1974-10-09

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In light of recent statements made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) that Canada is planning to impose export controls on eggs to the United States if the Canadian market is short-circuited, a statement made without what appears to be prior consultation and furthermore has not been ratified by cabinet decision and is an invitation to economic retaliation by the U.S., I move, seconded by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp):
That this House urges the Minister of Agriculture to make a statement on motions forthwith clarifying this ad-hoc political decision announced on non-Canadian soil.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion. It being presented pursuant to Standing Order 43, it cannot be received without unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous agreement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


INDUSTRY
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The matter of urgent and pressing necessity is the revelation that the United Aircraft Corporation, the recipient of approximately $71 million in federal assistance in recent years, has recently transferred 40 per cent of the production originally scheduled, for Canada to the United States and plans a further 35 per cent shift in the coming year. There being a clear possibility that such action violates that company's agreements made with the federal government. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House instructs the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to make a comprehensive statement in the House at the earliest possible date outlining the legal obligations of United Aircraft on this matter and providing details on its future operations in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion. Since it is put forward under Standing Order 43 it cannot be debated without unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: In the absence of unanimous consent the motion cannot be received.


CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to discuss an urgent question.
It deals with the reduction of jobs and increase in unemployment in Canada. I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin):
That a special committee of this House be set up to analyze the main causes contributing to a reduction of jobs in Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order under the terms of Standing Order 28.
I am always amazed to see how touchy we are about the observance of certains standing orders and yet ignore others. Standing Order 28 reads as follows:
Every member desiring to speak is to rise in his place, uncovered, and address himself to Mr. Speaker.
In light of this, if I understand it well, it seems to me this standing order applies, as it does in other circum-

October 9, 1974
Railways
stances, when an hon. member asks unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion under Standing Order 43. If an hon. member is against the motion he should rise in his place and address himself to the Chair designating him by name.
I am convinced that all hon. members would be happy to know, when there is not unanimous consent, which hon. members are against the motion. I therefore respectfully ask the Chair to see to it that Standing Order 28 is respected in the future, when indicated, even when a motion is moved under Standing Order 43.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for Bellechasse for having brought up that interesting question, but for a long time now it has been customary for the House to decide that there is not unanimous consent even when there is only one dissenting voice amongst hon. members. But the question is very interesting and I shall study it in the future.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunburyb Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to propose a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Because of the obsolescence of much of the roadbed used by Canadian railways and the disclosure in the third report of the Railway Transport Commission of the CTC of a possible reduction in load weights and heights, and keeping in mind that Bill C-236, the Energy Supplies Emergency Act, empowers the Energy Supplies Allocation Board to direct the CTC to order railway cars to move oil on an emergency basis, I wish to move, seconded by the hon. member for Central Nova:
That the Minister of Transport make a statement on motions at the first opportunity, outlining the specific capabilities of Canada's railways to respond to the type of emergency situation contemplated in Bill C-236 and telling the House and the country what measures his government, in co-operation with the railways, is presently undertaking to remedy the obsolescence of our railway system in this country.
When you call the vote on this matter, Mr. Speaker, I will not insist on strict compliance with Standing Order-
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House has heard the motion presented pursuant to Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that it requests the minister to make a statement on motions at the first opportunity, I have grave reservations whether in fact that, in itself, indicates a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. For the moment, however, I am prepared to give the hon. member the benefit of the doubt and to ask at this time whether unanimous consent is given, since the motion is put pursuant to Standing Order 43. Is there unanimous consent that the motion be adopted at this time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Without there being unanimous consent, the motion cannot be put.



ARMY BENEVOLENT FUND ACT


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-17, to amend the Army Benevolent Fund Act.


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


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-18, an Act to amend the Fire Losses Replacement Account Act.


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

Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-19, to provide for payments in respect of wheat produced and sold in Canada for human consumption in Canada.


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


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister arising out of the very alarming decline in housing starts, September being down to about 35 per cent in terms of urban starts. I address the question to the Prime Minister in view of its direct importance to the people in terms of the cost of housing as well as its effect on unemployment. Does the government propose to take any effective measures to offset this decline in housing starts,
October 9, 1974

to increase the number of housing starts in the country and avoid the very painful consequences of the present slowdown?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs has commented on the programs which are in place now. The government is giving serious attention to this important matter, and if any announcements are to be made they will be made in the traditional way.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact the Minister of State for Urban Affairs speaks of new initiatives taken by the government which have obviously had a marginal effect upon housing construction, as is indicated by the rather appalling decline in the number of starts, I would ask the Prime Minister whether his government has in fact any policy to reduce the rate of inflation and the cost of housing, and whether it really has any strategy to increase the number of starts?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I repeat that in his comments the minister responsible indicated what the government's strategy is. There are some aspects of the decline in which we can only have an indirect role. The increase in the cost of land and the lack of supply of serviced land are problems we touched on in the Speech from the Throne, and however we go about it, of course, this calls for action and co-operation at every level of government.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Am I to take it then that the government is prepared to stand on its present position, taking the attitude that this is about all that can be done, and if housing starts continue to decline that is too bad, but that is the way it is?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.


PROMISE OF $500 TO BUYERS OF NEW HOMES-DATE OF IMPLEMENTATION
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that during the election the Prime Minister and many people in his party promised $500 to those buying new houses, I should like to know when that will be implemented and whether it will be made retroactive to the date of the promise, as there are many young people struggling today to buy new homes, some of whom may have been encouraged to give the support the Prime Minister received?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there is no intention to act retroactively on any measures which have not already been announced. The fact that some measures were not implemented at the time is more the responsibility of the opposition which defeated the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The government proposes to implement its election promises, as I believe I indicated on the first day in the House, over the period of this parliamentary term.
Oral Questions


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, as I understood the Prime Minister, he is laying the blame for the fact that this $500 promise made during the election has not been implemented on the opposition. If this was not election puffery and there is a sincere program promised by the Prime Minister and members of his party, which has nothing to do with us, surely he will tell the House in a clear-cut manner when it will be implemented. If it is not to be implemented, then this is election puffery of which he is guilty.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat what I have said previously in a previous answer, that the various programs which were announced either before or during the election campaign will be implemented during the course of this parliament.


REQUEST FOR INCREASED FUNDS TO STIMULATE CONSTRUCTION
Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the serious housing shortage, if the moneys for the Assistance to Home Ownership Program and for public housing have been exhausted, will the government increase the capital amounts for these programs to meet the housing crisis?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: This is a matter which is being considered, Mr. Speaker.


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, in view of the serious housing crisis and the rate of unemployment in the lumber and forest products industries, particularly in Quebec and British Columbia, will the government increase the capital budget for housing in order to meet this crisis and to help solve the unemployment problem?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will of course realize that the main cause of this crisis in the lumber industry is the weakening of the economies of those markets to which we sell lumber products. About two-thirds of our product is sold abroad and the weakening markets there have made it more difficult to export to those countries. As to the one-third which is sold in Canada, only one-third of that is used for housing.


COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. I should like to ask him whether there is any foundation for the statement made this morning to the effect that the Hon. Paul Martin, a very famous member of this chamber and a respected member for years-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: -is to go to London with the title ambassador rather than high commissioner?

Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The
answer is no, Mr. Speaker.


John George Diefenbaker: Have there been any discussions among members of the Commonwealth to the effect that there should be an alteration of the designation of high commissioner and ambassador substituted therefor.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there have been no such discussions. The hon. member might have the assurance that, as a member in good standing of the Royal Society of Canada I would never contemplate such.


POST OFFICE
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, as a fellow member of the Royal Society may I ask how it came about that the "Royal" got knocked out of "Royal Mail" under his administration?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would only want to point out in this private exchange that I am a member in my own right and that he is only an ex-officio member of the Royal Society. I still want to answer courteously the right hon. gentleman even if he is only an honorary member and remind him that it was his administration which started taking off the sign "Elizabeth II" from the mail boxes. This was a decision taken by his administration.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: This is a very interesting exchange, but there are others who wish to ask questions. However, I shall permit the right hon. gentleman one more supplementary.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in respect of the selfsatisfaction of the Prime Minister in being a member of the Royal Society of Canada and my being an honorary member, all I can say is that I shared that honour with Mr. Pearson and Mr. King. Insofar as the statement is concerned, and the manner in which he has eroded the royal relationship with Canada, I say to him that his statement that any such change was made under my administration is completely false and he knows it.


INDUSTRY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice concerning the activities of the United Aircraft Corporation in Montreal whose dealings with the federal government I understand have been investigated by the minister's department. Considering the fact that more than $70 million of

federal funds have gone into that corporation in recent years, could the minister inform the House when either officials of his department or of that of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce became aware of the fact that that company had transferred some 40 per cent of its production in the Montreal area to the United States? Could he inform the House when the government became aware of that fact and what has been done about it by the government?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, that question would be better directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. There was a discussion about involvement on the part of my department but the main thrust for handling the problem is in that department.


UNITED AIRCRAFT-SUGGESTED ENFORCEMENT OF LEGAL OBLIGATIONS
John Edward Broadbent: In the
absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister who dealt with this matter the other day. Can he assure the House that the legal commitment, including the provision of employment in the Montreal area entered into by United Aircraft Corporation, one of the conditions to get all the money from the federal government, will be lived up to? Not only does one anticipate an affirmative answer from the Prime Minister but would he undertake on behalf of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to make a statement on this serious subject to the House later this week?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The minister is in Toronto where he is attending the arrival, on behalf of the government of Canada, of Team Canada which showed such excellent spirit in the games abroad. He is concerned with the matter that has been discussed 1 previously in connection with this subject, and he is looking into it. If he has any statement to make, I am sure he will be making it to the House.


UNITED AIRCRAFT-SUGGESTED TAKE-OVER BY GOVERNMENT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have one final supplementary question. Is the Prime Minister now in a position, after several days of meditation, to inform the House whether or not his government has decided to take this firm within public ownership?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I believe the Leader of the NDP must have heard my answer on this subject a couple of days ago.


John Edward Broadbent: That is why I repeated the question.
October 9, 1974


FOOD PRICES
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce but in his absence I will address it to the Minister of Finance. As the price of sugar has increased by more than 200 per cent in the last 12 months, causing many Canadian food products to rise in price very sharply indeed, has the government followed through on the proposals made by the Food Prices Review Board last July that sugar prices should immediately be reduced by opening negotiations to lower tariffs on sugar imported from non-Commonwealth countries, lifting the British preferential tariff on sugar, negotiating for lower sugar tariffs from countries with most favoured nation status, and finally, to allow Canada to import raw sugar from other sources such as Brazil and Cuba? If these proposals have not been carried through, when will they be?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: There is also a Tariff Board report on this question, and both subjects will be considered together.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the right hon. Prime Minister.
He probably knows about the letters sent by the Quebec Minister of Justice to the federal government concerning the refusal to use the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for provincial security purposes, because Quebec has its own police force. When the Quebec Minister of Justice asked for compensation, the federal government refused. Is it now considering compensating the province of Quebec for its refusal to allow Quebec to use the RCMP in Quebec, and in this way contributing to the security of Quebec or the use of Quebec police officers?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I must remind the hon. member that the federal police force is used in the province of Quebec for numerous very useful purposes. The only difference, Mr. Speaker, is that both Quebec and Ontario have established a provincial police force. The federal government has considered the request of the province of Quebec and studies it in detail. The Solicitor General has in fact replied to the letter sent by the Quebec Minister of Justice. I believe that the contents of this letter have been made public. If not, I shall see to it that the hon. member is made aware of the arguments it contains, which will, I am sure, convince him that the federal government made the only possible decision on this matter.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary.
Oral Questions
Is the cabinet considering setting higher charges for the provinces which use the RCMP instead of compensating Quebec and Ontario because they do not? The Prime Minister says that we use the RCMP, but we do not use it as much as Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba and eastern Canada, where the provincial police force even acts as a municipal police force in some cases. These provinces should pay the costs for the use of the RCMP. That is why the governments of Quebec and Ontario are asking some compensation from the federal government for the nonuse of the RCMP at the provincial level. Does the federal government intend to compensate these provinces?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As to the second part of the question, Mr. Speaker, I feel I have already replied to it. As to the first part, these contracts with provincial governments are renewed periodically. Each time they are renewed, the amount of compensation, the amount a province must pay for using the RCMP, and that which the federal government has to pay are negotiable matters. All provinces, Quebec included, wishing to take part in these discussions are free to do so. But I do not think that a province which refuses to sign such a contract with the federal government should suggest that the said government is charging too much or too little.


HARBOURS
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question of the Minister of Transport.
Since his government has shown much interest for quite some time in building a deep sea port and since the population of Gros-Cacouna and of Quebec in general await impatiently the findings of studies undertaken in this regard, I would like to know if the minister is able to tell us what are the possibilities of seeing this project through, or if another site has been chosen by the government?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am as anxious as the hon. member to receive the report under way on new harbour structures in Canada. Undoubtedly, I will then be able to answer this request more precisely.


Roch La Salle: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
In precise terms, would the minister say that the construction of a port at Gros-Cacouna is still a possibility?


Jean Marchand: Locations at Gros-Cacouna are still considered as well as those of Sept-Iles, Port-Car-tier, Quebec City and a few others also.

October 9, 1974
Oral Questions


HOUSING
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs but in his absence I will direct it to the Prime Minister. Would the government as an act of compassion, in the light of the fact that there are now 12,000 men unemployed in the lumber industry in British Columbia, direct some moneys to housing in the senior citizens program and thereby help the unemployment program as well as provide much needed housing?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will consider the proposal of the hon. member.


FINANCE
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Following the exchange between the hon. member for Calgary North and the Prime Minister at which time the Prime Minister indicated, if I heard him correctly, that all the promises made during the election would be implemented, and keeping in mind the speech that the Minister of Finance made in Vancouver in which he registered some concern and stated that a reassessment of those promises should be made, can we now assume that the Minister of Finance has been shot down with respect to this attitude?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have not had a recent conversation with the Prime Minister on that, but I do not think so. I want to say through you, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister has said that the commitments made during the election which will be kept will be implemented within the life of this parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Napier Turner: I said exactly the same thing in different words, namely, that the commitments made by the party now holding governmental office in this country ought to be orchestrated within the ability of the economy to digest them.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Is the minister now stating that he is forgoing any reassessment in terms of the promises that were made during the election? Does he not feel that that is still important, or was that just puffery and the glamour attitude he is adopting in looking forward to the leadership?


John Napier Turner: There is no puffery at all. With the proper reconciliation of priorities, including those commitments made by this party during the elec-

tion, they can all be digested within the ability of this country in its growth to digest and implement without undue effect on the economy.


AGRICULTURE
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Given the latest CPI increase of 2 per cent in dairy products, is the minister prepared now to follow the recommendations of the Food Prices Review Board and extend the subsidy on milk, in view of its importance as a staple item of nutrition which should not be forgone because of rising prices.


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the government has not changed its mind on the subsidy. It is a consumer subsidy.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If the minister is not prepared to follow the recommendations of the board, can he say why the government is extending the mandate of the board for another year at the expense of the Canadian taxpayer?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, you must remember that when the government took up the question of the five cents a quart consumer subsidy, it did so without recommendations from that board. We said at that time that it would be in effect for one year, until other programs could be initiated. If you want to talk about other products, you could talk about sugar which has gone up by 17.6 per cent this last month.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


FOOD PRICES
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister and is prompted by the further, unusual increase in the food component of the Consumer Price Index and the increase in the wholesale price index. Was the Minister of Agriculture enunciating government policy in the United States yesterday when he said that increased food prices are not inflationary?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I did not see the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture. I will look at it. I am sure it makes good sense.
October 9, 1974


MONTREAL OLYMPICS, 1976-FAILURE OF CERTAIN BANKS TO RECOGNIZE OLYMPIC COINS AS LEGAL TENDER
Mr. Claude-Andre Lachance (Lafontaine):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the hon. Postmaster General, who is responsible for the marketing program of the Olympic coins in Canada and abroad?
Since sections 3(1) and 4(1) of the Olympic (1976) Act, being chapter 31 of the 1973 Statutes of Canada, provide that these coins are legal tender in Canada for a payment not exceeding $20, can the minister explain why some banks, with specific guidelines of the Bank of Canada, refuse to honor them?
If there are any guidelines of this nature, does the minister intend to give instructions to the Bank of Canada in order to redress an irregularity that could cause mistrust amongst numismatists throughout the world and Canadian taxpayers generally?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, the question was so detailed that it might be better put on the order paper. I will take up the matter privately with the hon. gentleman after the question period, to see if there is any substance to his charge.


AGRICULTURE
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture.
Since maple bush owners are hard put to get reasonable returns for last spring's maple products, would the minister tell if financial assistance was requested by producers or associations, and if so what course of action he is contemplating to help this group of producers.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, an agreement has been reached with them which will provide them with initial payments.


PUBLICIZING OF AGREEMENT WITH GOVERNMENT
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: I have a supplementary for the minister, Mr. Speaker. Given the minister's answer that agreement was reached, would he state if the House will soon be made aware of the features of the agreement, in order that we may inform producers in time.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary secretary and officials negotiated most of the agreement with the maple sugar producers. I did not think there was anything secret about it. If it has not been published so far you can be sure that it will be.
Oral Questions


COW-CALF OPERATION-REQUEST FOR AID
Mr. Ken Hurlburt (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Although he has been pretty busy recently answering questions about eggs, would he inform the House whether there is any thought, concern or program regarding the cow and calf operators in Canada who are now facing the lowest returns for calves in the last 20 years?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, as I told the House on Monday, a meeting was taking place then between provincial officials and the federal people. So far they have not made a full report. I understand that many suggestions were put forward. I received a preliminary report, but nothing that was really firm as to what should be done. All agreed that something should be done.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of remarks made yesterday by United States Ambassador Eberle relating to the possibility of oil being transported from Alaska over Canadian territory, can the minister advise the House whether the government is presently discussing, or plans to discuss, such an eventuality with United States officials?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the comments to which my hon. friend refers were not made in the conversation which Canadian ministers had with the ambassador. The matter was not raised in those terms.


John Allen Fraser: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister advise the House whether he has any knowledge of United States' policy regarding Alaskan oil which involves the transportation of Alaskan oil across Canada to the United States?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have no precise knowledge, except to this extent: it was agreed, following the conversation yesterday, that in order to clarify certain general comments made in what was a relatively brief meeting, detailed discussions would be held later between officials of Canada and the United States and this is one point which could be explored at that time.


FINANCE
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. As the wholesale price of lumber has been decreasing at approximately $1 per thousand board feet per day since midsum-

October 9, 1974
Oral Questions
mer and as this situation, coupled with the sharp decline in housing starts, has resulted in drastic lay-offs of thousands of workmen now with a potential lay-off of 100,000 people in British Columbia alone, has the minister given any consideration to this serious problem and, if so, does he intend to make a statement on it?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I and my colleagues, particularly the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and others are watching the situation which has come about primarily as a result of softening in the American, Japanese and British markets for British Columbia lumber. I doubt whether I will be making an immediate statement. The question is under active review.


Frank Oberle: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister considering a departure from a previous policy he announced, to the effect that he will not consider removal of the 11 per cent sales tax to stimulate housing construction in Canada, a removal which would help the lumber industry immensely.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the removal of that tax would help with the immediate problem, which has resulted from the softening of our export markets for lumber.


THE BUDGET
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Now that the Minister of Finance has heard the President of the United States give his views on curing inflation, is the minister able to tell the House when he will bring down a budget, or will he wait for the American universe to unfold a little longer?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I did not have the opportunity of listening to the President of the United States address the Congress, but we had a full Telex report of what he said immediately as he said it. We also had, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs said, a verbatim background of the American proposals given to us by Ambassador Eberle and Ambassador Porter at about 6.15, only two hours after the President spoke. One of the things which struck me was that a good deal of the consensus of American economists, some of which has been accepted by the President of the United States, includes policies we have had in place in this country for the last 24 months.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I assume the Minister of Finance did not hear my question. May I ask when he is going to bring in the budget. I know he wanted to make a good speech.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to deal with the hon. member's question as fully as I could. I hope to be speaking on the same subject a little later

today. However, the budget will be brought forth some time before November 15, subject to further conversations with my colleague, the House leader.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of Transport whether the government of Canada is prepared to join with the governments of Alberta and Ontario as a shareholder in the Urban Transportation Development Corporation so that more attention can be given to transportation systems in our cities.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, this is something we as a government are looking into.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


FINANCE
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. In view of President Ford's announcement yesterday of an investment tax credit in the United States and the danger it imposes to us in the outflow of Canadian capital to the United States, will the minister within the next day or two be announcing foreign exchange controls?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, that is the sort of question I will answer in this form. The hon. member knows I do not comment on futures, interest rates, commodities or foreign exchange. I might say that an immediate preliminary review of the president's proposal does not indicate that it will have any appreciable effect on the Canadian market.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: In view of the lively interest in foreign ownership in this country, and the danger of funds flowing back to the United States because of this type of credit, can the minister state whether his department is doing a definitive study of the problem. If so, will he table that information for all members to see once it is completed?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we are conducting studies on a number of problems. I try to take the House into my confidence as often as I can, whenever the rules allow. However, as for the information being made public, this is of course given to me on a confidential and frank basis by the public service of Canada.
October 9, 1974


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. John Reynolds (Bumaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of questions for the Solicitor General. I have given his office notice. In view of the fact that last year the minister stated that the four towers of the British Columbia penitentiary would be manned on a 24 hour basis to add to the security of the penitentiary and in view of the fact those towers are not manned at all between the hours of midnight and eight a.m. and have not been so for some months, when will the towers again be manned on a 24 hour basis?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, those towers were manned on a 24 hour basis during a period of time when we had some difficulties with security. I forget the exact date, but for some time they have not been manned after the lock-up at midnight. However, there have been perimeter patrols outside the walls and dogs on guard within the walls. We do not have any plans to reintroduce manning the towers at this time.


BRITISH COLUMBIA-NUMBER OF GUARDS CHARGED WITH DRUG OFFENCES
John Douglas Reynolds: Can
the Solicitor General advise this House how many employees in the penitentiary service in British Columbia have either resigned or are on leave of absence because of their arrest or conviction on drug charges?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I will have to get exact information for the hon. member. I will be pleased to do that. I might say that since we introduced the new measures last year, escapes in the penitentiary service have been reduced by 50 per cent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



FINANCE


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance or the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In their discussions yesterday, did Ambassador Eberle disclose whether President Ford means that international co-operation to fight inflation will be to display some new initiatives in a formalized way? Is there to be a new structure, or will this be on a bilateral basis, or again will this be within the framework of the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank or any other frameworks that now exist, including the committee of which the minister has now been, shall I say, put on the hot seat by being elected its chairman?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the interest of the hon. member and the hon. member for Don Valley by their attending
Oral Questions
Ambassador Eberle's press conference before he left. What the ambassador made clear to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and myself is that the United States envisage consultation and co-operation in the inter-relationship of budgetary policies as they might have contagious followup effects on other economies around the world. His purpose in coming here was to explain on behalf of the president the fact that in setting the budgetary and other fiscal and monetary policies of the United States, including the conservation policies they had in mind, they also had in view the effect those actions would have on Canada and other countries within the economic world.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Was there any indication there would be prior consultation rather than simultaneous disclosure as the statement was being made and the policy was being unveiled in Washington while the ambassador was explaining to the ministers here? How can that be reconciled with the word "consultation"?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the disclosure and explanation to Canada was as close to being simultaneous as could be. The ambassador spoke to us at 6:15. The president spoke to the United States Congress at four o'clock. The United States, through Ambassador Eberle and Secretary of the Treasury Mr. Simon, contemplate increasing the structural force and structural power of the international monetary fund, giving it surveillance power to review budgetary policies of various member nations as they have contagious effects around the world. In that sense, I agree with the hon. member's question.



FISHERIES


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the fact that some 20 swordfishing boats are today operating out of the port of New Bedford, Massachusetts, when does the minister intend to take steps to re-open talks with his counterpart in Washington in an effort to have the United States government lift its mercury guidelines on swordfish? Exports from Nova Scotia alone prior to the FDA ban in 1969 were worth between $4 million and $5 million.


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries)):: Mr. Speaker, we are looking into this matter. I remind the hon. member that the mercury level of swordfish is still very much a problem for both the Canadian and United States authorities. I am very hopeful that some day our swordfish fishermen may return to what was once a very important resource business.

October 9, 1974
Oral Questions INDUSTRY



AUTOMOBILES-EFFECT ON CANADIAN INDUSTRY OF UNITED STATES REGULATIONS ON GASOLINE CONSUMPTION

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister or any appropriate minister. With regard to the statement of President Ford that he intends to have discussions with the United States automobile industry concerning very substantial changes in gasoline consumption and presumably very substantial changes in re-tooling the structure of the whole industry, were there any consultations on the part of the United States with the government of Canada before this announcement was made or has there been any indication since then that the United States government will consult with the government of Canada about the very serious implications this might have for Canada in view of the U.S.-Canada automobile pact?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, Ambassador Eberle described some of the conservation measures in terms of the consumption of oil which will require a re-scheduling of tooling of the American industry in order to increase the mileage to about 40 or 50 miles per gallon. That would require some response in engineering terms from the North American automobile industry. My understanding is that there was no prior consultation because President Ford was, in effect, presenting a budgetary measure. But Ambassador Eberle did assure us that there would be very close consultation with the automobile industry in North America as to phasing in all these measures.



POSSIBLE RENEGOTIATION OF ALL TRADE AGREEMENTS WITH UNITED STATES

Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: wonder whether the ambassador, in his statement to the three Canadian ministers involved, indicated that not only would the auto pact be up for renegotiation very shortly but that all trade agreements between Canada and the United States would be looked at, and, if so, what was the reply?


John Napier Turner: The discussion did not enter into that at all.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport.
Since the movement of logs on the Ottawa River actually represents a public danger for pleasure boats, for instance, right from the source of the river downstream to

Hawkesbury, and since the government already asked those companies involved to stop any movement of logs on that river, does the minister intend to take steps to force the Canadian International Paper Company and the E. B. Eddy Company to cease their operations on the Ottawa River?


Jean Marchand: I doubt very much, Mr. Speaker, that the Ottawa River would be part of what are called navigable waters under the federal act. In any case, I can inquire but the co-operation of the province involved and the Department of Environment would certainly be required to make it possible.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Did the minister discuss this with the Minister of the Environment and Quebec authorities?


Jean Marchand: There have not been any such discussions to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker. I might point out to the hon. member that there might be means of protecting the propellers on pleasure boats by having protection devices installed under the boats.



MANPOWER


Mr. Bernard Loiselle (Chambly):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Can he advise the House of the results of the investigation into the charges laid by Mr. Rene Riel and his lawyer, Mr. Robert Dolman, alleging that certain employees at the Montreal Manpower Centre have committed irregularities regarding the issuance of work permits?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, this investigation was carried out by Mr. Joseph Nuss, counsel for the commission of inquiry relating to the Department of Manpower and Immigration in Montreal. In brief, the investigation by Mr. Nuss completely exonerated the department of any wrongdoing and makes it very clear that Mr. Riel himself was guilty of numerous questionable and perhaps illegal acts. Mr. Nuss' report labels the accusations as unsubstantiated, unverified and false and it is my hope that irresponsible allegations such as this will not be permitted to reflect on the character and integrity of the people working in the department.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
October 9, 1974



NUCLEAR REACTORS-SUGGESTED CHANGE IN EXPORT POLICY AS RELATED TO THIRD WORLD POWERS

Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. First, though, I should like to congratulate him on his elevation to that post. I believe he will do a very good job for Canada. Following his speech at the United Nations, has the hon. gentleman been able to convince the government of which he is part to cease giving away and selling nuclear reactors to Third World powers?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I thank the hon. member for his words of congratulation and good wishes. In reply to his question, I have not been able to convince my colleagues because I have not attempted to change the export policy which has been followed by the government up to the present time.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: In the minister's capacity as our spokesman for external affairs, does he not feel his words would carry more weight if we were to do what we say should be done? Does he not feel that Canada will be judged by her actions rather than by her words?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and I believe that the policies which have been put forward by Canada speak quite loudly and that the assurances which Canada seeks from those nations receiving its nuclear equipment are in line with international safeguards and, in some cases, even more rigid.
[DOT] * *



WILDLIFE


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the continuous, wholesale and unrestrained bloody slaughter of polar bears, may I ask when the government intends to put forward a policy concerning the preservation of this native fauna?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have not looked into this matter recently but I will certainly discuss it with the minister responsible and make sure the House is made aware of any developments in this area.



POST OFFICE


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might have the indulgence of the House in order to clarify a matter which was the subject of an exchange between myself and the right hon. member for Prince Albert a few moments ago.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Oral Questions


An hon. Member:: No!


John George Diefenbaker: If you give me an opportunity to reply.


Mr. Speaker:: I think we should hear the clarification first, and then see what happens.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I can assure the right hon. gentleman that he does not need my permission to reply. He always seems to take that authority on himself.


John George Diefenbaker: Freedom is finally restored to the House!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The information I have is that one must look at two areas; first, the trucks serving the Post Office and, second, the postal boxes. As far as the trucks are concerned, the policy of the government is to ensure that the words "Canada Post-Poste Canada", the words "Royal Mail-Poste Royale" and the coat of arms appear on all the trucks. So it is not a question of the government taking off "Royal Mail". On the contrary, the policy is that all trucks should bear these words.
Insofar as the postal boxes are concerned, Mr. Speaker, the government has never taken the words "Royal Mail" off them for the simple reason that those words were never on the boxes.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am told that the administration has looked mightily into this question and has found no trace of the words "Royal Mail" on the boxes, under either Liberal or Conservative administrations. However, the insignia "ER II" which did appear on many boxes in the 'fifties were ordered removed in the early 'sixties by the government of the right hon. gentleman.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: And now for the clarification of the clarification.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I don't know where the Prime Minister secured that ex parte statement I simply repeat what I said a while ago that in the statement he made earlier the truth could not have been more truthfully stated in the reverse.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Explain!


John George Diefenbaker: I would simply add this. All across this country he said the same thing when I mentioned the removal of "Royal Canadian" or the "RCM" because he wanted to get rid of the "Royal". I also point out that in nineteen hundred-


An hon. Member:: And two.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: In 1967, at the Liberal meeting in Montreal a resolution was brought before that meeting to abolish the Queen. It was passed with two members of the
254

October 9, 1974
The Address-Mr. W. Baker
present cabinet voting for it, the hon. gentleman opposite, the Minister of Communications (Mr. Pelletier), and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand). When the Prime Minister was asked whether he was going to vote, or why he did not vote, he said: "I didn't vote because it was of no consequence to me; I regard the Queen as of less importance than skiing or even snowshoeing".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I make a further appeal before life becomes more complicated. Before we go to orders of the day, the President of the Treasury Board has been seeking the floor to answer a question that was asked of him yesterday, and it might be better to transport ourselves into orders of the day on a less controversial note.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley asked a question in my absence. I should like to inform him now that the Finkelman report will be considered by a special committee of the House. The President of the Privy Council has introduced a motion to form such a committee to deal with this matter. After due consideration by the committee, a bill will be introduced during this session as it has been announced in the Speech from the Throne.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, October 4, consideration of the motion of Mr. Louis Duclos for an address to His Excellency the Administrator of the Government of Canada in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Stanfield (p. 42).
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. Minister of Finance.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. In recognizing the minister I had overlooked the fact that at the conclusion of the debate last Friday the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton had the floor.


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for recognizing me and to say that I, too, look forward to hearing the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) fill in the holes in the Speech from the Throne

which we are now considering. I think the Speech from the Throne and the contribution to this debate made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) were empty of matters that are of importance to Canadians of all ages and in all parts of the country.
Before embarking on my speech I want to join my colleagues on all sides of this House in congratulating Your Honour on attaining your high office. The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) yesterday mentioned some of the advantages of that office. I hope none of us forgets that there are some singular disadvantages to that office, and in our deliberations in the days ahead in this House all of us join in wishing Your Honour every success.
I should also like to congratulate the mover and seconder of the Address in Reply. This is a great honour given to new parliamentarians, and I suggest to you, sir, that they carried out their task with dignity, in a manner that was a credit to them and to the constituencies and people they represent in this House. For those two young members it was an auspicious beginning to their parliamentary careers.
I mentioned that the Speech from the Throne was noticeably deficient in terms of the great issues facing this country, the priorities that ought to face the government, and answers to questions that are being asked by the people of Canada. The Prime Minister in his speech-I say this with respect-adopted as his theme those issues that do not in any way meet the economic priorities of Canada.
Today we received the cost-price index figures for the country, and although those figures show a slower monthly rate of increase than the rate of increase in August, this deceleration in price must be taken in context with the fact that over the past 15 years 60 per cent of the September figures compared with August have, either, shown declines in the cost-price index, or no movement at all. So this slightly reduced monthly increase in the cost-price index cannot be any real comfort to Canadians who are looking for some reversal of the trend.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, these figures cannot be taken as any indication at all of the lessening of price pressures; but only as an unexpected seasonal factor. In looking at all these figures it is important to note that the goods classification in the index continues to increase at a greater rate than services. With anticipated stronger demand for wages we ought to expect greater impact on service areas than on goods, so that over the next little while we can look forward to a wave of inflationary pressure in Canada which we can expect to come from a different source within the index.
It is those matters to which the leader of the government did not address himself. On reading his speech, I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, with respect, that his priorities are mixed and badly out of line with the basic needs of this country. Perhaps the Minister of Finance will do something this afternoon to bring those plans into line. I await the speech of the Minister of Finance with some anticipation, hoping that the dialogue that was referred to in the Speech from the Throne is going to have some reality, rather than being a mere word used as a substitute for action that is long overdue.
October 9, 1974

The Prime Minister dealt with reform of the rules of the House of Commons. I think the first priority is with respect to the reform of the attitude of the Prime Minister to the House of Commons. He dealt with the reform of the Senate, and suggested as one of those reforms that he was going to appoint Senators for seven years, their appointment being subject to renewal. Can you imagine any proposal, Mr. Speaker, that would make that body more servile than it is now?
The Prime Minister talked about the repatriation of the constitution. Aside from the fact that the word he uses is wrong, surely to heaven there are many more important things in the country at the present time than a consideration of that matter?
The people of this country are looking for some answers, Mr. Speaker. The public service of Canada, through the process of arbitration with one of 52 public service groups, has embarked upon the matter of indexing salaries. This may be good or bad; I do not know, and I do not have the information at hand to make a judgment. But I am appalled that the Minister of Finance, in a speech made outside this House, should indicate that there had been no study of the process of indexing of salaries and wages. That is one matter to which the government must address itself in view of the demands that are being made by people in the public service, as well as the private sector, who are hard pressed. Yet those answers are not forthcoming from the government, despite the fact that they were asked for during the 29th parliament. Instead, the Speech from the Throne dealt with things that in economic terms are not of immediate impact.
The Speech from the Throne, and particularly the Prime Minister's speech during this debate, dealt with the public service of this country in a way that it has not been dealt with before. I have spoken in this House, as has the Minister of Finance, and the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis), in another parliament, about the difficulties of the public service in addressing itself to the problems that have been created by the implementation of the Official Languages Act. I am not going to repeat these things because they are on the records of this House, but this is the first time, in the Prime Minister's speech, and I want you to mark that, I have ever read or heard of the introduction of a quota system into the employment practices of the public service. I think that is a departure which will cause difficulty in the public service.
If there have been difficulties, and there have been some real ones, in the implementation of the policy in respect of official languages which resulted in misunderstandings, then it is my belief that these misunderstandings and these difficulties will be multiplied by what I regard as a change in the direction of the public service of Canada.
I would not say for one moment that the public service ought not to be a place where all Canadians can find a worth-while career and the opportunities for advancement; far from it. I have never said that before, and I would not say it today. However, I do not believe that this change in direction is healthy in any way, either in terms of the public service of Canada or in terms of the country as a whole.
The Address-Mr. W. Baker
As I looked over the annual report of the Public Service Commission, which has been delivered to members of parliament, I searched from end to end to see whether the merit principle is mentioned in respect of the public service and I could find nothing there. The merit principle as it has been understood in this country is a tattered remnant now, and I believe the public service and the people of the country will be poorer served as a result of this matter.
Other members during this debate have dealt with one other matter which I do not believe can be ignored in the context of our Canadian federalism, and that is the action of the province of Quebec in passing a bill known as Bill 22. I do not know of any statute or of any act that has been adopted by the government of Canada, or by any province, which has built within it a greater capability for creating division in the country. I do not say that with any joy; I say that as a matter of some considerable regret.
Many groups have commented on this bill. Perhaps the best comment made in respect of it was made by the Canadian Teachers' Federation, a group of concerned Canadians representing the educators of this country in all of its provinces and territories. That federation said:
In either ease, there are two sets of rights to be respected. The linguistic minority-French or English-has a right to protection against repressive acts. The linguistic majority-English or French- has a right to be protected against domination by the minority. To violate these rights is offensive to common fairness and the idea of democracy.
One test of democracy, and of fairness, is whether parents have freedom to choose, for their children's schooling, the official language that they judge to be the more advantageous.
The statement went on to set forth the policy of that national organization and ended by saying the Canadian Teachers' Federation:
-condemn oppressive measures, such as those sections of Quebec's Bill 22 which take the right of choice away from parents and put it in the hands of the bureaucrats of the French Language Board and the Quebec Civil Service.
I will not comment in this place on the way that was done in the provincial legislature, but I must say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the way it was done was a defeat for democracy in this country, and the denial of parental choice sets a deplorable and dangerous precedent for Canada.
The Prime Minister has defended his refusal to refer the Official Language Act of Quebec to the Supreme Court of Canada to test its constitutionality, and he has justified his refusal with an allegation that Quebec has treated its language minority better than other provinces have treated their language minorities in the past.
Even if that allegation were true, I would ask whether this is the answer that ought to be given by a political leader who assured parliament, the Canadian public and the governments of all provinces, that in accepting and implementing the Official Languages Act of Canada they had assured the unity of Canada so far as the French Canadians in provinces other than Quebec are concerned? Surely if the governments of those provinces have committed sins of language discrimination in the past, they are now absolved.
I should like to ask whether the Prime Minister's statement is historically correct. Have the other provinces not
28305-17'/2

October 9, 1974
The Address-Mr. W. Baker
treated their minorities as well as Quebec has in the past? Can the Prime Minister, reputed to be a constitutional authority, point to breaches by each and every one of the provinces, other than Quebec, of their constitutional duties under the British North America Act?
Putting these constitutional duties aside, and looking at the equity of the problem, can the Prime Minister name any province, other than Quebec and New Brunswick, in which 10 per cent or more of the population is Frenchspeaking? The 10 per cent, I would remind him, is the definition of a French or English minority as contained in Canada's Official Languages Act. According to the 1971 census, other than New Brunswick and Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba have the highest percentage of persons whose mother tongue was French. Here the percentages are only 6 per cent and not 10 per cent. In the other provinces and the territories the percentage drops drastically. What is the formula of discrimination that the Prime Minister applies retroactively to these provinces in his broad and sweeping statement?
Considering these very low percentages, is the Prime Minister aware of certain other hard facts that have borne upon the actions of provincial governments other than Quebec in an effort to forge a nation out of colonies and a vast unsettled land, a greater land mass than all but one or two other nations of the world?
Is he aware that during this century of building, the immigration policy of the federal government attracted English-speaking and non-French-speaking immigrants to Canada? Is he aware that during confederation the bulk of Canada's trade, and Canada has grown great upon its trade, has been with the United Kingdom and with the United States of America, and that these are two Englishspeaking nations?
Is the Prime Minister aware that until very recent times only a small percentage of Canadians were able to enjoy an education that continued beyond grade school; but today, for some, education extends into university, professional schools, Harvard, the London School of Economics and the Sorbonne? Since the early 30's people were fortunate, in the world in which we live, in enjoying opportunities to learn that other people never had previously.
Is the Prime Minister aware that throughout the past years of confederation there have not been sufficient competent teachers of French to meet the requirements of the provinces, and that today there are not sufficient, including those imported at high salaries, despite the advantages of modern aids to language education?
Does the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) not share the knowledge of his Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) that many provinces, including Quebec, could not afford to institute proper bilingual language instruction without massive federal aid? Is not this financial aid an admission by the Prime Minister's government that the language defects in the educational systems of the provinces are not deliberate discrimination against those who speak the French language? Surely these things must be obvious.
Does the Prime Minister, in steering Canada's foreign policy in a moralistic leftist direction, intend to castigate France for suppressing the language of the Basques and

Alsatians, and to castigate England which only recently recognized the Welsh language in the courts after banning Welsh as a barbarous language by statute many centuries ago?
What disturbs me about the situation, aside from the things he mentioned, is that the Prime Minister as a keeper of the constitution, such as it is, should wish to perpetuate the myth that there is something in the other provinces of this country which will not bear scrutiny. That myth ought to be exploded. It is in fact a myth, and ought to be called a myth before its repetition becomes a fact in this country.
I represent a constituency that is composed of an area called the national capital. It is a great creation. The people of this area are grateful to the people of the country at large for the contribution they have made to tax revenues here in respect of the development of this beautiful city. This city, as a result of what has happened, has a growing meaning to all Canadians, certainly to Canadians who live here and to Canadians who visit here.
I think as we embark, as the Speech from the Throne said, on a consideration of the "future of the national capital"-that is a pretty broad phrase-we ought not to forget there are two considerations-the creation of the national symbol which this city is supposed to be, and the continuation of the effort to make this city not only a satisfactory place in which to live, work or raise children, but also a satisfactory place for the residents of the area to participate in the government of this area.
I hope that when the committee is formed it will not be forgotten that certain instruments of local government are precious; that certain structures such as the municipal governments are those instruments which are closest to the people of this area. Now when we embark on a consideration of what our national capital is to be, and what the structure is to be, we should bear in mind the precious qualities of those instruments.
I wish to serve notice that in the consideration of the Fullerton Report which will shortly come before the House I, as a member representing part of this national capital area-and I hope I will be joined by other members representing it-intend to ensure that there will be no step taken that will make the governments of this region more remote than they are now from the people who live here.
I think it is important that we consider the operation of this national capital area in the future. But we must begin, I respectfully say, with a consideration of its past. There has been no review of the function of the National Capital Commission since, if I recall correctly, 1956. This Commission was established by the government of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker).
During that period the Commission has become a major life force in this area. It is unfortunate but true that its relations with the local municipalities have not always been the best, or not always carried out with the most understanding. I think we must review this body to ensure that whatever errors were made from time to time they are not carried into any future form of government which may, or may not, come out of the considerations of the committee which is to be established.
October 9, 1974

We must listen to the provincial governments. I think they must be asked point blank what are their views. I refer not only to the province of Quebec and the province of Ontario, which have a direct interest, but to all provinces of the country whose people contribute to this capital.
I believe we must pay attention in this area to the community associations which are active in it. We must consider their views. I believe we must consider not just the Fullerton Report, which is a narrow issue, but also the whole series of studies that are being conducted now.
We must consider the matter of rapid transit and the position of the federal government with regard to it. We must consider the matter of open and green space. We must consider the preservation of our heritage, not just as an area but as a national capital. We must consider local needs in order to see how they mesh with others, and then provide, if we can, the machinery for the meshing. But at all times in this consideration we ought not to allow ourselves the luxury of believing that only a federally oriented and only a federally dominated agency can properly chart the course of the area.
There are plans now with regard to land use in the national capital area which are to be released. The regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton just submitted its official plan to Queens Park, and there is a plan for downtown parking. I understand that plan is to be released later in the fall. We must study these things. We must also consider the study just instituted by the government of Ontario with regard to the changing functions of the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton. We must study as well the plans and consider the aspirations of the Outaouais region in the province of Quebec. We must consider all these matters to ensure that no stone is left unturned in respect of matters with which this committee will deal.
I do not know whether all the recommendations of the committee will ever be implemented. I really do not know that, but I know that whether they are implemented in whole or in part they will have a profound effect on the future of the national capital area. I suggest to the government, through you, Sir, that this is a matter which ought not to be proceeded with hastily, and that we ought not take second-hand opinions with regard to other national capital areas, but that there should be the fullest right and privilege to travel, to listen, to delegate, to see for ourselves so that we will not have to accept the reports of others, with the biases of those who will bring forward those reports.
As I say, I admit that the people of Canada make a great contribution to this area, but there must also be considered the wishes of the people who live here. It is important that those wishes not be lost in the rush to create a model national capital.
There is one other matter which I hope this committee will consider, and that is the whole matter of federal financing for local municipalities. I do not know of any subject that has caused greater difficulty in this country, and particularly in this area, than the dominant federal presence in the national capital area and in the municipalities that form part of this area. I think we
The Address-Mr. W. Baker
should be prepared to look at new machinery to ensure that, in an area such as this, or in any other area where the federal government's institutions play an important part in local assessment, there is machinery to allow grants in lieu of taxes to be dealt with openly rather than behind closed doors, subject always to the provisions of the British North America Act.
Some time ago the mayor of the city of Ottawa went to see the Minister of Finance and came away from that meeting with $700,000. I do not know why that happened; I am sure it happened for the proper reasons. But I believe there should be machinery to ensure that all the local government parties, and all the municipalities, can fully and fairly examine in an open way the problems that they have with the large federal presence in this as any other area.
I look forward to this committee, not because it will bring change but because it will bring examination. I hope that this committee, when it deals with this matter, will balance the national interest with the great private and local interests that there are in this area as a place in which to live, so that perhaps out of it will come a proposal for something new with a strong mixture of the old but, most important, that whatever is proposed will be accepted not only to the country as a whole but to the people who live in the national capital.


Mr. Pierre De Bane (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the hon. member for Grenville-Carle-ton (Mr. Baker)?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member for Matane wishes to direct a question to the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton, but it cannot be done without the unanimous consent of the House. Does the House agree?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Pierre De Bané: According to the figures of the Public Service Commission the percentage of French speaking members in the public service has increased by over 1 per cent in the last six years. Does the hon. member think that this is a fast pace of increase and, if not, what would he suggest as a means of increasing the number of Francophones in the public service, provided of course that the merit system is preserved? Does the hon. member think that this increase of 1 per cent in six years is a very fast increase, and how can Francophones get a better deal in the public service?


Walter David Baker: I certainly would not consider the 1 per cent increase to which the hon. member referred as fast, to answer the question quite seriously, but I do not believe that the merit system will be preserved in any respect by the establishment of a quota, and that was the clear signal given by the Prime Minister in the course of his speech.
As I said in the course of my speech, I would like the public service of Canada to be a satisfying place of work for all Canadians, but I do not believe it will be that satisfying if the merit system is cast aside. I think it is

October 9, 1974
The Address-Hon. J. N. Turner
important that we and those in authority understand that in this country we cannot remake 107 years of history in five or ten years. I think that once we get that into our heads there will be a greater understanding with respect to the problem to which the hon. member referred.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to what the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) just said about the Official Languages Act, the structure of the national capital, and the relationship between the federal government and the city of Ottawa. I will deal with these matters on another occasion because I am constrained by the nature of my current speech touching on national economic issues. On another occasion I will deal with the hon. member's interpretation of the Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) speech in the throne debate.
Through you, Mr. Speaker, I wish to transmit to the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Jerome), now Speaker of the House, my own personal congratulations. I was present in Sudbury the first time he stood for election, unsuccessfully as it turned out, in the by-election of 1967, and those of us who were close friends of his on both sides of the House watched him with great affection as he matured in his parliamentary skills. He has a very happy blend of energy and sensitivity; he has an innate sense of the mood of the House, and I want to congratulate him and extend to him my hopes for his success as the First Commoner in the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I want also to say to the mover and seconder of the Address in Reply that I thought they maintained the high standard set in recent years for those two traditional speeches, and that they launched this new parliament in high style.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: What I want to do today is bring the House into my confidence at this stage. Of course I will be presenting a budget for the current fiscal year before mid November subject, as I said earlier, to consultations which I will have with the Prime Minister and the House leader, so that to a certain extent this will be an interim report on the economy, and a summary of my impressions as they now stand.
In the budget I intend to provide a broad, comprehensive review of the state of the Canadian economy and of our future prospects as Canadians, to the extent that those prospects can be determined in a very uncertain world. I believe that never before, certainly in the post war period, has it been so essential to take account of the very real difficulties and dangers confronting the international community in formulating our own economic policies here in Canada.
Events of the past years underline the extent to which the economies of all nations, strong and weak, developed and developing, have become intertwined and interlocked, and this situation has particularly critical implications for Canada which, as a world trader, exports 50 per cent of everything we produce. We import nearly one third of everything we consume, and we have capital flows con-

stantly across our border running each year into billions of dollars. Given this high degree of interdependence, there is just no way in which we in this country can magically isolate ourselves from developments abroad.
In terms of the performance of the Canadian economy, I must first say, to maintain a certain balance and to put it in perspective, that in spite of its vulnerability to events taking place outside the country, the Canadian economy has fared, up to now, relatively better than the economy of other countries.
I see the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Stanfield) is smiling slightly, but he has admitted, somewhat too late, but still, to this fact in his remarks during this debate.
Our real growth in 1973 has been surpassed only by that of Japan and, this year, chances are that it will be much better than that of any other industrialized country.
In the second quarter, real gross national product had increased by 4.8 per cent compared with that of a year ago and a decrease of more than 1 per cent in the U.S.A. over the same period.
The rate of increase in employment has been strictly the same: 420,000 new jobs were created in addition to those of the previous year, representing a 4.8 per cent increase. The seasonally adjusted rate of unemployment has risen considerably reaching 5.8 per cent. As indicated by Statistics Canada, this rate will probably be reduced after study, when all the figures for the year are available and conclusions can be drawn on what changes have occurred in the seasonal labour market in the last few years.
The real disposable income per capita, that is personal income after direct taxes, including social security benefits but excluding the effects of inflation, has gone up by 6.3 per cent in Canada in the first six months of 1974, as compared with the same period in 1973 and a 2.1 per cent drop in the U.S.A.
We have generally noted that the economy rests on considerable underlying forces despite the weaknesses in some sectors. Many enterprises have reached the limits of their production capacity while others have been held back by the lack of labour, materials and components. Consumer spending has kept on being of considerable support. The expansion has been fueled by the rapid climb of capital investments.
An investigation made during the middle of the year, in the month of July, on public and private investments in Canada, has recently allowed the initial forecast of the total amount of capital to be spent to be increased from 16 to 21 per cent and that of business investments from 19 to 25 per cent. Even if part of this increase was caused by an increase in costs, the sums involved are certainly still showing that capital investments are rapidly increasing. [English]
Having said this, I must say frankly to the House that there is no room for complacency or smug satisfaction over the relatively strong performance of the Canadian economy. I have never tried to disguise, either from the Canadian people or the House, the fact that we face an era of real and potential difficulties. My point is this: these
October 9, 1974

difficulties should not be minimized, but neither should they be exaggerated. Global inflation remains the most critical human and economic problem confronting us, raising social and political tensions in many countries, and jeopardizing the stability of the international economic and financial system.
Inflation strains every family budget in Canada. Some families are suffering what I believe to be undue hardship. It is small comfort that the increase in Canadian consumer prices has been lower than that in most other industrial nations; small comfort that the interest rate has risen moderately less in Canada than abroad as a result of international inflation and uncertainty.
I ought to recite to the House that the August increase in Canadian prices over those of one year ago of 10.8 per cent compares with an increase of 11.2 per cent in the United States for the same period, and with an average increase in all OECE countries of 13.4 per cent. The August over August last year cost increase in Canada of 10.8 per cent now becomes the 10.9 September over September increase, as announced today.
Personally I confess to the House that I am immensely disturbed by double-digit inflation in this country. This remains the first priority of the department I represent and of the government to which I belong. We must face the fact that the prospect foreseen earlier by many countries, by this country and by OECE countries, for bringing world inflation under some degree of control this year has been set back for a number of reasons which have become apparent over the past few months.
First, there is the outlook for reduced crops in Canada and the United States. We were talking yesterday about a reduction of between 25 and 30 per cent in the U.S. corn crop. The United States soybean crop has been slashed. The sugar crop is down. The potential for crops in Canada is reduced, and there will be less than bumper crops in the Soviet Union. These factors have clouded earlier hopes that abundant harvests would lead to a levelling out in food prices.
Second, the prices of industrial raw materials, or so-called commodity prices, have declined less than generally expected in response to a flattening out in world economic growth. Thus they have provided less of a brake on inflation than any country anticipated.
Third, rapidly accelerating wage and salary increases in Canada and most other countries threaten to bring about substantial cost increases over the next two or three years. I recognize this. These are the result of the understandable efforts of working men and women, in this country and other countries, to catch up with the rising cost of living. None the less, some of the increases based on an anticipated continuation of the present rate of inflation will provide some inflationary pressures of their own. As I said in Vancouver, there is something to be said for cost of living indicators, because they respond to conditions which, hopefully, will subside.
Certain sectors of our economy undoubtedly are being adversely affected by developments abroad. Over the first eight months of this year the value of Canadian exports was up by 23 per cent over the level one year ago, but volume was down by 5 per cent over that of one year ago,
The Address-Hon. J. N. Turner resulting in weakness in some export industries because of slow or declining growth in some of our major markets abroad. The high level of interest rates has unquestionably been an important factor, although only one of many, leading to a decline recently in the previous very high rate of new housing starts.
The lumber industry has been adversely affected by the recent slowdown in Canadian house construction, but mainly by the reduction in the very large U.S. market as a result of the very sharp decline, even flattening out, in housing construction in that country. This has been compounded by the falling off in our other important markets for lumber in the U.K. and Japan. The economies of both these countries have been in a negative posture for the first half of 1974.
There is no question that the economy has been seriously affected in recent months, particularly by widespread industrial strife between labour and management over new collective agreements. The result has been the record of 6.3 million man days of lost production in the first seven months of this year. This, inevitably, is retarding the growth of production, employment and incomes. The construction industry in many parts of the country was particularly hard hit.
Another factor to be considered is the fourfold increase in world oil prices. This continues to be immense concern here and elsewhere. It remains a major source of inflationary pressure as this cost increase works its way through the economic system of various countries. Is this demand-pull, cost-push, or a structural change not responsive to ordinary economic forces? This is something we will need to deal with, perhaps in a deliberate micro-economic rather than macro-economic fashion.
The resulting increase in current account deficit of both developed and developing nations, together with cumulative debt charges, creates massive balance of payments problems that jeopardize the international monetary system and international financial institutions unless fair and efficient means can be worked out to recycle funds from oil producers to oil consumers on terms they can afford to bear.
That is a problem for the industrial world, but it is an even more serious problem for the developing world where we potentially have a catastrophic situation, because of the price of food, fertilizer, oil and manufactured goods. This is now out of reach for two thirds of the world's population, and will remain that way unless we and other nations do something about it.
Finally, we face the potential danger of over-kill, of excessively restrictive action being taken by individual nations in an effort to curb inflation and/or to deal with their balance of payment problems. If this restrictive action were being taken by a number of nations, particularly the larger ones, it could have a cumulative effect that could snowball into a world-wide recession. I take some encouragement from President Ford's statement yesterday to the United States Congress in the sense that it is clear the United States will not engineer a deliberate deflationary demand policy.
October 9, 1974

The Address-Hon. J. N. Turner

It is becoming more and more clear that in a world of interdependent nations caught up in a series of serious and highly related problems whose origins and consequences are basically universal, the best line of defence still lies in co-operation by, and the banding together of, all peoples. The government of Canada wants to play its role to the fullest by participating in the implementation of the type of international consultation and understanding that are essential to solve these problems.
We have talked about private discussions held in September between Ministers of Finance from the United States, Great Britain, France and Germany. We took part in a meeting of Commonwealth Ministers of Finance in Ottawa about two weeks ago. We took part in the annual meeting of the IMF and the World Bank held last week in Washington, which gave us the opportunity to have some more private discussions.
I would like to tell the House that I had private discussions in Washington with the Ministers of Finance of Japan, Sweden, Australia, Belgium, Holland and Italy.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That is a lot of talk.


John Napier Turner: That is a lot of talk, says the Leader of the Opposition. I must reply that without any consultation, without continuous dialogue, I would fear for the future of the world. Consultation and dialogue are important.
These discussions and meetings provided these countries with the opportunity to explain their views about world problems. Second, this allowed us to obtain a first hand account of their economic policy. Third, and most important perhaps, we were able to express the views of Canada on the international situation.
What views did I express on behalf of our country? First of all, I said that very close and continuous international consultation and cooperation are essential, and that Canada would rather have consultations than confrontations between countries.
Today, the ills of national economies are contageous. Second, I emphasized the fact on behalf of Canada that Canadians believe that the best way to fight inflation is to implement measures to increase production and offer. Third, I underlined our concern about the measures implemented by various countries and which have provoked an excessive economic slowdown, since they tend to prevent the increase in offer which is required to stop inflation.
The high costs in terms of production and employment losses run the risk of producing few lasting advantages as concerns price slowdown, while increasing the danger of a cumulative slowdown in the economic growth of all countries.
Fourth, I have pointed out the necessity of stricter control over the movements of international capital and the eventual need of a new international mechanism to facilitate the reinvestment of oil capital, especially in order to settle special difficulties met by under-developed countries.
Fifth, I underlined the importance of carrying out within GATT, the negotiations for a further liberalization

of world trade. And we were encouraged last night, Mr. Speaker, by the assurances of His Excellency the Ambassador Mr. Eberle who stated that the American authorities greatly hoped that the Trade Reform Bill now under consideration in the U.S. Senate would finally be passed after much delay.
Sixth, I referred to the necessity of finding means to stabilize the price of essential products intended for underdeveloped countries and to increase progressively the transfer of real resources to those countries.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, Canada took the position that we ought to use the international institutions already in place, the strengthening of which all nations had laboured assiduously for over the past two years. We ought to use international institutions such as GATT, the World Bank, regional development banks and, particularly in the financial and monetary field, the International Monetary Fund.
It is for this reason the Group of 20 adopted a resolution, which was accepted by the board of governors of the International Monetary Fund, comprising about 150 countries in the world, to set up an interim committee of 20 ministers representing all the constituencies for which we vote, all countries in the free world, members of the International Monetary Fund. Parenthetically, I see no reason why invitations ought not to be extended into the eastern bloc, and beyond, in order that we have an allembracing monetary situation.
In any event the new interim committee of 20 ministers will be an advisory committee to the fund. When the articles of amendment are changed, it will become the new executive board to the International Monetary Fund.
I think I should illustrate for the House the terms of reference of this committee. This committee is charged to keep under review, first, the way in which countries deal with surpluses and deficits in their balance of payments because of the effect it could have on other nations.
Second, we are charged with keeping under review the developments, that take place, or ought to take place in international liquidity in its various forms. No doubt as a result of the Viet Nam war and the Great Society being financed by borrowing instead of taxes, the international liquidity under American terms around the world held in various reserves, the Euro-market of another $150 billion and the over-liquidity of certain other nations, this has set in motion certain international inflationary effects which no individual nation alone can either regulate or combat.
Third, the committee should keep under review the over-all or global aspect of the transfer of real resources to developing countries, real resources in terms of their own standard of living.
The committee, under its terms of reference, will be available to deal with sudden disturbances which might threaten the world financial or economic system. It will also consider, as necessary, proposals by the excutive directors to amend the articles.
I should like to ask the House to bear with me while I describe to hon. members the way in which I envisage this committee functioning. I believe my views are shared by
October 9, 1974

the vast majority, if not by all, of the members of the Fund. First, we consider it to be a very important organ of the Fund. We believe it provides an opportunity to lend political support and decision to the work of the Fund. In other words, the Fund will no longer just be a group of economists or technocrats which each of the 20 constituencies, the countries of the world, send to regulate economic affairs.
We recognize that the difficulties facing the world are not purely economic-that political decisions have to be made which require the exercise of the political will of the world community as a whole, and of the nations which make up that community. So we are trying to give some political direction to the Fund through people who presumably can carry the governments they represent. I believe this committee will enable the Fund to play an even more significant role in world monetary and economic affairs.
I have approached this work with a sense of urgency. I believe the problems facing us are grave. I was very pleased with the discussion of the work program, and the laying of plans for two early meetings reveals that members of the committee share my feeling, and are determined to bring the necessary political will to bear on the issues. I hope the committee will not become bogged down in work which properly belongs to the economists, the technocrats or the executive directors. I hope the political committee will stick to the big issues which require discussion and decision.
At its first meeting last week, the committee recognized that the first problem to be tackled was that of recycling funds from countries in surplus to countries in deficit, to meet the balance of payments deficits which affect a good many of the European countries as well as other countries. Along with this, there is the even more serious problem of the deficit balances facing the countries of the Third World.
These matters will be taken up by the interim committee at its first and subsequent meetings. As a matter of fact, I tried to arrange a meeting before Christmas but because of various circumstances-the budgets to be prepared by finance ministers of European Common Market countries, and their annual meeting in mid-December- the meeting could only be arranged for mid-January.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: May I be permitted to ask a question? What will be the agenda at this first meeting? What does the minister think will be accomplished? What progress is expected to be made?


John Napier Turner: With regard to the recycling question, the staff of the Fund and the executive directors have been asked to review the availability of existing official and private institutions to recycle, in accordance with ordinary market forces, funds from surplus to deficit countries, and also to examine what other avenues, either by intervention at an international level through international institutions, or by governments on a bilateral level or within the economic community of Europe itself, should be explored. We expect propositions and options to be available for decision by January 15.
I do not under-estimate the difficulties, particularly in view of the attitude taken officially by the United States,
The Address-Hon. J. N. Turner and to some extent by Germany, toward the question of recycling. But I hope we shall be able to hold discussions which will lead to some conclusion.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: We shall be watching these things.


John Napier Turner: The hon. gentleman is entitled to watch. I can assure him I will do my best on behalf of this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: The second question concerns the quotas in the Fund-when they will be taken up and what those quotas are to be. A general review of the question of adjusting payments and balances, including the appropriateness of fiscal, monetary, trade and exchange policies on the basis of the IMF world economic review which will become public in December, is also to be carried out, also including developments in international liquidity and an examination of problems arising from the proposed amendments of the articles, and including the question of gold and the link between developmental assistance and the allocation of SDRS which will be the new primary reserve currency in the world.
I am sure all members followed with considerable interest, as I did, the course of discussions between representatives of all sectors of the United States at the series of conferences on outstanding economic problems held last month on the initiative of President Ford. Underlying most of these pre-summit, or mini-summit, and summit conferences south of the border was a widespread recognition that, although many of the difficulties confronting us are international in origin and impact, the state of the United States economy and the policies pursued by the United States government exert a dominant influence on the economies of the rest of the world.
This will come as no surprise to most Canadians who have been aware for generations that our own economy tends to move closely in step with that of our giant neighbour because of the many links between the two. What is surprising, perhaps, is that on balance our economy has significantly out-performed that of our neighbour over the past four or five years in terms of increased output and new jobs. Because the economies of Canada and the United States continue to be very closely linked in a multitude of ways it should be obvious to every Canadian that there still exist very real and practical limits to the extent to which we can expect to do better than the United States in terms of growth and inflation.
With respect to inflation this limitation was recently recognized in articles written for the Toronto Star by two of the world's foremost economists, Paul Samuelson of MIT, and John Kenneth Galbraith of Harvard, one of the best-known Canadian expatriates. Here is what Dr. Samuelson said:
No jury of economic experts knows how to achieve full employment with stable prices. For Canada, solutions without the United States would be difficult, if not impossible.
Dr. Galbraith expressed the following view:
The United States is the key factor in the control of inflation. Without American inflation under control, Canada can do almost nothing. You import so much from us, our high prices become yours.
262

October 9, 1974
The Address-Hon. J. N. Turner
Personally I believe there is more scope for better price performance in Canada than these two economists suggest, but their views do underline the fact that there are limits on how much better we can reasonably expect to do. On the other hand, we might remember that we could do considerably worse than the United States if we fail to follow sound policies in this country.
I do not want to give anyone the opportunity in this House to say of the Minister of Finance, "Turner is just throwing up his hands; he says it all depends on the United States." That is not what I am saying. I am saying we must recognize the limits within which we are working-that with the right policies we can do better, but that with the wrong policies we could do worse. What I am doing is this: I am recommitting the government and myself to combatting inflation as the number one issue before this parliament on the basis of the mandate given to us.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order. I regret having to interrupt the hon. gentleman's speech but the time allotted to him in this debate has now expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: He may, of course, continue with unanimous consent. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Napier Turner: I wish to thank the House for its courtesy and express regret that I was not able to participate in this debate last week as I had originally planned. As hon. members know, I was down in Washington. During his remarks at the opening of this debate, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) castigated the government for failure, in his terms, to provide economic leadership. I found that charge difficult to reconcile with his own recognition in that very same speech that the Canadian economy has enjoyed relatively stronger real growth and less inflation than most other countries around the world.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: No thanks to you!


John Napier Turner: I note the Leader of the Opposition did not seek to explain why it was that Canada had experienced such success. Perhaps he attributed it all to good fortune.


John Gilbert: It was God's will.


John Napier Turner: I agree we have
enjoyed a measure of good fortune in this country but I believe we in the government may also claim some measure of credit for good management and good leadership and, indeed, apparently this is what the Canadian people thought, on July 8.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: You didn't win. We lost.


John Napier Turner: I am glad I am getting to this part only after my time had expired! The fact is that over a long period of time we have introduced a broader, more comprehensive series of policies and programs aimed at moderating inflation and alleviating its effects on those least able to defend themselves than virtually any other country, and we have done it in such a way as to maintain strong growth in national output, employment and real incomes.
Undoubtedly the most important conclusion to be drawn from the series of economic conferences called by President Ford is that despite the yearnings of some people, even some editorialists, to have it so, there is no simple, quick, easy way of wiping out the inflation that has become entrenched so deeply in countries all over the world. There is no simple answer. If there were an easy answer, the Leader of the Opposition might have thought of it, I might have thought of it; someone in this country might have thought of it: somebody in the United States might have thought of it. They had the greatest array of economists ever assembled under the klieg lights in the history of the American republic, but they did not come to any simple conclusion. No one in Japan has thought of it, and neither has anyone in Germany.
All I can say is that it is not surprising that these discussions south of the border produced many sharply conflicting views as to the best means of attacking the multiple problems confronting the United States and the rest of the world. The fact is that many of these problems are different in their nature and in their dimension than we or anybody else have faced before. But to the extent that a consensus did emerge it provided a considerable measure of support for the basic approach that we in this government have been following in this country for the last 24 months.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I would ask hon. members to get the transcripts of these conferences and read what the panorama of economic opinion from left to right was able to produce. I ask hon. members to try to work out a common denominator and to arrive at a consensus from what those economists were trying to say.
Let me just go through this consensus of opinion, Mr. Speaker. For example, there was broad agreement that every effort should be made to expand output and productivity, in part by encouraging greater capital investment, in order to get at the root of the inflation problem by increasing supply. That is what we did in the last Speech from the Throne for agriculture, and it is what we did two and a half years ago to increase the manufacturing component by means of tax incentives and reductions.
From what one can distill out of this economic opinion that was given to the President of the United States, there was a feeling that excessively restrictive fiscal and monetary policies should be avoided because they would retard the necessary expansion in the supply of goods and services. This would be very costly in terms of lost output, employment and incomes, and it would provide little lasting benefit in reducing inflationary pressures.
October 9, 1974

There was widespread agreement that the goal should be to bring about a gradual reduction in inflation through moderate policies, rather than to seek to bring it to a jarring halt by extreme measures. That is the policy that we have been adopting. As Walter Heller, a former chairman of the President's council of economic advisers, put it, the trick is to bring inflation to its knees without putting the economy flat on its back. That is exactly what we are trying to do, Mr. Speaker.
The third consensus that I was able to distill-and, as I say, I invite hon. members to go through the transcripts in the way that I have-was that measures should be adopted to lessen the burden of inflation on those of moderate income who are least able to protect themselves. Surely that is what we have done. Two successive budgets proposed tax reductions of $1.8 billion, compared to the tax reduction proposed by President Ford of $1.4 billion. If you take the component as 12 to one, that is the equivalent of a $150 million tax reduction in our terms.
What about the increase in old age pensions, the tripling of family allowances, as well as the indexing of family allowances? These we have done.
There was also a consensus that, price and wage controls having been tried and found wanting, an effort should be mounted to mobilize support from all sectors of the economy for a fair and reasonable sharing of national income in an effort both to prevent a spiralling of costs and prices and widespread industrial strife.
The budget that I put before the House last May, which was rejected by the Conservative party and the New Democratic Party-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: -but reinstated by the Canadian people-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Only in some parts of the country.


John Napier Turner: -proposed a number of new measures to reinforce and complement those already put into effect. The Speech from the Throne delivered a week ago outlined a number of additional steps the government proposes to deal with the economic problems confronting us, steps that will be further developed in the new budget that I hope to put before the House before the middle of November, or earlier if that can be arranged. This budget will seek to chart the soundest course for the Canadian economy for the months ahead, based on the best possible assessment we can make of all the relevant factors from the widespread discussions that I have had with my counterparts in many of the provinces across Canada and in many countries around the world.
The Leader of the Opposition referred to the throne speech and to the consensus that was referred to therein. The throne speech does refer to discussions which other members of the government and I have been undertaking with representatives of other groups across the country. Their aim is to explore the possibility of developing a broad consensus among them on the sharing of national
The Address-Hon. J. N. Turner income that would provide a fair and reasonable balance between wages, prices and profits, while also permitting us to move toward greater price stability. Reaching such a consensus is, I believe, important to reinforce other policies which I have described on other occasions in this House and summarized today-fiscal, monetary and taxation-aimed at promoting continued economic growth while also gradually reducing inflationary pressures.
I have been accused, because of my travels abroad, of trying to get an assessment of what other countries are trying to do. Because I have travelled across the country to get provincial views on the same subject I have been accused of fishing for a policy. We have a fiscal policy which is known. We have a monetary policy which has been described on many occasions before the House. We have an exchange policy known to the members of the House; we have a trade policy known to members of the House. We have a supply policy, and a policy for increasing productive capacity in this country, which are known to the House and have been discussed on many occasions. We have a redistribution of incomes policy to protect those most hurt by inflation and least able to protect themselves.
What we are seeking here is a consensus as to what the reasonable balance ought to be in a free society between the various groups in the country and the division given to profits, wages, salaries, rents and so on. We have rejected a draconian squeeze in terms of a deliberately deflationary demand policy. In current circumstances the Canadian people have implicitly rejected price and wage controls.
I suggest to the House that a similar effort to reach a national consensus has also been launched in the United States, and in a different form in the United Kingdom, both of which have concluded, on the basis of hard experience, that compulsory price and income controls are not an answer in the circumstances that confront us at the present time. We have not entered into these discussions armed with firm and fast proposals. We are not seeking to impose a consensus; we are seeking to develop one. Our position on this aspect of our policy remains flexible and open to new ideas. I am sure that most members in this House and most of the Canadian people share my hope that those in other sectors of the economy will adopt a similar approach.
The problems confronting us, I believe, are too critical to allow us the luxury of grinding our own axe regardless of the cost to others, or of clinging unthinkingly to old shibboleths that have become irrelevant in today's very different world. I do not for a moment under-estimate the difficulties that we face in trying to arrive at some kind of co-operative effort to deal with inflation.
I appreciate the concern of working Canadians, who have fallen behind the rise in the cost of living, to catch up and maintain their standard of living, and their desire to obtain further improvements in living standards made possible by continued real growth of the Canadian economy. I appreciate the need for Canadian business to earn sufficient profits to provide a fair return to its shareholders, and to undertake the massive capital investment required in the interests of all Canadians to increase productive capacity so as to reduce inflationary pressures at their source, as well as to seize the great opportunities
28305-I8V2

October 9, 1974
The Address-Hon. J. N. Turner
that I believe are open to us as a nation over the next couple of decades, to expand employment and further increase the real incomes of every Canadian.
But, Mr. Speaker, there is a proper balance to be struck in the case of profits, just as there is in the case of wages and salaries. I think we should also remember that healthy profits are essential to fuel the expansion in productive capacity that is of such importance to our present and future economic welfare, particularly at a time when the disruption of security markets has substantially reduced funds from other sources to finance the heavy investment programs now under way.
We all know that it is difficult for any business to get money on the equity and bond markets in this country. We all know that business has been forced into the banking system, straining it. If it were not for retained earnings, particularly in the manufacturing and processing industries, the impetus now enjoyed by the Canadian economy, propelling it toward business expansion, would not be as strong as it is now.
One way or another a balance is going to be struck between such elements as wages, prices and profits. The question is whether the balance is going to be struck through a process of consensus and co-operation, or whether it will be worked out through the process of prolonged and bitter industrial strife and more inflationary pressures, developments which would clearly be contrary to the interests of the country.
There are some Canadians who still believe there is somehow a choice between high inflation and low unemployment or low inflation and high unemployment. Make no mistake about it, there is no such choice, no such trade-off. The ultimate consequences of inflation are poor economic performance. The real choice is between reasonable price stability with a high level of output and employment on the one hand, and on the other accelerating inflation, slow growth of output and employment, and extreme risk to the very fabric of our society.
Before concluding let me say that I agree completely with the Leader of the Opposition.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Oh, no!


John Napier Turner: We are, as he put it,
and I use his own words, "in a period of some sobering problems and we are in for more difficult days ahead". Where I disagree with him is in his implication that on that subject I have not been frank with the Canadian people. I said in my budget last May that "it is my conviction that the Canadian people want to know the facts, pleasant or unpleasant, and they ask only for a man's best judgment in meeting them."
Both in my last budget and on many other occasions I spelled out the facts as I saw them, whether they were pleasant or unpleasant. In a number of speeches recently I have been most candid in outlining the facts of the current economic situation, as I see it, to the point where some commentators have characterized my remarks as somber, gloomy and pessimistic.

I am none of those things. I believe we should face our problems realistically, neither minimizing them nor exaggerating them. I do not believe the world is inevitably heading for a depression. I believe that we can meet and overcome our problems. It is going to take a good deal of time, patience and a lot of persistence, and it will take some political courage.
As I said in a speech to the Canadian conference on banking in Montreal a few weeks ago, we have potent factors working in our favour. The very realization by virtually every country, expressed both personally and publicly down in Washington, that the world economy is in a fragile state and must be handled with considerable care, is a good starting point. I can tell you from the meetings of the Commonwealth finance ministers here in Ottawa, and meetings of the International Monetary Fund, that there is an acute awareness everywhere of the need for consultation and for collective action.
I think this awareness was reflected in the decision by President Ford to send Ambassador Eberle, his special representative for trade negotiations, to Ottawa yesterday as his first stop on a visit to a number of capitals to outline and explain domestic economic policy measures which the president submitted to Congress in an address that very afternoon.
We in the government very much appreciated the opportunity to discuss these measures, many of which parallel policies we have already introduced, with Mr. Eberle. Both the measures themselves, and the ambassador's round of discussions with other countries to explain them, indicate that the United States administration is sensitive about the potential impact of its policies on the rest of the world. It indicates that the United States is well aware of the need for consultation and co-operation, and that it is conscious of the necessity to avoid restrictive, beggar-thy-neighbour actions.
The approach adopted by the United States administration serves to strengthen my confidence that if this trend persists, and if we can achieve the same co-operation from the European Common Market and Japan to make the necessary commitments to the developing world in the name of humanity, we will be able to muster the essential element required to deal with the problems confronting us. This does not refer just to the economic ability, which is sometimes difficult to assess, but also to the political will of this country and many other nations to solve the problems that are essential and that are subject to human decision.
Let me say, as chairman of the new interim committee of ministers of the Fund, I hope I can play some part on behalf of this House and this country in mobilizing the necessary political will around the world, and I assure the House that I will do everything humanly possible to advance that cause.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I first take this opportunity to congratulate you on your appointment as Speaker of the House, and I also congratulate the Deputy Speaker and the Deputy Chairman of the committees of the whole. I also seize this
October 9, 1974

opportunity to congratulate the movers of the Address in reply whose speeches were a beautiful kick-off for the 30th Parliament.
Rest assured, Mr. Speaker, that throughout the sessions of this 30th Parliament you may rely on the help and cooperation of the member for Brome-Missisquoi.
Inflation is obviously our top priority economic problem, and in my opinion the government has to recognize its responsibilities and play an unequivocal part in this respect.
The President of the United States publicly put forward yesterday a definite and positive policy aimed at coping with inflation. But I, with several other hon. members, openly and simply ask: What are we Canadians doing? [English]
This is about the 15th time I have heard the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) give us a classic economic lesson, telling us about the interdependence between international economies, about procedural structures of meetings, how difficult it is to combat inflation, and about all the economists meeting under the klieg lights. I agree that it is not an easy problem, but the government has been voted in to govern the country and not to make excuses.
It is all very well for ministers of finance to go to these international meetings and to tell us that this is an international problem, but let me draw an analogy. When we used to write exams the professor or the teacher, as the case may be, would often say that the problems were difficult, and we should solve the easy ones first-put your own house in order, then go on to the difficult ones and you might pass. If this government would only put its own house in order and assume its own responsibilities, vis-a-vis the leadership role in directing the fight against inflation, we might get somewhere.
The minister said it is becoming increasingly difficult for the private sector to finance industry. A superficial analysis of the situation underlines the fact that the difficulty rests squarely on the shoulders of the government because of bad policy in this regard. After a long summer holiday, after many cabinet meetings, and after the President of the United States takes a leadership role and tells the people of the United States what is going to be done to fight inflation in a relatively precise way, what do we get from the Minister of Finance today? I suggest we have heard a sort of grade one economic lecture telling us how difficult it is, a lecture that was probably written by some out of touch bureaucrat who does not know what is the situation.
I realize that perhaps because of tradition-and it might be an outmoded tradition-we will have to wait for the budget, but I tell the Minister of Finance that the Canadian people expected much more than the motherhood speech he gave us this afternoon.
In my brief remarks this afternoon I wish to underline some of the leadership roles I feel government should play. Rather than tell us what an impossible problem we have, or tell us about the international complexities involved, the government should tell us what we can do right here at home in Canada to fight inflation. What are some of the
The Address-Mr. Grafftey
historical facts, and indeed not so long ago that we cannot remember them? In my view the rise in government spending involves not only the waste and duplication we see in respect of government programs. This is only one factor in inflation which is diminishing the economic freedom of Canadians.
Orthodox economists historically have held that a country which takes more than 35 per cent or 36 per cent of its gross national product for government is in trouble. I submit to this House that by these measurements Canada today is in deep trouble. Totalling up the expenditures of our three levels of government, municipal, provincial and federal, we see that now well over 40 per cent of our gross national product in Canada is directed toward public or government spending. It is my view that it is the spending example of the federal government, not labour dispute settlements, which has been the prime reason for domestic inflation.
What is the record? Since the government took power under the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in 1968 the federal government especially has shown absolutely no restraint. Federal government spending has increased 140 per cent in a little over six years. In 1968 the federal government cost every man, woman and child in Canada $590 a year. Today the federal government costs every man, woman and child over $1,300 a year.
This staggering increase has been from $12 billion in 1968 to $29 billion in 1974. What is worse is that this staggering increase of 140 per cent has not included one major new social or economic program thrust into the Canadian economy or society. The Minister of Finance alluded to the reason I voted against the budget last spring. The budget of last spring, without including one new major social or economic program to benefit Canadians, represented an increase of 20 per cent in expenditures, not because of any new imaginative program but because of the waste, duplication and inefficiency of the government.
I have always liked to consider myself an activist but I find today that government duplication of spending is a major waste in this country. I believe the time has come for the government to set a sound example. The minister made his 40 minute speech. We gave him 20 extra minutes because we thought that he would get to the basic substance of matters, but all we received from him was a second economic lecture.
I believe the government should set a sound example by cutting expenditures, freezing the expansion of the bureaucracy, and eliminating waste and duplication in many areas. It is also my view that monetary policy must ease interest rates, and that the advantages from such a move should at times be directed to specific areas like the housing field. Also, increased production must be considered as a prime target for controlling current inflation. The minister spoke about the desirability of this so far as the government is concerned, but we need many more measures before the House if this is to become a fact in the future.
In my view Canada is one of the overtaxed and overgoverned countries in the free world. As a believer in free enterprise and in the ownership rights of individuals, I believe Ottawa and the provinces must immediately enact

October 9, 1974
The Address-Mr. Grafftey
a series of tax incentives to encourage private ownership of homes, businesses, equities and family farms. Only in this way can each of us have economic as well as political freedom.


An hon. Member:: Beautiful.


William Heward Grafftey: I am glad the hon. member said "beautiful". I hope it also means he will prompt his government to take action. Let us get down to some basic points. What about government waste and duplication? I have already put some figures on the record this afternoon. I remember in my high school years being most impressed with the initiatives of the New Deal. Our economy and the economy of the western world at that time were faced with collapse.
Direct government intervention was required, whether by Canada or the United States, to save the system. However, too many of our politicians and senior bureaucrats have their hands on the levers of power today, and as a result we have what I call the old fashioned new deal mentality which has just come before Parliament, that so long as your hand is in the right place the problem will be solved automatically I tell the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) and the Minister of Finance that that is not how things work these days.
To be precise about it let us analyze in Canada exactly what is going on. If I should criticize any good program let no member say I am not for it in principle. I am for it in principle but I am in favour of it being well and efficiently run. We might take the case of the Unemployment Insurance Commission.

Mr. Speaker, every year, as do several other hon. members in this House, I fully support the major guidelines concerning unemployment insurance in Canada but what I want to criticize is the current mismanagement of the Unemployment Insurance Commission.
As long as we do not have a link in the true sense of the word between unemployment offices and those of the Unemployment Insurance Commission there will be a conflict. How can the unemployment insurance offices know whether somebody is actually available for work? This is not a political issue because that is the way it is in my riding, and I suppose also in several other ridings throughout Canada. Several unemployed who are perfectly entitled to unemployment insurance benefits must wait one, two, three or even four months before getting them.
Mr. Speaker, I support the principle of unemployment insurance as such but because of mismanagement I see a waste of about $1 billion a year at the expense of Canadian taxpayers.
What about the administration of medicare? Again I am for the principle, but what do we have in Canada? Do not think for one minute that we have state medicine in the truest sense of the word. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) can talk until he is blue in the face about bringing down the galloping inflation in medical care services, but until the fundamental principles are changed it is useless to talk about it with the provinces.

The only thing we are doing with medicare today is voting income supplements to go into people's pockets because services and personnel are very often not available. Let us suppose we were all in a town council and we passed a decree that everybody should receive free bread. However, no one in the town hall picked up the telephone to call the baker and tell him there would be a push for more bread, and that he should produce more. This is just what we did with medicare.
By forcing the provinces into a system that consists of income supplementation payments from a government which refuses to change and update the personnel and rationalize the services of medicare, we are wasting $2 billion a year on the bad administration of this program in conjunction with the provinces.
What about food programs? I am not an economist, but four or five years ago the government spent millions and millions of dollars, on milk quotas, or convincing farmers to stop producing wheat. Following this kind of ill timed intervention which has created artificial shortages or artificial surpluses, as the case may be, the government is spending $1 billion a year on agricultural programs. Because of the government's past intervention it is now forced to provide incentives for production in agriculture at another cost of millions and millions of dollars to the taxpayer.
The problem is that the waste and duplication in the present programs are denying money for the government to enter into needed new programs in the months and years ahead. I refer to programs in the area of housing, environment, transportation, urban planning, medical and health care services, to name a few. I know that it is often erroneous to make a comparison with Sweden, but Sweden, a country that is supposed to be the jewel of the socialist world, spends only 36 per cent of its gross national product on government, while we, who say we have a free enterprise system, spend close to 44 per cent.
The programs run by the state in Sweden are well run. The reason for the waste and duplication in so many of our welfare programs is that they are neither fish nor fowl because our government is always compromising, sometimes with the NDP, and our programs are half free enterprise and half socialist. So, we end up getting the worst of both worlds with a phenomenal waste of good money to the Canadian taxpayer.
Unless the minister puts incentives into his next budget that will give the private sector a viable enough base, whether in industry or in individual property rights, he will not succeed in getting the private sector to generate enough tax dollars even to finance the solution of problems which we face at present. So I hope that the next time the Minister of Finance comes before this House we will not get the same freshman's economics or history lecture. I hope he will get down to some facts and precise measures whereby the government will accept its responsibilities and provide an example of how we can control domestic inflation, instead of always saying that because everybody else is flunking we are also flunking.
On the assumption that I have about two minutes left, Mr. Speaker, I should like to end by simply saying I have a friend in Ottawa who works in the Post Office Department. I do not want anyone to interpret what I am saying
October 9, 1974

as an attack on my part on the bureaucracy. We have many good civil servants in this country. But my friend tells me that there are 60 people in his department, 40 of whom do nothing day in and day out, absolutely nothing.
Many people in private life who have come up to this capital city on various projects have come to me and said: "Heward, the bureaucracy has become so big and so insensitive, we don't think any government can change its direction". If in effect there are doctrinal differences between us and the party across the floor of the House, if we differ regarding many principles and regarding the way society should be directed or not directed, as the case may be, let us at least stand united in this House on one thing.
I do not think it necessarily takes a Watergate to unite us in the way in which the U.S. Congress finally found its new supremacy, but I think we will all be serving Canada well, the Liberals, the Social Creditors, the Progressive Conservatives and the NDP'ers, if, during this parliament, and starting right now, we assert in a constructive and positive way the traditional rights of this House in terms of leading and directing the country.
It is not good enough for the Minister of Finance to appear before us and to give us a speech which was probably hastily written by someone way down in the bureaucracy. If we are going to earn our keep in this House we will have to deal with the broad issues and re-assert our prerogatives. By doing that, we will be serving Canada well. I thank Members of the House for the attention they have accorded my remarks this afternoon.


Mr. Frank Maine (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to begin by extending to the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Jerome) and to his assistants, including yourself, my sincere best wishes.
This is also a good opportunity for me to express my thanks to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and his party for their help on two occasions. The first was during the election when they helped me obtain the largest voting turnaround in the country. The second was last Wednesday when the Leader of the Opposition mentioned science policy and his concern about the lack of one. It was my concern, as well as that of my fellow scientists, for an effective science policy that was very instrumental in my decision to seek election to this House.
My major objective is to take whatever steps I am able to give the scientific community in Canada a more effective voice. As a scientist I am one of a rare breed in parliament. Scientists are often characterized as being heartless, unemotional and unappreciative of human values. I should like to state emphatically that I do not consider myself to be in this category. Perhaps my views on the subject of women's rights are best illustrated by my support of measures to extend the benefits of the Canada Pension Plan to housewives.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis William (Frank) Maine: We are entering an era of uncertainty and scarcity. Although we are still enjoying prosperous times, there can be no doubt that there is great concern among most people for the immediate future. While the prophets of doom have rarely had a more receptive audience, I for
The Address-Mr. Maine
one remain optimistic concerning Canada's potential for future economic growth.
It is important, though, that our course of development be carefully charted so as to keep it orderly and working in the best interests of Canadians. I propose to consider the situation from the area in which I, as a scientist, have the most competence, and that is the technical aspect.
Canada's future depends on the harnessing of its technology and the control of that technology by Canadians. We must take stock of our resources and channel our energies into making those resources work to the fullest advantage of Canadians.
We have still not, and cannot in the foreseeable future, become free of our role as wood cutters and water boys, but we can take steps to encourage the processing of a larger percentage of our natural resources within our borders. Obvious problems arise with respect to providing financial aid and direction, and although government may not be fond of assuming responsibility for either of these roles, especially during a period of fiscal restraint, there is little doubt that it must. An intelligent utilization of our resources will be advantageous to all Canadians, and the long term economic and social benefits will justify the initial expenditures involved.
Clearly more than an input of public money is necessary if we are to tackle the problem successfully. Mere incentive programs are not the answer. We must choose those industries in which we can be particularly competitive on the world market, and direct our efforts towards expanding their productivity. Please bear in mind that I am advocating a more intensive use of present resources and not the wholesale exploitation of our natural wealth. To accomplish this, rather drastic, or, at least, ambitious measures must be taken.
We in Canada have never become totally free of the National Policy which encouraged our earliest manufacturing industries through tariffs which, in effect, made Canada a captive market. It is essential that we now look increasingly at the whole world as our market. If we are to be competitive with other countries producing similar products, we must take full advantage of the economies of production which are possible through world scale sized plants. Instead of exporting crude oil, we should be concentrating on increased petroleum refinement and the production of such commodities as high technology content plastics and other petroleum derivatives. A program such as this would make jobs available for Canadians, and I would stress that delay in instituting this type of development could have unhappy consequences in the near future.
As we are committed to slowing down inflation there is always the danger that some jobs will have to be sacrificed. As the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broad-bent) mentioned last week, it is not too soon to begin taking steps against future unemployment. We must beware of ad hoc solutions to inflation. Immediate results are our primary concern at this time, but I feel that we should remain cognizant of the long term problems we are facing.

October 9, 1974
The Address-Mr. Maine
I am proposing that we take out a type of national insurance policy which would entail diverting our petroleum supplies from energy uses to manufacturing industries, and thus safeguard the raw materials we will be needing in the future. This approach depends on our finding a substitute energy source for fossil fuels which, I am confident, will be done in the near future. Our oil and natural gas could then be directed towards the production of plastics. The term plastic has become a dirty word among environmentalists, but for Canada I am certain that plastics hold the key to our continuing prosperity.
Plastics have been attacked primarily because they are not generally thought to be bio-degradable. Canadian scientists have shown this not to be so. It has been proven that it is now commercially feasible to produce photosensitive plastic containers which will break down when exposed to sunlight for a controllable period of time. The environmental objection to plastics no longer applies.
Of more importance to Canada is the savings of energy which we would realize if glass and metal products could be largely replaced by plastic. There has been a singular reluctance on the part of the citizens of this country to realize that Canada has entered the age of synthetic polymers. By continually supporting the use of returnable glass beverage containers, conservationists are promoting a largely self-defeating policy. It requires 20 to 30 times the amount of energy to produce glass or aluminum containers as it does to manufacture a comparable plastic product. Therefore we may safely dismiss the complaints of those who would cut back on plastic production as a means of conserving our petroleum supplies.
Plastics are included in the group of polymeric materials which are rapidly changing our way of life. In the past five years the production of synthetic polymers such as plastics, fibres and elastomers has increased by 92 per cent, while steel and nonferrous metal production has grown by only 33 per cent, resulting in the present situation where the volume, measured in cubic feet, of synthetic polymers produced is greater than that of steel and other metals. I repeat, the volume of synthetic polymers produced is greater now than that of steel plus other metals.
Canada and the Soviet Union are the only countries in the world which are self-sufficient in their oil requirements. However, we must realize that this self-sufficiency does not constitute an oil surplus in Canada. If we discount the Alberta tar-sands, our petroleum reserves amount to less than 2 per cent of the world total. This can be dramatically illustrated when one considers that in 1973 the non-Communist world consumed 20 billion barrels of oil. That is approximately twice as much as all the discoveries made to date in Alberta. In other words, the world consumes an "Alberta of oil" every six months.
The demand for oil is growing at an enormous rate. The world has used more energy in the last 30 years than in all its previous history and, according to predictions, will use the same amount again in the next 15 years, that is, in half the time. We are now turning the bend in an exponential curve.
Ninety per cent of the world's energy growth in the past ten years has been supplied by petroleum and natural gas. Presently they supply 70 per cent of the world's energy

requirements, and will continue to provide the bulk of the energy demanded in the foreseeable future. With this rapidly escalating use of oil for energy, we must take steps to ensure that Canada has sufficient supplies of petroleum to permit a massive expansion in the synthetic polymer manufacturing industries.
We presently supply only 6 per cent of the United States oil requirements, and can never expect to be a major oil exporting nation. That is why I would like to see a change of attitude in this country, away from exporting petroleum for energy production and toward using it as perhaps our most abundant raw material for production of export products with a high value added factor.
This is the reason I oppose the application to export 10 billion pounds of ethylene to the United States in the next 10 years. I feel strongly that this ethylene should be upgraded to such products as ethylene oxide, ethylene glycol and polyethylene manufactured in world-scale sized plants in Canada and then exported.
Canada must become more self-sufficient in meeting its technology requirements. I feel that a more innovative research and development policy is in order. This fact is well known, and I mention it only to add one more voice in support of proposals to this effect by both the Senate Committee on Science Policy and the Science Council of Canada.
Senator Lamontagne has asserted that Canada's research and development expenditures amount to only 1.4 per cent of total sales, while in the United States they amount to 4 per cent of total sales. If we are to bring about a gradual end to our branch-plant economy and assure a greater independence for Canadian industry, this is an area in which changes must be made. This is the primary responsibility of industry and should not involve expenditures of public money. The innovative process, which covers the spectrum from research, through development to commercial implementation, is notably weak in the marketing area. The best research and development in the world is of no economic value if it does not result in commercial exploitation.
The recent visit by Premier Tanaka of Japan to this country served to underscore the importance and urgency of the point I have been making in this address. I also found Mr. Tanaka's visit interesting for more personal reasons. In 1971 I spent six weeks in Japan studying many aspects of that country's economy and culture. I came home deeply impressed by what I saw, and since then have repeatedly urged Canadians not just to gaze in awe at the accomplishments of the Japanese, but to attempt to apply solutions which have worked in Japan to Canadian problems.
Until now, with minor exceptions, Canada's economy has been the antithesis of Japan's. The increasing Japanese interest in Canada can work to our advantage, but not if we merely sit idly by. Certainly, we need foreign investment. However, we must ensure that any new investors become responsible partners in developing Canada's industrial potential.
I was pleased to learn of Mr. Tanaka's statement that Japan is looking forward to importing products of our
October 9, 1974

advanced technology. Perhaps this announcement will serve as the necessary catalyst which will encourage an increase in our output in highly technical fields. It is essential that potential market areas be satisfied as quickly as possible, and I hope that Canadian businessmen will move to fulfill Japan's requirements before our competitors do so.
To those who are familiar with my riding of Wellington, it might appear strange that I have spoken to such an extent on industrial strategy. My constituency is a sort of agrarian oasis in Ontario's industrial heartland. Guelph, its only major urban centre, is fortunate in having many secondary and manufacturing industries which provide jobs without threatening the environment to any great extent. Consequently Guelph has remained a prosperous and growing city, with one of the lowest rates of unemployment in Canada. Increasingly we are welcoming people from the Toronto-Hamilton region who wish to escape the undesirable aspects of urban living while retaining access to the amenities of city life.
This year the Ontario Agricultural College of the University of Guelph is celebrating its one hundredth anniversary. Despite the multitude of benefits to mankind which has come from research at this college during its existence, it appears that the next century will tax our agricultural scientistists' abilities to their limits. Just as I am hoping that science and techology can help us make the best use of our non-renewable resources, I see these areas as the answer to our future agricultural problems.
The world food shortage remains critical and there is little reason for optimism as we advance further into the seventies. The Ontario Agricultural College, which enjoys an international reputation, is in the forefront of this research into and development of new strains and varieties of plants and animals which will provide solutions to the future demands for food. A good example of agricultural research and development that will benefit Canadians in the future is the experimentation with hydroponics being carried out in Aberfoyle, just south of Guelph.
Hydroponics, honourable members may know, is a method of growing plants without using soil. Stones are used to support the plants in a climate controlled greenhouse, and these plants are fed with nutrient-containing water several times daily. While I can vouch for the excellent flavour of the produce, my real hope is that this system will help alleviate the serious food scarcity we now face. The economics are not the most attractive at present primarily due to heating fuel costs, but I see solutions to this problem in the future.
One such solution is the use of natural gas already existing underground on a farm. There are several farmers in south-western Ontario who have this potential advantage. Another benefit of growing food by hydroponics is that any land will suffice, and prime agricultural land is not needed. In this day of urban sprawl where prime land is being put under concrete, an alternate solution for food production is offered.
As I mentioned earlier, the next few years are going to be difficult times for all people. Although we in Canada can regard ourselves as being among the most fortunate inhabitants of this world, this is no time for smugness or feelings of self-satisfaction. The motto for the remainder
The Address-Mr. Wenman
of the seventies should be "co-operation on every level". There must be increased co-operation internationally, among our provinces, and between management and labour. It is time that self-interest gave way to genuine concern for one's fellowman. Let us endeavour to make Canada an example of this spirit for the rest of mankind to follow.


Mr. Bob Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, as I take my place in the House of Commons, my first words are of appreciation to my constituents who had the faith and confidence to have me represent them in this great House. May I also express words of appreciation to my mother, my father and the rest of my family, without whose support I would not be here.
As a newcomer to the House of Commons I came with enthusiasm, idealism and energy. As I anticipated the Speech from the Throne, I looked forward to a dynamic and visionary statement of Canada's direction and goals for the future. Unfortunately, I was disappointed.
For a moment this afternoon, I thought there was a ray of hope. I thought that some of the visionary world problems were being looked at by a minister of the Crown. I saw some hope as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) began to speak. I listened attentively, but my new hope was dashed. It was dashed because the great white knight, the seeming new leader of the Liberal party, began to speak of his personal, international consultative exploits and his own self-inflated aggrandizement, as he told us that but for his great expeditions the world would collapse in economic confusion. I must say I began to have my doubts at that moment.
I hope the minister will soon learn that along with the great position of responsibility in which he has been placed should go some degree of humility. I was further disappointed with his speech because, as it continued on, what we heard represented little more than an itemization of shop-worn Liberal election promises, tedious rhetoric about the worsening economic situation internationally, and an admission by the government that it does not know what to do.


John Napier Turner: You wrote that speech before you heard mine.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: What is he going to do? He is going to seek some kind of consensus. He is going to seek answers. I suggest the Canadian people have waited long enough. We are not waiting for the minister to seek answers. We are waiting for him to bring them to us, and bring them to us now.
We have heard talk from the government about new initiatives in foreign policy. Unfortunately we have not heard precisely what the nature of these new initiatives is likely to be. There have been announcements concerning expanded and aggressive participation in international affairs, particularly in the areas of world food aid and the non-proliferation of nuclear technology. No doubt, this is a commendable objective. However, one wonders whether such a thrust might not thin out even further an already inadequate voice in international affairs.

October 9, 1974
The Address-Mr. Wenman
It is obvious, given the current international climate, especially in light of the situation facing our neighbour to the south, that Canada will have to put forth immediately a firm resource policy. A policy of drift-and this is all the government has produced-will simply not do in this time of crisis. It would seem to me that the full force and effort of the Department of External Affairs will be required to prepare us for dealing with our greatest friend and best customer, the United States.
Not only will there be tremendous pressure for extended export and participation in the Athabasca tarsands and other non-renewable resource areas, Canada must also be prepared to take a strong stand regarding the export of Canadian water-a stand which has not been heard in this chamber since it was initiated by my right hon. friend from Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lloyd Wenman: In the immediate future the tough, unbending negotiating stance of the OPEC countries will intensify the drive by the United States toward greater and greater self-sufficiency. In the final analysis, self-suf-ficieny in the United States in the area of energy resources will undoubtedly depend upon massive developments in the gasification of coal and the production of coal from desert shale. Thus the need for vast quantities of water. And it is in the direction of Canada that the United States government is looking for this water.
The government stand on the export of water needs to be rationalized and clarified forthwith. The more I have dug into this subject the more fearful I have become that secret negotiations are going on between the Liberal administration and the United States government for the export of Canadian water. Statements by high officials, U.S. and Canadian alike, lead to the conclusion that something is afoot.
The cabinet's apparent suppression of recent anti-water export statements by the former minister of the environment, the Hon. Jack Davis, as late as last spring, further heightens the suspicion that the government is likely moving in the disastrous direction of massive export and development of Canadian water. I have in my hand a document the contents of which were to have been delivered to the House of Commons by the former minister of the environment, Mr. Davis-a document which, curiously enough, was not delivered in this chamber. Since it strongly opposed the export of water we can only surmise it was not delivered because it advocated a position at odds with that being adopted by the government. I will read a few quotations from it.
I am going to read to hon. members opposite a few quotations from their friends, and they will be frightened by them. Who stopped this statement being made with regard to Canadian water resources, and why was it stopped? Why was it not issued in the House of Commons? Was it because of the stated position of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), who 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?" Or was it the new President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) who said, accordingly to Time Magazine: "Within 25 years we shall be exporting water to the United

States." Or was it done by the minister, Mr. Davis himself, who was trying to jump back on the fence in time for political survival by repudiating a statement he had made earlier when he said:
X want you to think of water schemes which 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.


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: What is your evidence?


Robert Lloyd Wenman: I shall be pleased to send over a copy of the speech.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: What evidence do you have of secret negotiations?


Robert Lloyd Wenman: I can see I have hit a sensitive nerve. The minister knows this is going on and he is concerned about it.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That is not the case.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Well, was it the great ghost of Arthur Laing who said in an interview: "Diversion of Canadian water to the United States is not negotiable"?


John Napier Turner: That was in 1964.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: "There is no such thing as a continental resource". And then, turning aside, Mr. Laing finished the interview in a supposedly confidential aside by saying:
You should know for your own information that something like the North American water and power line, a major water diversion, is not only feasible but inevitable. We are establishing a bargaining position and the best bargaining position is, no.
Thus, the position of the Canadian government on the export of water becomes clearer.


John Napier Turner: What is the date of that statement? Is it not 1964?


Robert Lloyd Wenman: If the ministers object so strongly are they going to stand up when I have finished and deny that water will be exported? I certainly hope they intend to do so. But if they say there is to be no export of water, are they just establishing a bargaining position? Will it really mean no? I see the minister is rising on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I might remind hon. members that pursuant to Standing Order 38(4) all questions to decide the amendment have to be put at 5.30, which is only a minute or so away.


John Napier Turner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hesitate to interrupt an hon. member during his maiden speech but the rules dictate that if he reads from a document he should table it, and some of us in this House would like to know the date of that particular document.
October 9, 1974

Division


John George Diefenbaker: On that point of order, Mr. Speaker, it is an unwritten rule, followed at all times, that during a maiden speech there are no interruptions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lloyd Wenman: I am getting to them! I am getting to members on the other side and I love getting to them. Will the new Minister of the Environment (Madam Sauve) stand up and say that no water is to be exported? And, if so, is that to be taken as a real no, or is that no simply a further bargaining stance related to what has become an inevitable policy of exporting massive amounts of Canadian water to the United States, a policy which involves the flooding of millions of acres of Western Canada, the destruction of our precious environment and, worst of all, the establishment of an irreversible trend toward economic and political union with the United States? What has happened to the poetic but perhaps hypocritical words of the Prime Minister who said-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being 5.30, pursuant to Standing Order 38(4) I must put the question necessary to dispose of any outstanding amendment at this time.
I might just say two things to the hon. member. First of all, his speech today being on the amendment, it may be he would wish to speak afresh tomorrow in that he would be speaking on the main motion if the amendment were disposed of this evening. In addition, I would also ask the hon. member to give some thought overnight to the point that was raised by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), that having referred to a document it is customary to table the document. He might want to give consideration to that matter.
In any event, it being 5.30 it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38(4), to interrupt these proceedings and forthwith put the question on any amendment now before the House.
The question is on the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield). All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr.   Speedier@: All those opposed to the amendment will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it is the intention to proceed with the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne tomorrow. Depending upon progress in the Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration I will then make an announcement about the following day.


Mr. Speaker:: It being six o'clock the House stands adjourned until eleven o'clock tomorrow morning.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment defeated.
At 6.00 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, October 10, 1974