contain the legislation which permits the payment of allowances to qualified veterans and their spouses, or widows and children, who are suffering from economic distress.
They are not to be confused with disability pensions although we do have some cases of veterans who are receiving disability pensions from the Canadian Pension Commission and are also recipients of the War Veterans Allowances.
The Bureau of Pensions Advocates is a publicly financed body whose members prepare and present the cases of veterans, or their dependants who wish to make application to the Pension Commission. It also handles the
The Address-Hon. D. J. MacDonald appeals of applicants who are dissatisfied with the decision of the Pension Commission's entitlement boards.
These appeals are adjudicated by the other autonomous agency in the Veterans Affairs portfolio, the Pension Review Board. It hears appeals against the Pension Commission's decisions, both for entitlement and amounts awarded. It also hands down rulings on matters of interpretation of the pension legislation.
These then, Mr. Speaker, are the other members of the Veterans Affairs family, and I would like to thank the senior members of the House for their patience in listening to the explanation of something that was already familiar to them.
The responsibility imposed upon my ministry by the legislation which has been enacted by previous parliaments of behalf of our veterans and their dependants continues to grow both in complexity and amount. It is not a reducing responsibility, as some might believe, and this fact is borne out by the results of the 1971 census which were released earlier this year.
The 1971 census indicated that there are still nearly a million veterans living in Canada. More than 80 per cent of these are married and many of them still have dependent children. Accordingly, we estimate that there are probably nearly 2 million Canadian citizens who are potentially entitled to one or more benefits under the various pieces of veterans legislation.
To get back to actual figures, there were more than 30,000 veterans and dependants who were active clients of the Department of Veterans Affairs as of March 31 last. These included disability pensioners, war veterans allowance recipients, patients in our hospitals across the country, widows, orphans, children receiving educational assistance and those holding contracts under the Veterans Land Act.
It is not my intention today to describe in detail the many programs and achievements which have had an impact on our veteran population since I became Minister of Veterans Affairs in 1972. I am confident that the record speaks for itself, and I am very proud of that record.
However, I do not want to leave you with the impression that we are a static organization. We are continually trying to improve the legislation covering our veterans and their families to keep pace with the changing social and economic conditions.
I think evidence of this good faith was displayed just last Wednesday when I tabled a bill to amend the War Veterans Allowance and Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act. The increases in rates and ceilings, and the other additional benefits included in this bill, were planned many months ago.
I had hoped that this very special group of veterans would be receiving these benefits by now. Unfortunately, the timetable was delayed, as honourable members are well aware. However, I certainly hope that the passage of this bill can be accelerated now so that the thousands of men and women who served our country so honourably and well can soon be enjoying a more rewarding standard of living.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
28305-22'/2

October 10, 1974
The Address-Hon. D. J. MacDonald


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: I will continue to consider other legislation and regulations which affect our veterans and their families with a view to making fair and reasonable changes whenever necessary. I would like to tell honourable members that the National Council of Veterans Associations and the Royal Canadian Legion are always most helpful both to me and my senior officials whenever we sit down to discuss matters such as benefits and hospital care for veterans. They are reasonable in their requests and sincere in their motives. They have the interests and welfare of our million veterans at heart, and they have made many significant contributions to what I firmly believe is the best veterans legislation program that exists anywhere in the world.
One of the pieces of legislation in our veterans charter which has been frequently discussed in the past year or so is the Veterans Land Act. I think all members are aware that, last spring, the deadline for those holding qualification certificates to exercise their rights under VLA was extended to March 31, 1975.
The Veterans Land Act was established as a rehabilitation project for those returning to peacetime activities after the end of World War II. It was one of several options available to the discharged servicemen, and it proved very successful for many thousands of our veterans in establishing themselves as farmers or commercial fishermen, or on small holdings. That is what it was designed for and it worked.
Today there are some who are urging that its provisions be extended and increased so as to provide assistance for purchasing retirement homes. It has concerned me that a certain number of people who are advocating these changes in VLA are claiming that my reluctance to change this legislation now is a denial of veterans' rights.
I reject those suggestions completely, Mr. Speaker. The record of this government in the field of veterans legislation has been outstanding. The actions of this administration towards our veterans reminds me of the motto of that famous western regiment, the Fort Garry Horse. It is "non facta verba"-deeds, not words. The government is giving careful consideration to the whole matter of the Veterans Land Act, and an announcement on this subject will be made at a very early date.
There is another aspect to the operation of my portfolio which I would like to mention today. This is our responsibility to those who fell in the defence of our country, and it is our duty to remember and revere their sacrifice.
On November 7 next, with the co-operation of my colleague, the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner), there will be an exhibition of photography on display at the Canadian War Museum. This series of coloured photos will show war cemeteries in more than 70 countries of the world where Canadians, who fought and died in the two World Wars and Korea, are buried. It also has pictures of the principal memorials commemorating those who have no known graves.
At the same time we will be introducing a magnificently illustrated edition of a new publication entitled "Silent Witnesses". This book also honours the 116,000 Canadians who died for the freedom you and I know today but which 
some accept so casually. We must never forget that it was their sacrifice that made it possible.
I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the privilege of speaking today. I trust I have demonstrated to hon. members that my department is well aware of the obligations it has to those who so gallantly offered their services to our country in time of war. We will continue to honour those obligations.


Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, may I begin by congratulating the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Jerome) and his assistants on their appointments. It is with high expectations that I look forward to working with him and the other members of this House. I wish His Excellency the Governor General a speedy recovery.
I also wish to pay tribute to individuals who have had an effect on my seeking public office, individuals such as the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield) and the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), and the former members for the Pembina riding, Mr. Jack Bigg and Mr. Dan Hollands.
I thank the electorate of Pembina. I am conscious of the trust placed in me by them. I pledge co-operation in the House, co-operation between all members of all parties, and although my first concern is the constituency of Pembina, my interests will include all Canadians.
We have had the honour of having both the hon. Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in our constituency. I am sure they will agree when I say that the Pembina constituency is a cross section of people and environments. In it we have a highly industrialized area, a large agricultural area, and densely populated urban areas.
This constituency is a good place in which to live. In some areas it lacks in natural wealth, but an area in which it does not lack wealth is the area of enduring common sense. In these people lie a deep rooted human feeling to do what is best for Canada. They have some old fashioned notions of good manners, honour, and duty towards God and their country. We can learn from them, those of us who run around with our vulnerable egos; we who are more interested in power than in governing.
The purpose of politics is not to justify our own existence but to do something for our country. Our problems will not be solved by legal manoeuvers-they will be solved on the basis of trust. We have a moral responsibility to get our fpodstuff to the people who need it, at a reasonable price. We have a moral responsibility to see that our producer receives a fair return on his product.
Canada is failing in her role as a major world food supplier, and as a leader in the agricultural field generally, because of a lack of leadership from this administration. I suppose the greatest issues in agricultural marketing are the so-called cheap food policies, the evolution of consumerism and the apparent fear that politicians have of the consumer. Events of the past well illustrate this fear; the Nixonomics that affect the beef industry, the U.S. export embargoes, and Canada's export permit system.
It will probably take many more months before order is restored in the marketplace following the chaos that
October 10, 1974

resulted from these decisions. However, I feel that something has happened through all of this that may never be restored at any future date. That something is the faith of the farmer in the systems; his faith in the marketplace and its cycles.
As market forecasters are only too well aware, it is becoming increasingly difficult to predict prices. This fact presents a very large problem to the farmer. We are caught in a real quandary; that of quickly rising production costs and the obvious efforts of governments to protect the consumer from these natural cost increases. These efforts distort normal price cycles as illustrated by the federal government's latest scheme with respect to the beef industry. I fail to see how any politician can be naive enough to think he can increase the producer's returns and still keep down the price at the retail level with a program such as this.
Right now stabilization is, I understand, a big deal in government circles. Of course we all know that it is designed to level out the income of the farmer, but I am not so sure that that means any profitability. From what I can gather from people working in this area, there are a few problems. If production controls are not to be implemented then the profit margin must be minimal in order to prevent overproduction. I must admit that I find the fear of overproduction humourous, because every time one turns around lately it appears as if the government has come back from some great trade mission with news of great market potentials. So what is the worry?
I have not met a thinking farmer yet who really wanted anybody stabilizing his income. Most farmers are entirely competent to look after this themselves. Also, as pointed out previously, when the risk is removed so is profitability, and in this day and age, considering risk, volume of money involved, etc., why should a farmer work for nothing? One of the few drawing cards to farming is potential profit, and to remove that at this time would only guarantee an even greater movement of young people out of farming.
What is rapidly becoming necessary, however, is some form of protection from man made catastrophes in the marketplace, which result in certain segments of the industry losing great amounts of money. An example of what I mean is the U.S. price freeze on beef and its subsequent effects on the beef industry. The interim feed grain policy would also fit into this category, although only in its method of establishing price and not so much the price of grain itself.
I am sure we will see more of these predicaments as food prices continue to rise and governments continue to react. The consumers and governments are only kidding themselves because farm price increases are necessary to keep abreast of cost increases and inflation and, more important, to attract young people into farming.
In 1970 grain was a glut on the market and pig prices were going down. Pigs, however, appeared to be the most practical enterprise in our circumstances. Converting grain to animal products seemed like a logical thing to do because more people wanted pork than barley. Even the government agreed.
The Address-Mr. Elzinga
Everything worked great until last year when the world ran out of grain. As you know, grain prices soared, beef and pig prices dropped, and the grain industry quickly forgot the market it had sacrificed so much to establish. I certainly do not begrudge the grain producer his present prices; they are long overdue, but by the same token he should not forget either that the steer or the pig was his only market not too long ago and could easily be again in the not too distant future.
Contracts that bind the buyer and seller into a pricing arrangement will probably become increasingly important to the producer, especially the young producer, who must protect himself from loss situations. A fine example of this sort of contract that I am a bit familiar with is the hog export program. There is reasonable profit built in, as well as the guarantee of supply, which the buyer is coming to realize as being almost as important as prices.
I hope that if domestic price rises above the export price by a large amount the government will not place an embargo on the export of hogs in an attempt to lower the domestic price. I raise this point because I feel it is a real fear, given the past track record of the federal government. In the Throne Speech the Prime Minister pledged to keep food costs down at almost any cost, and I am sure the farmers' wellbeing will be the first sacrifice in any attempt to achieve this goal.
One observation I have made is that at any given time some segment of the industry is suffering; that is, if the grain producer is making money, the livestock producer is not, or vice versa. There was a brief exception to this recently and during that short period all segments were doing well. The harmony between farmers was great and each appreciated the effort of the other.
If one dare draw analogies, I would like to compare the agricultural industry with the automotive industry. Each separate industry-tire, spark plug, glass manufacturer and so on, supplying something towards the final product, the car-prospers. Why, in food production, must one segment generally be suffering financially?
Personally, I feel agriculture is our most important industry. It is renewable and there is no substitute for food. I feel that the real issue in marketing from now on will be to keep all segments prospering, and I think this should be the challenge.
Occasionally consumers will complain that food costs are too high, but they do not realize that in the cost of a loaf of bread the cost of the cellophane wrapping has risen from 9 per cent of the total cost to 39 per cent. Half of what we purchase at supermarkets is not food but soaps, deodorants, tissues, magazines and other non-food products. It is my hope and belief that Canada, as a whole, will gain substantial social and economic benefits with the revitalization of rural Canada. I hope that those of us here in political office will do justice to this office by thinking beyond today and by stating our fundamental choices for tomorrow.
It is my hope also that we, the politicians, particularly those in leadership positions, will have the courage to spell out the real challenges facing Canada at home and abroad. Inflation is a serious problem, especially for the poor

October 10, 1974
The Address-Mr. MacFarlane
among us. No government can command inflation to go away, but what it can do is give us the leadership required to control it, and that has not been forthcoming from this administration. The growth-rate of Canada's economy is zero, and inflation is over 10 per cent.
Today it is almost a crime for an individual to be a success. It is not right to be thrifty and astute. There are those who would relieve the successful of their life's rewards to give to those who, often through their own irresponsibility, have not reached the same level. Of course, the ones who should be helped are those who have remained at the bottom of the scale through no fault of their own. There is nothing that will squelch human initiative more than a guarantee that the government will look after you. Just remember, all the promises made by politicians will be paid for with public money and not theirs.
It is saddening to think that Canadians take handouts and guarantees of government aid as something honourable. I can remember the day when it was considered something of a shame by those who were proud of their ability to make it on their own. As I have said before, any government which taxes away the rewards of responsible behaviour and effort so that it can remove the penalties for irresponsible behaviour is not something we need or want in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Peter Elzinga: It is my position that our market can be well supplied by private enterprise if the climate set by government is conducive to investment.
The Speech from the Throne was a great statement of generalities dealing with motherhood and brotherhood, but when are we going to deal with the moral obligations that affect our national welfare? We need a responsible government that is going to give us this leadership, not a government that destroys the initiative of the individual. How can we admire an administration that will allow 30 million eggs to rot when humans are suffering and dying of starvation?
It is my hope that we can do a job for Canadians. I realize the job is going to be tough, but it is vital and it is a challenge that cannot be refused. The majority of Canadians are looking to us to come to grips with the nation's problems. Now it is up to us to live up to our pledge.


Mr. Gus MacFarlane (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I join other members in extending my congratulations. I particularly want to congratulate Mr. Speaker. On the day he was holding his reception I wandered into this chamber. The security must have been less tight than normal. I saw two fine young blond lads. They felt it was important to sit in their father's seat. I thought this indicated the kind of Speaker we have. In fact they clearly indicated which arm he would lean on and how he would hold his chin next. I also wish to congratulate the others who will be assisting the Speaker.

I also want to congratulate the hon. member for Montmorency (Mr. Duclos) because he talks about his riding as if it were a very dignified lady. He loves his riding very much.


Also, I am extremely proud to be associated with a person like the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Lee) who, in seconding the Address in Reply, was an example of the youth we have always known are with us.
It is an honour for me to be in this House. The first time I sat here in the galleries. That was February 8, 1932. Mackenzie King and R.B. Bennett were debating the Speech from the Throne. I am very fortunate in that I had a mother who was an organizer in the Conservative party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: My father was an organizer in the Liberal party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: We were a family of five living together during the depression. Our roomer was a man called Coldwell of the C.C.F. who joined the House in 1935.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: I remember him very well. In those days he was a poor member of parliament. He did something that offended a young person very strongly. In those days we used to eat shredded wheat; sometimes as a snack at night, sometimes toasted in the morning and sometimes with jam at noon. It was a good staple. I used to save the box tops for a Buck Rogers badge. I wanted to become space commander. Mr. Coldwell had holes in his shoes. He used to cut off the boxtops and put them in the bottoms of his shoes to stop the rain coming through to his socks. I have not trusted the socialists since. Actually I considered knowing him an honour. I say this in all sincerity.
I am in this House because I have admired many people who were here, and many who still are. There is no doubt that one man who had great influence on me is the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), a man whom I admire and think of very highly.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: I have to say that I also think very highly of un petit gars de Verdun who lost his way, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner). He now sits on the other side of the House.
There has of course been great influence on this side of the House. I would be remiss if I did not advise that the Verdun mafia, the Postmaster General (Mr. MacKasey), had great influence on me in the early years. I also feel very strongly about the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro). He is a very close friend of myself, and the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander).


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Oh, I don't know about that, Gus.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: Over-riding all of these, as a person who left university to come to the House of Commons, I was most influenced by our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
October 10, 1974


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: More than anyone else, he made me think I could work with other members and do an honourable job. That is exactly what I hope we can do.
As the voice for Hamilton Mountain I think I should say something about what Hamilton Mountain feels. Hamilton Mountain people are the kind of people who expect a great deal from parliament. They are very concerned about our present situation. They would certainly help the halt, the lame, the aged and the unfortunate, but at the same time they would make strong demand that Canadians must help themselves, work hard, and maintain the wonderful work ethic which dignifies all of us. Like myself, many of them had fathers-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I hope so!


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: -who were in the services. They grew up in the great depression era and they are not willing to see it return. They are looking to us to deal with that problem but, in doing so, to remember the halt and the lame. This is what the people of Hamilton Mountain have sent me here to say.
However, I do believe I must have some talent myself, something that I would wish to say. And this would be strong words concerning our present relationship with our youth. I would ask hon. members to look around them and realize that grandfathers and grandmothers are much closer to young people than anyone in the age bracket of 32 to 49 years. This House will never be able to consider euthanasia because of its youth.
Young people have a high regard for older people and older people have a high regard for them. They seem to have time for each other, but some of our generation had better realize that they have not had much time for youth. I am one who has spent a good portion of my life living in university residences and working with young people. I really believe they are important people. In fact they are a resource, and I believe they should be listed as a national resource. I think we should realize that whatever we spend on them comes back to us. If you really want to know what the morality of the next generation is going to be, ask them, and you will be surprised. They will tell you. It is going to be a damned fine generation.
They really take their ships and send them across the seas of life; they choose the winds of passion for their sails, and they choose the rudder of reason to steer with. If there is no passion, it becomes an academic, dying argument, so there has to be that mixture. I always used to think when I was at Mount Allison University in the maritimes, when we went out to the lily pond and saw everything quiet and soft on a windless day, "God rests in reason". Then, the wind would come to Sackville, with thunder and lightening, and we would say "God moves in passion". That is what these young people are like. A wonderful mixture. Their sails are set to the winds of passion and their rudders are governed by reason.
The future of this country will be theirs and I should like to think we should run in front of them. It is our responsibility, as my mother and father did for me, to
The Address-Mr. MacFarlane
improve the generation. We should shout over our shoulder of the bright prospect of the future, and of the dangers on the way, so that they may know what our generation has experienced, so that they may have the benefit of our improvement as well as bringing along their own thoughts and ideas.
I often think of the story of the old man who was approaching a chasm as he was nearing the end of his days. When he reached the edge of the chasm he began to build a bridge. A young man came to him and said, "Old man, why are you building a bridge? You will never come this way again." The old man replied, "That is so. I am building the bridge for you." This they expect of us. This they demand of us, and this we have failed to do many times. We have a responsibility to leave them something, as my mother left me her music, as my father left me his mathematics, as my minister left me my church. These are important things which will not be dismissed or wiped away.
There is one other theme about which I feel very strongly. Most of my life has been involved in athletics and I will never forget it. I believe that sport might just be the replacement for war and conflict in the world. I am one who believes that maybe we shall go to international trade fairs, maybe to international drama festivals and international sporting events-and it will be political, and it should be-but it will be one step for mankind in the direction of ultimately removing the resort to the resolution of conflict by killing one another.
So, sport is important. I am one of those who would like to see it given the status of a separate ministry. I believe it is important enough, for the young people who take part and the old people who watch, that it should stand on its own. I often ask: when Handel wrote The Messiah, did he write about the omnipotence of God, or did God's omnipotence show itself through The Messiah? When Van Gogh painted those olive trees, was he expressing nature or did nature express itself through him? When I coach a football team and I give them a formation, do they express themselves through the formation and therefore find a vehicle for their own expression? I feel that way about athletics, and I think it should be expressed strongly.
The next thought I have in mind arises from my having spent approximately 14 years in the maritimes. I wonder whether it would not be of consequence if someone from Hamilton Mountain, or central Ontario, were to stand up and say how important the maritimes are, and support the people of the maritimes when they are pressing for what they require.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: My experience of the west is not nearly as great, but I certainly do understand it when people talk about alienation, largely because of my experience in those beautiful maritime provinces.
I notice it is almost ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker, and with your permission I would prefer not to go on to my next point until we resume tomorrow.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

October 10, 1974
Adjournment Debate



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, some might suggest we are moving from the sublime to the commonplace, after that sparkling display of oratory on the part of the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. MacFarlane), but there is a relationship between the excellent words of the hon. member who has just resumed his seat and what I have to say, because my topic, too, relates to the institution of parliament itself.
I want to be fairly specific because I have a very short period of time this evening to discuss three items which I very much hope will be before the total House and the committee on procedure when we consider in what ways we can make this institution more vital and responsible in the exercise of its duties.
Sometimes when we talk about traditions and history I think we spend too little time reflecting on the long sweep of change that has occurred in this country and that affects this institution. Hon. members will recall that in the early years of the Canadian nation the budget of this country was something like $20 million. The budget of the country today is something over $20 billion, an increase of some 1,000 times. It indicates to me that the very ability for parliament to be responsible in the exercise and expenditure of public money must of its very nature be exceedingly difficult.
This traditional responsibility of parliament to exercise the power of the purse is one of the basic responsibilities of parliament which I think is not only severely jeopardized but has almost vanished.
Within my time as a member of this place we have abolished the committee of supply, I believe in the year 1969. The committee of supply was abolished for a number of reasons-because it took a lot of time, because the debates related to estimates and expenditures often proved to be rambling, if not meaningless. I believe it was abolished even more so because there were times when the discussion of estimates in the committee of supply was not only embarrassing to the government, but occasionally could prove most difficult when supply was in fact not passed, and the government was on the verge of having to face a very difficult crisis situation where it did not have the money made available by parliament to pay its bills.
What we have in its place over the last five years are 25 allotted days and six votes. This means quite simply that under present conditions the government of the day can ride out the storm on whatever particular issue is brought before it on these allotted days. An indication of how much we have lost, in the sense of controlling the power of

the purse, is the almost total disinterest of the press in those debates. We now have these 25 allotted days and we end up on some occasion, as we will later this month, with a kind of spending orgy that goes on for two or three hours; a whole rash of meaningless votes are taken, and we have the final passage of estimates.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, this is not being responsible with respect to the way in which we give an account of the expenditure of public moneys. If the power of the purse is vital to an effective working of a realistic parliament, then we will have to look very seriously at how we are going to deal with estimates in the future. I do not have any instant answers, but I do think that this is one of the questions that the committee and all members will have to face.
The second question is access to information. In the last parliament the present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen), who was then House leader, put before us the consolidation of what has become government practice with respect to the production of papers and the presenting of information. Quite frankly, I think the frustration that has developed in recent years, not only with the oral question period but with written questions and production of papers, relates to the fact that there is this growing amount of information through reports, studies and reviews of one kind and another which the government feels compelled to hide under a great umbrella of confidentiality. We did have, and we have had, a rash of leaks from time to time. Sometimes the leaks are correct; at other times they are incorrect. Again this is an indication of the fact that we have somehow reversed something that is essential to a free and democratic society.
The onus should be on the government of the day-and I do not care which government it is-to prove that a document must be kept confidential because there is some threat or jeopardy to the security of the state itself. I think we have to establish some means whereby that will become established practice, whether it be some kind of independent tribunal which, in effect, will review a decision of government not to put before the public items which it believes are confidential.
The third matter that I raised in my previous question to the Prime Minister and House leader was whether or not in our study of the reform of parliamentary procedures we could not involve a good deal of informed public opinion. There is an awful danger-and I believe all members, if they reflect on this for a moment, will agree-that when you become a member of this institution for longer than a few days-and some of us have been here a good while longer than a few days-it is very easy to rationalize and justify all the intricate and complex workings of this institution.
Of course I know there are many traditions that are worthy of keeping, and some worthy of extending, but we who are in this institution should not feel it is our institution only, or primarily. It is fundamentally an institution of the Canadian people. If they find it confusing, if they find it misdirected and wasting on occasion large amounts of time, if they want to see it sustained and perhaps, from some points of view, resuscitated and restored to an essential area of vitality, then we must have their views.
October 10, 1974

Quite frankly I think if we get early exposure through the media of radio and television this will allow for a good deal more intelligent and interesting comment. I believe that unless we allow others, beyond the members of this place, to comment on reform of parliament itself we will do a great disservice to this institution primarily, and a great disservice to the Canadian people. This is, after all, the House of the common people and a House for the people of this country, and I would urge the government to move very speedily in respect of ultimate reforms for this institution.


Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a very brief reply to the three points that have been raised by the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald). The first is that in his description of supply proceedings he only provided about half the description of what actually takes place.
For example, while it is true that opposition parties do have 25 days in the House, there are at least three months in which these estimates are referred to standing committees, committees which have extensive powers to call witnesses, ministers and other people before them to discuss the items in the estimates that committee members wish to have discussed. Whether these opportunities are used is a responsibility that members of the House of Commons must take upon themselves.
One of the reasons for the extension of time, and for moving the work of the committee of supply back into committees, was to provide more opportunity and more time for the House of Commons to cope with the growing volume of legislation that governments have been putting before it.
One of the problems that we face is that the House of Commons is again in danger of being constricted. If one looks at the throne speech one will have to say that in the last two years of minority government, we have discussed in the House of Commons and passed only what was necessary for all of us to get some form of collective record about us. We all must share the responsibility. In the last year and a half of the parliament elected in 1968 the legislative process again slowed down, so we are dealing in the throne speech now with leftovers, tidbits, from the three previous parliaments.
Secondly, I want to comment on the guidelines the government produced last year. They were referred to a joint committee of the House and the Senate. To my knowledge they were never discussed by that committee. I felt that was unfortunate and unnecessary, and I have a commitment from the House leader that at an early date the guidelines will again be referred to the committee. Hopefully that committee will be sufficiently well organized to carry out a discussion, and make a report to the House and to the Senate on the situation.
The last point I want to make is about the meetings of the procedure committee. I quite agree with the point that the public should be invited to participate. I think it unfortunate that during the last two or three years that committee has held so many of its meetings on procedure in camera, a very undesirable practice that I hope will be eliminated in this parliament.
Adjournment Debate


CONSUMER AFFAIRS-SUGAR-CONSULTATION WITH QUEBEC GOVERNMENT TO SETTLE DISPUTE AT SAINT-HILAIRE REFINERY
Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, my question this morning about the loss of the sugar-beet crop in the province of Quebec did not seem to alarm the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) since he replied that such a loss for the province did not represent 1 per cent of the Canadian sugar consumption.
Mr. Speaker, sugar is one of the main food commodities. Here are some statistics I have in that respect: In 1971 Canada has consumed 1,200,000 tons of sugar, a little more in 1972 and still more in 1973. Thus, the Saint-Hilaire crop represents 2 per cent instead of less than 1 per cent mentioned by the minister this morning.
While Canada is the second largest importer of sugar in the world, the minister finds it normal to learn about the total loss of the sugar-beet crop in the Saint-Hilaire area.
How can Canada ever export sugar if the government does not want to protect that new-born industry which could, in less than ten years, start exporting sugar instead of importing 92 per cent of its consumption?
How can we ever produce our own consumption when it is estimated that Canadian annual needs for sugar will reach 2,500,000 tons within the next 20 years, if we cannot even save a crop that represent only 2 per cent of the Canadian consumption?
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government has left this industry to the hands of pirates here in Canada, who are members of the international sugar cartel, the seat of which is located in England and which is headed by Tate & Lyle Ltd.
Mr. Speaker, I have here an issue dated July 23, 1972 of the London Sunday Times, one of the most important small newspapers in Europe. It carries the following article under the heading, and I quote:
It is interesting to note that this important disclosure of the activities of an illegal cartel involving twenty-two major European sugar companies with an annual market of 600 million Pounds Sterling per annum, should have been totally ignored by every Canadian newspaper,-which resulted in keeping the Canadian public in ignorance of the fact that Tate & Lyle Ltd. was named as a leading participant in the conspiracy, through control of 'SAY' one of France's largest sugar conglomerates.
The Common Market Anti-Trust officials have pointed out, that:-
1.	The refiners pay out large sums of money every year to ensure that there is a unified market.
2.	That 'the refiners maintain high prices and illegal division of market, contrary to public interest'.
3.	That 'this is a Text Book Case of how a cartel and a lobby operate'.
4.	That 'the activities of the sugar refiners involved are the most serious restriction of competition (they) have yet met in the price fixing field'.

Mr. Speaker, these discoveries were made by an English committee commissioned on behalf of the Common Market to make an inquiry into the international sugar

October 10, 1974
Adjournment Debate
trust; the conclusions of this inquiry were published in the
London Sunday Times.
In a brief presented to the right hon. Prime Minister on February 27, 1973 by the Austin Sugar Refineries Limited of Montreal, which wanted to compete with other companies and offer the Canadian people better prices for sugar, we can read this;

It is a curious fact that in the face of all the representations made by the Consumers Association of Canada, the Industrial Sugar Users Association of Canada, and other public and private groups to Government,-that despite the issuance of the indepth report issued by the Tariff Board Report on Sugar, November 1971, nothing has been done to date by the Combines Department to remove this restriction of trade by Court Action or recommendations to Government concerning the introduction of a National Sugar Policy for Canada.

And, Mr. Speaker, this same company made recommendations, in their brief presented to the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). Among other things, it is interesting to see what the committee of the House already recommended, which is in publication No. 146 of November 1971, on page 6:

The 362 page report on sugar by the Tarriff Board of Canada recommended the introduction of competition in the sugar industry, stating in part, that-
(a)	The price of refined sugar in Canada does not appear to be related to domestic forces of supply and demand;
(b)	That the domestic price is related to the London daily price for "Free Market Sugar";
(c)	That this situation has the further characteristic that one company is the price leader and the others follow;
(d)	Because of a lack of competition, the Canadian industry has been able to increase its capacity without raising production;
(e)	The structure and behavior of the industry allow the preservation of existing market shares without substantial risk and without the beneficial spur of competitive factors usually prevailing in ordinary markets.

Well, Mr. Speaker, we could continue on and on this discussion to establish that there certainly exists an international sugar monopoly which completely controls from England the South African and Rhodesian sugar markets and which has been granted by our country's special tariff concessions.
Canada could be a sugar exporting country. We have surpluses of maple syrup. Our soil is clearly favourable to the easy growing of sugar-beet. Moreover, we have surplus apples every year. Mr. Speaker, the price of sugar was 1 cent a pound a few years ago and its price has now reached $50 a hundredweight. Yet, the government is doing nothing, as it is under the thumb of international companies and monopolies.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired.


Mr. Jack Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I must apologize to my colleague if my notes tonight are written in English only. I

am afraid I do not speak French as well as my colleague speaks English, and I congratulate him for this.

The hon. member has wandered somewhat far afield from his original question today about the situation as it existed at St. Hilaire, the refinery in Quebec. In response to the hon. member let me point out first of all that the federal government deplores the existence of the conflict in that place in Quebec, but I think I should reiterate what the minister said this morning, namely, that this is a refinery that is owned and operated by the Quebec government. The conflict at St. Hilaire is a labour problem over which the province of Quebec has complete jurisdiction, and I might say that provinces, appropriately enough, jealously guard their jurisdiction under the BNA Act.
The hon. member states that he is concerned about the effect of this conflict on the Canadian consumer, and that is appropriate enough. I think, however, that it should be put into perspective and noted that there is no shortage of sugar for Canadian consumers. The conflict at the refinery does not affect the price of sugar to Canadian consumers, nor the volume of sugar consumed in Canada, which would otherwise involve the federal government on a Canada-wide economic scale. However, the government appreciates that there does exist a problem for the farmers of the region who are trying to sell their produce.
The hon. member referred to the sugar beet industry. Being myself from southwestern Ontario I can assure him that I have sympathy for those producers knowing the plight faced by them. It is to be hoped that the Quebec government will be able to resolve this dispute at an early date.


FINANCE-ALLEGED DENIAL OF LOANS BY CHARTERED BANKS UNDER SMALL BUSINESS AND FARM IMPROVEMENT LOANS ACTS
Mr. John Wise (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to participate in the adjournment debate, and I want to say how pleased I am to see my colleague, the honourable member from southwestern Ontario, in his place to respond. I want to congratulate the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen) on his appointment as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, and to tell him that I wish him well.
On October 8 I directed a question to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) with respect to certain chartered banks in this country denying loans under the Small Businesses Loans Act and the Farm Improvement Loans Act. This is a very unfortunate situation and it is one that warrants immediate and effective attention from the Minister of Finance and the government. I well recall the concern with respect to this matter expressed by many of my colleagues on this side of the House in the Official Opposition during the debate on Bill C-14 last spring. The main thrust or purpose of Bill C-14 was to raise the ceiling on the amount of 8!4 per cent money that chartered banks can loan to these two important, but seldom recognized, segments of our economy. When one observes the past statistics, one continues to wonder, however, just how useful these programs really are.
October 10, 1974

Referring to the 1972 bank report, we note that under the Small Businesses Loans Act less than 2,900 loans were granted in all of Canada. One major chartered bank granted a sparse 134 loans.
It is not unusual or difficult for many honourable members to cite examples from constituents which clearly indicate that banks are less than interested in these two government programs, and indeed a similar scheme, the Fisheries Improvement Act, could be included as receiving this same type of cold shoulder reception.
Chartered banks often react in general terms with responses like, "We've never heard of the program before", or "It's not our policy to loan money under these programs" or "Our allotment of funds for such purposes has been fully allocated".
With attitudes and responses like these, Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the Minister of Finance that these programs cannot be fully utilized, so the amendments in Bill C-14 become actually useless.
I suggest that, because of this situation, the Minister of Finance should make either strong and effective representation to the banks to correct this matter, or provisions ought to be introduced and incorporated into Bill C-14 to assure that banks and lending institutions be required to make available sums of money to their clients under these programs.
Another real problem is the lack of information regarding the number of applications and inquiries made to banks, and the number refused. I would be willing to expect and admit that some were rejected for good reason, but this information should be available if we are to develop fully the kinds of programs and policies that best meet the needs and financial requirements of these industries.
Let us remember, Mr. Speaker, that these segments of our society form the backbone of our economy. They provide strength and stability to our Canadian commerce. They create over half of our Gross National Product and employ over half of the working people of Canada. They are entitled to better treatment than they have received and are receiving.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I should like to express my thanks to the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Wise) for his kind comments on my appointment as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance. I should also like to compliment him for bringing this matter up in the House, and not being satisfied the answer, again bringing it up on what has been called "the late show." I think the matter warrants airing and public scrutiny.
Adjournment Debate
The Farm Improvement Loans Act and Small Businesses Loans Act have been in effect for many years, and I am sure that members are reasonably familiar with them. They will recall that last spring the acts were amended following a full review by the government in order to expand their scope and increase their effectiveness and usefulness to borrowers.
These acts have played a useful role in meeting the credit requirements of a large number of Canadians. The Farm Improvement Loans Act has been particularly important as a source of intermediate credit to farmers. Up to the end of June this year, loans extended under FILA totalled over $3 billion, so I think that contradicts what my hon. friend has said. In fact it has been found useful. Such loans reached a record of $230 million in 1973.
Since inception of the Small Businesses Loans program over $300 million was lent to June, 1974. This is another indicator that it is being used. Lending under this program has been rising sharply in recent years, and was over $30 million in 1973.
In the first six months of this year lending under these programs declined. I think that is what my hon. friend is endeavouring to highlight. This may well have been due to a reluctance by lenders to participate in the programs because of a growing differential between the rates they were permitted to charge at that time and commercial rates of interest. In this respect, hon. members may be aware that the permissible rates are determined twice a year, on April 1 and October 1, on the basis of a formula contained in regulations. The formula rate is the average yield on government of Canada bonds during the six months preceding the rate change, plus 1 per cent.
It will be noted that, due to the averaging period, the formula rate will lag behind current commercial rates when the latter are changing rapidly. This lag became significant in the first part of 1974 when the bank prime rate moved from 91/2 per cent in January to 11 'h per cent in July. During this period the rate for the vast majority of these guaranteed loans, all except those for the purchase of land under the Farm Improvement Loans Act, was 8 'A per cent until March, and dropped to 8 per cent on April 1. Thus the formula rate became increasingly out of line with rates charged by lenders on regular loans, and by July the negative differential had become quite significant.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order, please. The motion to adjourn this House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10:28 p.m.

Friday, October 11, 1974