1974-10-03

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I have had some informal discussions and I understand there would be agreement to revert to Routine Proceedings at two o'clock today for the purpose of striking standing committees and dealing with procedural matters referring to estimates.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 43 to propose a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Because of the confusion that now exists in the minds of many Canadians concerning the demonstration on Parliament Hill on Monday last, and because of the publicity accorded the events which is undermining the progress that has been made by the democratically elected native peoples' organizations which represent the vast majority of our native people, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark):
That the House urge the government to initiate an immediate ministerial meeting with leading officials of the democratically elected National Indian Brotherhood and Native Council of Canada to clarify the situation and to demonstrate the government's serious intention to resolve housing and other urgent social and economic problems whose persistence among our native people helped precipitate the unfortunate events which occurred on Parliament Hill on Monday last.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



PARLIAMENT HILL


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to propose a motion in a case of urgent and pressing necessity. The use of explosives by criminals and mentally unbalanced persons to achieve their perverted ends of political terrorism, private vengeance or other purpose is increasing. In Canada, as elsewhere, the intended victim is often connected with one of the established institutions of society, such as a court of justice, penitentiary, legislature, or other symbol of government. Not only the intended victim is endangered but no one within that particular institution is safe from the indiscriminate blast of the explosive. I need only refer to the recent incident in the courthouse at Winnipeg.
I move the following motion with particular reference to this institution of parliament:
That Mr. Speaker be authorized to meet with the Speaker of the other chamber to select a committee of both Houses to assist them in recommending to both Houses security measures for the protection of the public, the staff, and members in the parliament buildings and surrounding grounds.
And that Mr. Speaker be authorized to communicate this resolution to the Honourable the Speaker of the Senate.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion presented pursuant to Standing Order 43. Is there unanimous consent to it?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There not being unanimous agreement, it cannot be presented.



PHOTOGRAPHIC EQUIPMENT


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with section 6, chapter T-l of the Revised Statutes, I wish to table a copy in English and French of a report of the Tariff Board in respect of photographic equipment, reference No. 147, together with a transcript of the proceedings on the reference.
This report contains recommendations relating to the tariffs on imported cameras, projectors and other photographic equipment, related accessories and parts. I assure

October 3, 1974
Oral Questions
hon. members that these recommendations will be carefully considered by the government. May I urge any interested parties who wish to comment on this report to do so as soon as possible to the Department of Finance.



THE BANK ACT


Mitchell William Sharp: for leave to introduce Bill C-7, to enable banks to be incorporated by letters patent and to enable capital stocks of banks to be held and voted by provincial governments.


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

Mitchell William Sharp: for leave to introduce Bill C-8, to establish a national petroleum company.


[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 indication in the Speech from the Throne that he intended to consult the principal groups in our society with regard to proposals they might make or contributions they might make to defeat inflation. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether this is simply a question of looking for ideas or whether he and the government are putting proposals of a specific nature before what he refers to as the principal groups in our society?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, at this stage I think the best description would be to say that we are exchanging views.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether or not the Prime Minister would like these questions in writing. In the course of exchanging these views, is the government putting specific views before these groups with regard to the defeat of inflation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, if you are exchanging views you are obviously exchanging views on things and that is what we are doing.


Mr. Hees:: Is that wrestling inflation to the ground, Pierre? Boy, what a wrestler!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is the purpose of this exchange of views to just talk about things and not necessarily make specific proposals? Is the purpose of this exercise in leadership to obtain some national consensus on guidelines or what?


An hon. Member:: Delay.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: To wrestle inflation to the ground, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: The old Trudeau is back.


GOVERNMENT GOAL FOR LEVEL OF INFLATION
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to those of the Leader of the Opposition. Is the Prime Minister now telling this House that the government has no specific goals for the level of inflation this nation ought to have? Does the government have a policy with respect to an effective level of inflation for this country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Yesterday I asked the minister if the government was reconsidering its decision to cut off the five cents per quart milk subsidy that had been in force. The clearest part of his rather short answer that I heard was, "Where we go from there, Mr. Speaker, I do not know." In the period that has elapsed since, I wonder if the minister has reached a decision and can tell the House whether the federal government intends to maintain the five cent per quart subsidy?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I answered that question earlier and said that our decision was still the one we had made early in the month of August.


John Edward Broadbent: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since that decision made earlier in August was "no", I assume the minister intends to maintain that position. In view of the opposition he has received to that decision
October 3, 1974

from some of the premiers, I should like him to follow through on the suggestion that he made yesterday and table all the correspondence on the subject between him or his officials and the provincial governments. I refer in particular to a strong letter from Premier Schreyer which was in direct opposition to the position the minister has taken.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to that after following the usual procedure of getting their permission.


POSSIBLE ACTION TO AID LOW INCOME FAMILIES IN VIEW OF ELIMINATION OF MILK SUBSIDY
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the elimination of the subsidy on milk, what steps does the government propose to take to ensure that Canadian children, especially children of low income families, will not be deprived of this very essential element of their diet?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will have to follow the debates during this session to find out which measures will be proposed. I merely wish to remind him that family allowances will be raised next January in line with the increase in the cost of living.
[DOT] * *


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Could he advise the House whether an investigation is being or has been carried out to discover the reason behind the shortage in building materials and household appliances which occurred during the summer of 1974 and which is still being felt in some areas?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Gérard Laprise: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
The hon. minister has stated that an investigation has been made. Will he table soon a report concerning this?


André Ouellet: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, if it is indicated.
Oral Questions


SUGGESTED REFORM OF PROCEDURES-GUIDELINES ON ACCESS TO INFORMATION-REQUEST FOR PUBLIC DISCUSSION
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether my question should be directed to the Prime Minister or the government House leader. It has to do both with the comment in the Speech from the Throne about parliamentary reform and the Prime Minister's own comments yesterday afternoon in the Throne Speech debate. My question concerns some items which were not mentioned by the Prime Minister but which are ultimately important to any parliamentary reform. It relates to the business of supply and the control of expenditure of parliament as well as the cold question of access to information referred to by the Leader of the Opposition. Could the Prime Minister or the government House leader indicate whether these will be subjects for discussion when parliament considers these matters. Also, will there be opportunity for well informed members of the general public to make submissions on a matter which is vitally important to members of this institution and, ultimately, to the Canadian people?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, answering the first part of the question, I am convinced that the Leader of the House will be prepared to look at any constructive suggestion made by the opposition and by government supporters for improving procedures of the House. Dealing with the second part, the hon. member will no doubt recall that in the last parliament we tabled guidelines, which we thought were useful ones, which tried to combine the right of parliament and people to know with the right, the necessity, of the government to keep certain types of papers confidential. These guidelines and rules were referred to a committee of the House, which did not report in the last parliament. I hope that it will resume its work in the present parliament.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the Prime Minister will recall that there was not much opportunity either for the committee or the general public to respond to the guidelines which were merely a consolidation of accepted practice, and the practice was not too widely accepted, at that. My supplementary relates to the second part of my question. I asked the Prime Minister if there will be an opportunity for views to be expressed by those who are concerned about the nature of parliamentary reform. Will there be an opportunity for the parliamentary committee to receive such submissions, and will there be full public discussion of the nature and extent of reforms which may take place in the thirtieth parliament?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, may I attempt to answer this part of the question. I have had informal talks with the leaders of the various parties in the House. We decided tentatively that before referring reform to a committee of the House there should be some consensus between the parties on how to deal with these difficult questions. I am sure the hon.

October 3, 1974
Oral Questions
member will agree that this will probably result in greater progress than would otherwise be possible.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Mr, Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In view of his undertaking to this House on December 18 last that he would soon have open for public inspection the material in a registry being set up to indicate the financial holdings of cabinet ministers of this government, why is that material not open for public inspection today?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the question is very timely. The hon. member is certainly justified in expressing concern because, for internal purposes, I had given the ministers only until early in the new year to comply with the guidelines. The registry was not ready for operation at the time the work was done by an official in the Privy Council office. However, over the summer arrangements were made, proper staff was found and offices have been allocated. I have been discussing the matter with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs who will be responsible, not for the application of the guidelines, but for the physical presence of those who will be operating the registry. He told me that November 15 will be the date on which this register will be opened to the public. I assure the hon. member that, internally, compliance with the guidelines was urged on ministers as early as January or March, I believe.


Mr. Lawrence:: In view of the fact in other jurisdictions in this country where this registry system has been set up they were able to operate this system within two weeks of the announcement by the leader of whatever government it was, can the Prime Minister indicate why there has been this delay of seven or eight months from the time the undertaking was given in the House.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there was an election which intervened in the spring. The cabinet was busy-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Wrestling.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Leader of the Opposition says wrestling.


An hon. Member:: You still have muscle?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We still have some muscle left. I should inform the hon. member and the House that the new ministers may not all be able to comply by November 15.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That deadline obviously applies to ministers who have been in previous cabinets. I have given a little more time to the new ministers to arrange their affairs in compliance with these guidelines.


INDUSTRY
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact the federal government has given grants of over $60 million to the United Aircraft Company and at the same time is proposing to take over de Havilland Aircraft and Cana-dair, is the government considering taking over the United Aircraft Company which has been on strike in Longueuil for over nine months and is sending a substantial part of work previously done in Canada to its parent company in the United States?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, at this stage, all I can say is that I will give the hon. member's question consideration. However, I want to tell him the government has discussed and is concerned with situations, not only that of United Aircraft, but other like situations where control of companies is exercised abroad, sometimes not to the benefit of Canadian workers and the Canadian people.


MANPOWER
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Why are Manpower offices in the Montreal area directing people who are looking for work to the United Aircraft plant in Longueuil? If these people accept this advice which is being given by the department, they will, in fact, be acting as strike breakers.


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's information. I doubt whether it is totally the case. If it is, I will certainly step into the situation because it is not the policy of the government to act as a strike breaker.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Water-loo):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. It is further to one raised yesterday by the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot. The minister indicated he knew about the destruction of $900,000 worth of eggs shortly before that destruction. Were the minister and his officials aware last spring and early summer that the stockpiling of eggs had reached the point where they had overflowed the storage facilities and had to be stored, among other places, in apple storage facilities? If so, what action was taken by the department to reduce the stockpiling before the eggs became rotten?
October 3, 1974


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, it must first be made clear that the Department of Agriculture does not run CEMA.


An hon. Member:: CEMA runs the department.


Eugene Whelan: CEMA runs its own business. I will be saying more about this later today.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Can the minister tell us whether he and his officials were aware of the fact that the supply of eggs had exceeded the capacity of the storage facilities and that stocks had to be held in facilities normally used for storing apples? Were they aware that the eggs would probably go bad unless something was done about this situation? This is quite apart from whether or not the hon. gentleman wishes to disavow responsibility for the actions of CEMA.


Eugene Whelan: The reason a public hearing is to be held is so that all the facts can be brought to light. If the hon. member wants a public hearing-and I believe, from what he has told me, that he does-we should see that all the facts are on the record, and not make hit-or-miss statements beforehand.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Since the Law of the Sea Conference refused to accept Canada's position with respect to the conservation and management of our marine resources to the edge of the continental shelf, can the minister tell us what action the government intends to take to protect the fisheries against the plundering which is still continuing on the part of foreign fishing vessels?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: The hon. member is not correct in saying no progress was made in terms of a consensus developing about the 200 miles. The Canadian government is still pressing its views within the context of the Law of the Sea Conference.


Walter C. Carter: With regard to what the minister has just said, the Law of the Sea Conference brought about no change in the situation. May I direct my question, now, to the Prime Minister? Can the Prime Minister tell us whether it is his intention to honour the commitment made by two of his cabinet ministers during the election campaign to the effect that if necessary Canada would take unilateral action to preserve our marine resources?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I would have to check the exact words used by the ministers. I suppose the key words are "if necessary". However, I can assure the hon. member that the position of the government is the one stated by the Secretary of State for External Affairs: it is that we do not contemplate taking
Oral Questions
any unilateral action. We are seeking to modify the regime of international law by agreement among the nations of the world, and we are hoping to be successful. The hon. member will recall action taken to this end as far back as the legislation concerning pollution in the Arctic. We were in the forefront by assuring, through legislation, that pollution of the seas would not result in detriment to the coastal states, and we shall continue to act in this way, avoiding, in every way we can, appearing to act unilaterally.


Mr. Crouse:: Mr. Speaker, a question of privilege arising from the answer which was given a few moments ago by the Prime Minister. Replying to the hon. member for St. John's West he said it was not the intention of the government to take any unilateral action in the area covered by the Law of the Sea Conference. However, according to the Evening Telegram of June 24, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion is reported to have said privately that Canada would act unilaterally to take control of the continental shelf off its coast should the current Law of the Sea Conference negotiations not go mostly our way. In view of that statement, Mr. Speaker, I wonder what is Canada's position on the continental shelf control issue, one which is vitally important to fishermen in Atlantic Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. With all due respect to the hon. member, while he may wish to illuminate a difference between statements made or opinions held by one or two of the ministers of the Crown, I seriously doubt whether this raises a question of privilege. It is, of course, a subject upon which a question may legitimately be addressed to the Prime Minister at a suitable opportunity.


POLLUTION
Mr. Albert Bechard (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
Can he tell us whether his department took all the steps called for as a result of the unfortunate accident of the Golden Robin tanker in which, on September 30 last, roughly one thousand barrels of oil were spilled in the waters of Chaleur Bay polluting not only those waters but also the magnificent beaches of my riding on the Quebec side of the bay, and causing some damage to the fishing equipment?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, we have done everything in our power in an effort to limit the disaster. Approximately 35,000 gallons of oil were spilled. At the present time, 13,000 have been absorbed through the different techniques we have developed. We have kept in touch constantly with the people on the site. I believe the fishermen, municipalities and people concerned are aware of what we are doing, and to date everyone seems to be quite pleased with the work that has been done.
62

October 3, 1974

Oral Questions TRADE


JAPAN-GOVERNMENT EFFORTS TO INCREASE PERCENTAGE OF CANADIAN MANUFACTURED GOODS EXPORTED
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In his recent talks with Prime Minister Tanaka of Japan was he able to persuade that gentleman to allow Canada to increase the proportion of its exports to Japan which are manufactured products from the present 1.7 per cent of the total, bearing in mind that more than 70 per cent of Japan's exports to Canada are fully manufactured products and that these, as he knows, are the products which give rise to employment?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: This is the very essence of a part of our discussions. It is a matter which causes us concern and one which brought this meeting into being. It will be a continuing theme of the discussions between us. Of course, neither the government of Canada nor the government of Japan directly controls all the enterprises within their respective countries and it would be a matter of ensuring that the trade and investment pattern goes in the desired direction. This can only be done by continuous exchanges between the governments, particularly between the ministers of trade and commerce in the two countries.


George Harris Hees: The Prime Minister refuses to answer my question, and it is obvious that nothing has been done in this regard. May I ask him, then, how long is it the intention of the government that Canada should remain a mere hewer of wood and producer of iron ore to feed Japanese factories instead of getting a fair exchange of the trade in fully manufactured products between the two countries?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Unfortunately, I do not seem to be able to give replies which are satisfactory to the hon. member. I shall attempt to reply to the second question-how long we are to remain hewers of wood. The view of this party is that we are not hewers of wood. That is the view of the hon. gentleman's party, not of ours.


George Harris Hees: When only 1.7 per cent of our exports is in the form of manufactured products?
* *
*


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Solicitor General.
Owing to the compromising or at least strongly questionable dealings of some members of the RCMP for some time, can the minister tell us whether he has ordered an inquiry in this connection and what steps he intends to take?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: It is difficult to know exactly what incidents the hon. member has in mind. We instituted an inquiry on two matters during the summer. We set up a commission under Justice Marin of the Law Reform Commission to investigate the procedures followed by the RCMP in disciplining members of the force and, in the course of the same inquiry, we are looking into the procedures under which complaints are received from the public and dealt with.


René Matte: I should like to put a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
In order to inform adequately the people due to the fact that a member of the special antimob squad seems to be responsible for setting a bomb, will the minister undertake a thorough inquiry to discover to what extent the members of the RCMP have acted as agents provocateurs not only in the underworld but more especially within the FLQ from 1963 to 1970?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, it is completely against RCMP policy to have its members act as agents provocateurs. In the case referred to by the hon. member the man was dismissed from the force on five different counts. He had the opportunity to appeal his dismissal but did not take advantage of that opportunity within the time allowed.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as the reference to transportation in the Throne Speech is somewhat vague and broad, I should like to ask what the intention of the government is in respect of future branch line abandonments since the freeze in this regard will expire at the end of this year? Arising from the fact that the across the board freeze on freight rates will also expire soon, is the government establishing any guidelines or have there been any discussions going on with the railway companies for the establishment of fair guidelines in order that the fantastic rate increases predicted will be somewhat tempered?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure but I think it is public knowledge that I will be meeting with the western transportation ministers about October 20 and that these two subjects will be on the agenda. Before making any report to Cabinet I would like to have the opportunity of discussing this with the western ministers in order that we might know exactly what we are going to do in this regard.
October 3, 1974


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I should like permission to ask a supplementary question to that directed to the Solicitor General concerning the RCMP. As one who has had such a high regard for the mounted police, as have most Canadians, since the days of the Northwest Mounted Police, and in view of the serious situation revealed by the Samson case and by other recent events that have cast a shadow on this great force which is recognized nationally and internationally, I should like to ask whether the minister would consider appointing another judge to the commission now presided over by Judge Marin, in order to look into these matters which will result in the mounted police losing a portion of its magnificent reputation if they are not faced publicly?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, we have now established a five-man commission headed by a judge. The commission is made up of two representatives of the RCMP, one elected by the non-commissioned officers to present their points of view and one representing the administration. The other two members include one appointed by the department and one from the general public. We feel this five-man commission is adequate at the present time, but if further developments occur I will consider the proposal of the right hon. gentleman.


REQUEST FOR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHARING COST OF NURSING HOMES AND HOME CARE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. P. B. Ryrxard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the very serious effects of galloping health care costs on the economy, I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether the government is prepared to enter into shared-cost programs with the provinces for nursing homes and home care which would get people out of expensive active treatment beds in hospitals?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the hon. member that the federal government participation in financing these costs would not have the effect of preventing their rise in the health area. As for the federal government participation in general health costs, we made a proposal some years ago regarding a financing formula; this formula did not seem to please all provinces and I am waiting for their reactions as well as new proposals or alternative solutions. We will surely consider these proposals when provinces will want to apply them.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, does the minister not realize the difference between the cost of an active treatment bed and a nursing home bed?
Oral Questions


Marc Lalonde: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am very much aware of the costs.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the bill given first reading yesterday which will merge some of the functions of the CTC and the CRTC under a new regulatory body, has the minister decided to act unilaterally in this whole field of communications with no further federal-provincial conferences, keeping in mind that the first and only conference was held about a year ago and was to be followed by another one within six months, would the minister indicate-This is the problem, Mr. Speaker, there is no communication.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There is certainly a problem and it is going to get worse if we do not stick to one question of one minister at a time. Perhaps we could finish this question before we go on to the next one.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering whether the minister heard the question.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member would like to repeat his question for the benefit of the minister.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps I should even amplify it for him. In view of the bill yesterday which will merge some of the functions of the CTC and the CRTC under a new regulatory body dealing with communications, has the minister decided not to continue federal-provincial conferences in this field? If that is not the case when is the next conference scheduled, since it was supposed to occur within six months of the first and only conference held last November?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises two questions that have absolutely no connection. The merging of the two regulating bodies, which the bill presented yesterday seeks to achieve, has absolutely nothing to do with our relations with the provinces. The provinces know that it is an internal reshuffle of regulatory agencies of the federal government. That brings no change whatsoever to the respective authorities nor to the administrative dispositions between the provinces and the federal government as regards the regulation of telecommunications.
As for the second question of the hon. member, I will soon know the results of the conference which the provincial communications ministers held Monday and Tuesday of this week. If the message from the Ontario communications minister who presided over the group confirms some conditions we had expressed to the provinces about hold-
28305-5'/i

October 3, 1974
Oral Questions
ing a conference this fall, then the date of the conference will be set. We even reserved certain days to make sure that we could hold the conference if the provinces met the conditions we have laid down.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for that elaborate answer. In order that the House and the country might understand just where the holdups exist and what are the problems and conditions in respect of arranging another conference, will the minister indicate whether he has had communication with the provincial ministers and is he prepared to table those communications? If those communications are not set out in letter form would the minister be prepared to table them at a later date, if and when they take that form?


Gérard Pelletier: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there is correspondence and I will be very pleased to table it in the House, obviously with the permission of my correspondents which I will try to get as soon as possible.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, relating to the exchange of views that is to take place between this government and the principal groups in our society, could the Prime Minister indicate who will conduct this exchange so far as the government is concerned? Will it be done by himself? How is the exchange to be structured? Will it be informal or will there be some formality about the discussion? Most important of all, when will the process be completed as now envisaged by the government? For example, will it be completed before the budget is presented to the House?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the questions are quite important. The government has been working on answers to all of them. In other words, the questions involve the type of serious consultations in which particular ministers will be involved, and when and where the groups will conduct the meetings as well as what type of exchanges will take place. I understand the concern of the Leader of the Opposition about this, but for the same reason that we do not judge at this time that it would be useful to have open summits on the subject of inflation it is doubtful that I would want to make progress reports on these matters, what went on at that time or what particulars were involved.
At some stage the debate will have to become public. We have indicated through the Speech from the Throne that there would be a federal-provincial conference early in the new year, and there is no doubt that it will deal with inflation. However, I would not want the Leader of the Opposition to believe that at an early stage, certainly before the budget, we will have made public the details of these consultations.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I long since gave up any hope of being told anything about what was being discussed. I should like to ask the Prime Minister how long he sees this process continuing. Is this being followed up with a sense of urgency with a view to these discussions being completed prior to the budget or are they to be terminated sometime next year?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Certainly not before the budget, but unlike the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings we have muscle that can endure.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Given the buildup of materials in Ontario and across Canada, particularly the nine tons of milk in my riding, I wonder whether the minister is planning to send another plane to Honduras in the very near future.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend knows the Government of Canada has made a substantial contribution to the relief of the tragic situation in Honduras. Transportation assistance has been provided for the movement of supplies to that country. At the present time a National Defence plane is in Honduras assisting in the movement of suplies within that country. Also at the present time I have under consideration with the officials of CIDA the question of whether it would be appropriate in the circumstances to provide additional transportation for materials which have been generously donated by the Canadian people to assist Hondurians in this crisis.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that more than twice as much grain passes through the harbour of Thunder Bay as passes through Vancouver, and that virtually no grain has been moved through the harbour for nearly two months, can we have some assurance that yesterday's announced settlement of the marine strike on the Great Lakes will bring some long term labour stability to this industry?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I might say that we are particularly pleased with regard to these two settlements voluntarily arrived at
October 3, 1974

between the parties. I think they will relieve a great deal of the pressure.



DANGER OF CONFRONTATION BETWEEN OIL PRODUCING AND CONSUMING COUNTRIES-POSSIBILITY OF MEETING OF THE TWO GROUPS IN CANADA

Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister. In view of the very dangerous confrontation that is developing between the OPEC or oil producing exporting countries and the currently designed organization of industrial states of Europe, North America and Japan to form an opposition consumers group, would the Prime Minister seriously consider offering Canada as the host country, as both an importer and exporter of oil, to bring these consumers and producers of oil together to set up an international commodity agreement on oil so that we can have a rule of law instead of this dangerous confrontation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is right in talking about the danger of any confrontation developing. He will recall, of course, that the position of the government all through the time of the crisis has been one of trying to avoid that kind of confrontation between the two groups. It still is the policy of the government. As to the suggestion about having the meeting here, I would certainly discuss it with the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to see whether this is a proposition which could advance the debate. However, I certainly share entirely the hon. member's concern.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I have a related question which I should like to direct to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the tremendous difficulties the world is facing because of this imbalance in respect of oil supplies and so on, would the new Secretary of State for External Affairs seriously consider, since we have not too much grain to give the newly developing countries which are bothered by balance of payment difficulties, adding oil as a new product in our foreign aid program helping the nations and hopefully to encourage other exporting nations into taking similar action and thereby give a new dimension toward helping the third world?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian effort up to the present has been not inclusive of oil to my knowledge. It has been concentrated on food and fertilizer for which the Canadian government has made a substantial contribution. I will be happy to consider the implications of the
Oral Questions
hon. member's question because I have not considered it up to the moment.



CANADIAN POSITION ON PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN VIEW OF ACCEPTANCE OF SUCH WEAPONS FROM UNITED STATES

Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the minister's recent address to the United Nations in which he expressed concern over the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the world, would the minister advise the House if the long standing government policy of accepting United States nuclear weapons on Canadian soil will now be reviewed?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, that particular aspect was not included in my speech.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, since the reply of the minister was really not an answer I think I am entitled to repeat my question briefly. Does the minister not consider that this long standing position adds to the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the world in terms of this government's policy, and will this government now review its position in terms of accepting nuclear weapons on Canadian soil.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Well, Mr. Speaker, it would be highly obstinate not to agree to consider this proposal advanced by an hon. member. I will make that commitment, but I do not ask him to hold his breath for an answer at this time.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I should also like to wish him well in his deliberations as he assumes this most sensitive and increasingly crucial portfolio. Could the minister advise the House on whether the government has taken any initiative or any steps to arrange an immediate-and I stress "immediate"-ministerial meeting with representatives of the national native organizations to discuss the urban, social and economic problems which are causing mounting concern and frustration among our native people?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Will the minister undertake to discuss with his cabinet colleagues the arrangement for such a meeting?


J. Judd Buchanan: I will be happy to consider that, Mr. Speaker.
Oral Questions HOUSE OF COMMONS

October 3, 1974



REFORM OF PROCEDURES-SUGGESTED REFERENCE TO A COMMITTEE-EXAMINATION OF POWER OF PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE

Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question for the Prime Minister is supplementary to the questions asked earlier by the hon. member for Egmont. Does the Prime Minister, as part of the general parliamentary reform, propose to make a reference to a committee which will allow either a standing or special committee of parliament to undertake a complete inquiry into the actual role and powers of the office of the Prime Minister and the Privy Council office, including an examination of the influence on policy matters of Ivan Head, Jack Austin and others who presently operate beyond the official scrutiny of parliament?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Villeneuve.


Charles Joseph Clark: On a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: There being no obligation on a minister to answer an oral question, I do not know how I can allow a supplementary to a question that has not been answered.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is simply that the Prime Minister yesterday proposed to this House a far ranging review of the powers of this House and also proposed to limit the powers of this House, which is certainly a matter of concern to each and every member here. I and other members of the House are simply asking for some elaboration of the context within which he proposes to have this inquiry proceed and I would ask for an answer.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: One of the
proposals I had in mind was that members of the House use the rules for purposes for which they were devised. The hon. member may have a valid point and he may want to express it in debate, but he should know-and if he does not know, he should be told-that a point of order does not allow him to make a speech.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: Physician, heal
thyself.


Charles Joseph Clark: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I think we have gone as far as we can on what is essentially not a point of order. The question has been as fully aired as possible, bearing in mind the fact that I have extended the question period for a few minutes to try to accommodate members such as the hon. member who is on his feet.


Charles Joseph Clark: On a point of order, and in the interest of defending the Chair, I would simply like to raise the question of the propriety of the Prime Minister assuming a role regarding what is and what is not a point of order in this House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think we have to get into a controversy on what the answer contains. It is an answer to the question, so be it. I have recognized the hon. member for Villeneuve, and that should be the last question for today.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Armand Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Would he tell us how it is that someone who wishes to prove his availability for work by registering with a Canada Manpower Centre cannot receive unemployment insurance benefits because the Commission considers it to be insufficient proof?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the requirements and obligations of the claimant under the Unemployment Insurance Act are clearly defined. We have augmented the definition of that by the publication of a booklet and in the counselling and interviews with individual claimants. I can only presume, without specific information regarding the particular case to which the hon. member is alluding, that he or she has failed to satisfactorily pursue a job.


Walter C. Carter: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege along the lines of the question put by my colleague, the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) and further to the answer given to a question put by him this morning. My question is for the Prime Minister regarding the Law of the Sea Conference. The hon. member for South Shore brought to the attention of the House the fact that a commitment was made and an undertaking given by certain ministers of the Crown having to do with Canada's position at the Law of the Sea Conference. He asked whether or not we would be prepared to take unilateral action to protect our fish resources. The hon. member read from the St. John's Evening Telegram the statement made by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson).
I might draw the attention of the House to the statement made by the previous minister of fisheries who in his official capacity as minister of fisheries issued a statement in Halifax which was later reported in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald issue of June 15 at which time he made the same undertaking. I might add that at the meeting referred to earlier with the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion the Prime Minister was present, so I do not think he can shake it off and say that he was not aware of the promise made.
This is a very important matter which affects the lives, the livelihood and the future prospects of many thousands of Canadians living on the eastern seaboard and on the
October 3, 1974

west coast of Canada. I take strong exception to these people being misled, and I might add maybe deliberately misled, by ministers of the Crown who for political purposes or political expediency promised tbe people of Canada, the people of Newfoundland and people in other parts of Canada that this action would be taken, in the full knowledge that this government would not support the action if Canada's position was not improved at the Law of the Sea Conference.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have allowed both previous members, the hon. member for South Shore and the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Carter), some time to express their points of view on this. Earlier I expressed serious reservations regarding whether in fact this was question of privilege.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It is a question of integrity.


Mr. Speaker:: Or it may be a question of debate. In fact, it certainly is a question of debate. It may be the proper subject of questioning of one or the other minister during the time of the question period, but contradictory answers, no matter how clear they may be, are not a matter for the hon. members to expose within the time limits given to them, and certainly when there is a debate in progress during which any subject can be brought forward. I am unable to see any precedent that establishes it as a valid question of privilege.


Mr. Baldwin:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Jamieson:: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I do not propose to take the time of the House with regard to the substance of what has been discussed this morning; there are other forums for that. If I heard correctly, I have the impression that the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Carter) made some reference to being deliberately misled. I suggest that that is not parliamentary, and I feel quite certain that he would not want to make that assertion. I would ask Your Honour's ruling on that point.


Mr. Speaker:: 

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, commencing with the usual fraternal and friendly relations of a Thursday afternoon this Thursday morning, I should like to ask the government House leader to tell the House what business it will be engaged in this week and next week, and whether the
The Address-Hon. J. Marchand
government has made up its collective mind if the situation in Vancouver is sufficiently serious to warrant interrupting the Throne Speech debate?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the decision was made by the government today to introduce legislation to bring the grain handlers strike on the west coast to an end. Notice will be given tonight of this legislation. I have had some informal discussions about this legislation, and I understand it would suit the convenience of members if the debate were to be called for Monday.


Gerald William Baldwin: On the same point, Mr. Speaker, of course the government House leader realizes that this party would be quite prepared to waive reasonable notice because the interval of time which would normally prevail between giving of notice and the commencement of debate is not possible. We have always done that on those rare occasions when the government has overcome its ineptness sufficiently to bring in good legislation. I wonder if the government House leader would try to devise some way, without revealing the actual details of the bill, of making us aware of its general trend? This might facilitate commencement of the debate.


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to do so. I am sure we will have the co-operation of all members in dealing with this legislation within a day if possible.


Mr. Benjamin:: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the hopes of the government House leader that the bill will be dealt with in short order, may I ask if it will be possible to make hon. members aware of its contents somewhat in advance of first reading?


An hon. Member:: You were asleep, Benjamin.


An hon. Member:: That is what he was just asked.


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will comply with these requests. I think it would facilitate the debate and I am very happy to co-operate.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, October 2, 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, as well as the amendment introduced by the hon. Mr. Stanfield (p. 42) and the subamendment introduced by Mr. Broadbent (p. 53).
Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, transportation problems in Canada remain a present-day issue. There was talk about it during the last election. The Speech from the Throne reflected a large part of the public discussions which took place during the election campaign, and we intend to continue the discussions and implement the proposed measures.

October 3, 1974
The Address-Hon. J. Marchand
During the summer, Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to read perhaps with closer attention the history of Canada as related to the development of railways, and I had the pleasure to read among other things that great book by Pierre Berton the National Dream, and The Last Spike. And I had never realized, Mr. Speaker, how closely the history of the development of Canada was related to the development of the railways. The whole development of western Canada is interrelated with the development of the railways. Furthermore, if one reads the first debates that followed the creation of this beautiful country that is ours, one realizes that railways were a focal concern of politicians of that time.
Sir John A. Macdonald spent a great deal of his political life trying to solve the railway problem in Canada, or rather build a railway that would link eastern and western Canada. So the problem of transportation is undoubtedly vital to any country but particularly for Canada. Because of the vastness of the Canadian territory, differing areas which are so far apart, it is essential that this country be linked by the best means of transportation known.
So it is not surprising that even in 1974 there is still talk about the transportation policy, new means to link Canadians, setting up faster and easier communications so that our country will be more united.
There is no doubt that the unity of this country is impossible without an excellent transportation system, not only for passengers, but also for goods. Transportation in Canada includes not only railways, but also transportation by bus, by car, by boat, by airplane. This includes airports and seaports, which means that the greater part of Canadian activity is related to the development of our transportation policy.
I am therefore happy, Mr. Speaker, that the government has decided to make a special effort to make the required improvements, and there are many of them. Regardless of any statement that can be made, I am convinced that many things should be changed. I just read the speech that I made last March, Mr. Speaker, and there is not a single sentence in it that needs to be changed, despite any direct or indirect accusation that may have been made. I am not speaking of my friends opposite, but of other people more directly involved in transportation. Transportation is directly related to the public interest. This is why, Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, no individual, no private company should have an advantage over the government in the development of transportation.
I would not want it to be said, Mr. Speaker, that I suggest that the government should acquire all transportation means in Canada; this is not at all what I want. I believe this would be the greatest mistake we could make. There are several other areas where we can invest our money, but I believe that the general transportation policy must be developed by the government and followed by all those who work in the transportation field and who have a right to make a profit in this field as long as their search for profit is in the interest of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, we have already started to make some changes. We have already developed some plans.


We signed a bilateral air agreement with the United States. We allocated routes to the carriers.


An hon. Member:: Not very well.


Jean Marchand: If ever you want to discuss them I am ready any time. There is an airline in this country which belongs to the citizens of Canada, so if some people on the other side of the House do not like that they should say so publicly. I am sure they are never going to be elected on such a platform.
We have signed this agreement. We have adopted the Darling rates on coastal trade. We have met again and again with the Atlantic provinces on freight rates so that we can develop that part of the country more than it has been in the past. The committee of western ministers on transportation has worked well.


An hon. Member:: Who told you that?


Jean Marchand: I think some members on the other side of the House have met those ministers and have seen how seriously they do their work. They are interested in transportation, in the problems of Canada, and not in politicking, as some are.


George Harris Hees: Of course, you never indulge in that, do you?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I don't know why some members are not happy when something good happens to Canadians. The ministers are satisfied. We are working together and solving problems. We meet in a cheerful and non-partisan atmosphere.


An hon. Member:: Oh, boy!


Jean Marchand: Why is the hon. member so sad about that?


George Harris Hees: You will strain your wrist patting yourself on the back.


Jean Marchand: You are quite an adviser, George.
We are experimenting in Ontario with the Richmond Hill to Toronto commuter train, which is important but only a start. The STOL program, which is being developed rapidly, has become a real success.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, we are seeing a repetition of what happened a few minutes ago. When something works well, members opposite are unhappy. I don't understand.


An hon. Member:: Who's unhappy? We are surprised.


Jean Marchand: Are you surprised that it works so well?


An hon. Member:: No, that it works at all.
October 3, 1974


Jean Marchand: This is a very important program.


Mr. MacKay:: Mr. Speaker, I sincerely regret interrupting the minister who is making an excellent speech. Will he permit a question now or at the end of his speech about the STOL program?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I will answer the question before the hon. member puts it. I think the hon. member wants to know if Mr. Sinclair was right in saying that the STOL program cost $135 million. Mr. Sinclair is wrong. Is the hon. member satisfied? As I said previously, the program cost $25 million. That is the correct figure, and not the one suggested by Mr. Sinclair. I don't know why he said that. Of course, that $25 million figure does not cover everything carried in the budgets of all the different departments concerned.


An hon. Member:: What is the total?


Jean Marchand: We are talking about STOL.


An hon. Member:: You are stalling.


An hon. Member:: You don't know.


Jean Marchand: I do know, but I am not going to mention it, for obvious reasons. I am being perfectly honest. I am telling members the plain truth, but I am not going to reveal all the details. I repeat, the figure of $25 million which I mentioned previously is the right one. If Mr. Sinclair contends the STOL program has cost $135 million, let him prove what he says. I think he is wrong. He should not consider himself as speaking for the government of Canada. He is speaking as a citizen, and that is all. My interest in this is no smaller than his.
We are already on the way to transforming and improving transportation throughout Canada. Here I shall mention the CNR Turbo train which runs between Ottawa and Montreal and Montreal and Toronto. The Canadian Pacific Railway is about to enter into service a train which will be a bit faster. We hope that company will change its policy. Why do I say that? A few years ago everybody in Canada, including the railways, thought we should eliminate passenger trains.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Not everybody.


Jean Marchand: Everybody thought we should use cars.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I didn't.


Jean Marchand: People thought that motor cars and airplanes were the vehicles of the future. Now, people notice that this is not so. I do not say cars will disappear from our highways or that aircraft will not fly. I do say that there are plans for improved passenger train service. We want people to be happy to travel by train instead of by car. It should not take two or three hours, as happens now, to go from St. Hyacinthe to Montreal if you leave at nine o'clock in the morning. That is awful! We can do better than that.
The railways have given a commitment to improve services. In the election campaign and in the Speech from the
The Address-Hon. J. Marchand
Throne we said that the government intends to create a corporation for operating passenger trains. We still support the idea, as announced by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in the west. We are not anxious to do this. It is not our first priority. We will say this to the railways: "You contend you know the business better than we do. Show us how good you are. Demonstrate to us that you can improve the service to a greater extent than we could if we were to create a corporation." We have not abandoned the idea but want to give the railways a chance to show they can do better than we can, as a government. There is no rush to create a corporation, but there is a rush to improve passenger train service.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, when you deal with transportation, it is like being in a restaurant. Some are interested in the food, some in reading the menu and some in changing the cook. I am interested in having good food on the table, that is, in good train service for transporting people and enough cars to carry our goods, so that we can export manufactured products and create good service to our ports. This holds true particularly for Vancouver and some parts of eastern Canada. This is what I am interested in and the government is ready to take all legal and moral measures to achieve this result. We do not want to be unnecessarily doctrinaire. We do not intend to do things just one way and say there is only one way of doing them. There are several ways of doing things. We know that. We are ready to be flexible but we will not be flexible in reaching the objectives defined during the election campaign and the Speech from the Throne. [Translation]
Now, Mr. Speaker, we have a vast country-as is well known and, evidently, I have not discovered it-and some of its regions are isolated. We must therefore find a way to bring these regions closer so as to provide them with communication and transportation facilities in order to allow Canadians to live everywhere on the Canadian territory and not only in Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver or Calgary. Some people are living in the far north, others in remote communities. Ways must be found to enable them to travel fast and in comfort, so that they may thus contemplate living either at the place where they were born or where they have elected to settle down.
But how should it be done? The plane seems to be most appropriate to that end. This means that we will have to launch a program for the development of small airports from which we could reach by air nearly any place in Canada, especially where there is no other available means.
This is another area where improvements are to be introduced, clearly within eventual budget restrictions, because such a program may cost billions. Everything then will depend on the government's general economic policy, the fight against inflation and so on. We will however proceed with all due speed, in order that Canada may have the best transportation system.
We propose to develop navigation in the north because we know natural resources are there and the world will need them. This is common knowledge, after such painful experiences. Why not then give Canada better specializa-
70

October 3, 1974
The Address-Hon. J. Marchand tion in far north shipping? Why not have better ice-breakers, better ice-going ships. All this belongs to us, here in Canada, and we will have to specialize in that field.
We have a program for developing navigation in the north. Speaking of navigation in the north and coastal shipping-that is water transport from one point to another in Canada-it will be done in the future by Canadian ships with Canadian crews. And with our existing lake-going fleet, we already have the elements of a merchant navy large enough for Canada. We will then have to look.


Mr. Forrestall:: That is the merchant marine.


Jean Marchand: It is part of the merchant marine. It is not complete because we still do not have ocean going ships. This is something I hope we will have in the future.
There is not only the problem of inter-city communication, but urban transportation. This is in the provincial and municipal field, not the federal field. However, we are ready to co-operate as we are doing with the provinces and municipalities in order to solve this very serious problem of urban transportation. This can only be done through co-operation because we do not have any specific jurisdiction in that field. This is a problem that must be solved because it is becoming more and more impossible to live in certain large cities because of the poor transportation system. We are offering our co-operation to the provinces and the municipalities in order to improve this situation.
We want more information about transportation. We do not have all the information. As hon. members know, private enterprise is involved. There are bus companies, private railways and provincially-owned railways. We will be asking the House to adopt an information act of some kind in order that we may get all the information.
We now have a commitment from the railways that they will supply, at the request of the Canadian Transport Commission, all information that is asked for by the provinces. We were asked for this by the provinces previously, but unfortunately the election prevented us from doing anything about it. The provinces have asked us to amend the Railway Act so that we not only have a promise from one man or one board of directors. The provinces want to have a definite right. If the opposition parties are interested, I think an amendment to the Railway Act can be passed compelling the railways to supply information at the request of the Canadian Transport Commission or the Department of Transport.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean Marchand: There is also the problem of freight rates. We are still discussing with the western provinces what criteria should be established for freight rates in Canada. Are we going to use the railways as an instrument for regional development? This will have to be defined so we know exactly what we want to do. The railways are costing the Canadian people a lot of money. In the passenger field alone, the cost is $100 million a year.

That is a lot of money and I think the government and this House should have some say in this.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean Marchand: I read this morning that some people contend we do not have to change anything, that everything is O.K. in the transportation act of 1967. However, that is not the way we feel. I regret to say we think it is far from being perfect. Even though it costs a lot of money to maintain our railways, the general public profits by it. For example, I am sure the Richmond Hill-Toronto commuter train will not make a profit, but the whole community will profit. If two or three thousand people save two or three hours a day, that is worth a lot of money and must be taken into account.
Even though what we propose will involve a lot of money, if that is transposed at the national accounts level, it will be seen that it is probably the best way to save money. I hope the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) agrees. I see he is leaving.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean Marchand: I wish to make one more point. I've really just begun my speech.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Jean Marchand: I want to underline one point, the problem of consultation.

Consultation is very important in this field. If there is a field where things are cut up, it is that of transport. You have provinces which make the roads. Private companies like the bus companies. There are national companies, like the Canadian National, not to mention the Canadian Pacific and the airlines. There are municipal jurisdictions, provincial jurisdictions, private interests and Crown corporations. As we look at the whole, we come to the conclusion that it cannot work unless there is a state of permanent coordination and consultation between all the agencies concerned.
There are towns where you might have an excellent air service, perfect roads and train and bus systems that are quite up-to-date. There are other places, however, where there is nothing of all that; so there is going to have to be coordination so that everything is not concentrated in the same place. And, if our means are limited, well then, let us try to spend and invest our money so that the greatest possible number of Canadians can benefit by all known modern transportation means.
I do not want to start a discussion in the House, Mr. Speaker, but I remember very well that there once was an air company that abandoned a small line in the west. Today, they have a bus to replace this and they would not want to go back to the old system because they found that they saved much more time this way. As far as we are concerned, we find that with the small STOL aircraft between Montreal and Ottawa a lot of time is saved even if the aircraft flies a bit slower.
We need some sort of total planning which cannot be exclusively brought about by the federal government but

by all the provincial governments as well as the municipal governments when it comes to urban transport.
So we will have to discuss these problems. It will not be easy because I know this will be extremely expensive. Recently I spent a few days in England and France. I remember that after the war when I went to France for the first time, I was shocked by the bad rail service. Of course, the war was somehow responsible for that situation, but today their trains are more comfortable than ours, and it is the same thing in England. Why do people use trains? Because those trains are comfortable and fast.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Whose fault is it?


Jean Marchand: Whose fault is it? Anyone who wants to make a trial can do so. But I am here to build trains, so I will try to do just that. Everybody will be working. I will be busy with the railroads while others make trials.
Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I simply wanted to point to the House that the good feelings we had expressed concerning transport, passenger services, freight transport, freight rates, lack of discrimination-
We still believe in all this. Even though the election is over and we have a majority here, we believe in it-even more so, if possible. We are in a good position, now, even if hon. gentlemen opposite are not happy, to do all the good things Canadians are waiting for us to do.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the minister if he will agree to answer. It is stated in the Speech from the Throne that the government intends to establish machinery to ensure the effective management of all ground transportation. Would the minister elaborate on this proposal and tell us what is meant by the statement to which I have just referred?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The minister's time has expired and I would not wish him to embark on any lengthy explanation, though he may wish to reply briefly.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, my remarks will be brief. I think we will develop our transport policy as we go along. The Speech from the Throne mentions a corporation for passenger cars and a corporation for rail cars to assure an adequate supply of those. More problems will arise as we go along, but we are determined to take all the means necessary to realize the goals we have set, and we do not have to bother with a full list of those means.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Just railway transportation?


Jean Marchand: Railway transportation.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure for me to hear the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) even though, in matters affecting transport, he sometimes allows his imagination to take the place of facts. He is a remarkable orator, one
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker
who enlivens the House, and I have always tried to be present whenever he speaks. Whether I agree with him or not, he has developed that undefinable parliamentary quality to such an extent over the years that I always enjoy hearing him speak even though, when he has finished, we have little or no idea of what he was actually endeavouring to prove.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: However, I say in all sincerity that I have great admiration for him as I have for all hon. members who endeavour to express themselves clearly and with honesty of purpose. I cannot say more of anyone than that. I did notice, though, that in his praise for himself and his department in connection with the allotment of air routes from the United States he forgot the province of Saskatchewan. This is not the first time Saskatchewan has been forgotten, particularly since it turned to the former allies and bedfellows of the Liberal government during the last parliament. When they ceased to support the government, Saskatchewan was forgotten.
Furthermore, I should like to have heard the minister say something more about the transportation of oil and gas by railroad from the north. This matter has been thoroughly looked into by the Queen's University Committee which came to the conclusion that such a railroad would cost no more than a pipeline and that the environmental difficulties inherent in a pipeline would be completely eliminated. What has been done in that connection?
I should also have liked to have heard the minister say something about the Canadian Transport Commission. This Commission, during the last several years, has brought in recommendations and decisions which, in several cases, have been entirely unmindful of the average Canadian. I think of the recent acceptance by the Commission of the application on the part of Bell Telephone which in my opinion was unjustified and could not be justified. It can only have the effect of stoking still further the inflationary fires in this country.
Now, I wish to deal with one or two matters of particular interest to me arising out of the Speech from the Throne. It was a speech grandiloquent in words, outstanding the sentiment and completely devoid of any serious effort to meet the problems facing Canada today. It was designed to delude the people of Canada into believing that a government which has been sound asleep since the election has suddenly ended its hibernation and that things are being done. Where, in that Speech, is there anything which will help Canadians today? It is beyond me why in all the circumlocution of that Speech there is nothing which meets the major problem facing this country, that is to say, inflation. When the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) dealt with inflation throughout the campaign, calling it the number one danger facing our country, he was ridiculed. Now there is suddenly a recognition that such a thing as inflation does exist. It is still apparent that the sloth and inaction of the past weeks, months and, indeed, the last year and a half is what will continue to guide this government.
28305-6V2

October 3, 1974
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker
Government expenditures are on the increase and there is no attempt at control. Budgetary expenditures on September 26 totalled $9.2 billion, some $1,800 million more than the same period in the previous year. Where is this nation going? I am not going to get into a discussion of inflation as it no doubt will be dealt with at length during this debate, but I do suggest that this government could have acted.
What is the government's excuse now? It says it is waiting for the budget. We have had budgets and budgets over and over again during the last three or four years with nothing to meet the serious situation of inflation. As I listened to the unveiling of the Speech from the Throne I could only come to the conclusion that its purpose was simply to becloud the fact that our financial situation in Canada is very serious and to put the blame on international causes when at least 55 per cent of inflation here in Canada is the result of inaction on the part of this government.
Why has there not been some action taken? There is nothing to prevent the government of Canada, even without a budget, from doing something about the awful interest rates which today make it virtually impossible for people in all walks of life to continue. The government has the power to do something and does not have to wait for a budget. Why does it not act now?
I remember very well that when I was Prime Minister the great banking institutions of Canada came to me seeking my agreement to legislation removing the 6 per cent ceiling on interest. I asked them what their purpose was, and they said it was to make the financial situation more flexible. I asked them whether they intended to use such legislation and they said no, at which time I said that under the circumstances my answer was no.
People in Canada today are aroused as never before. The government won an election and boasts of it. I do not object to that feeling of exhilaration that comes from victory, but where is Canada going? If it is going to follow what is set out in the throne speech I wonder what the consequences will be?
This brings me to something that happened on Monday on Parliament Hill. I stood against violence weeks ago when the situation at Kenora showed a degree of dangerous chaos. I said that those who were raising the trouble among the Indians were not the responsible ones but were troublemakers obtaining their inspiration from the United States. What happened here on Parliament Hill will be known throughout the world as an indication that we in this nation are in no different position than other nations, many without the same background and tradition of respect for law.
However, I must add that the government of Canada must bear a large share of the responsibility for what happened as a result of its inaction and the official decision that the minister would not meet with the Indians without the meetings being subject to certain qualifications he wished to impose. That is not the way to deal with difficulties and problems, and certainly not the way to deal with the first race of our country.

I have no sympathy for what these people did, but when I heard that the government refused to meet with them, as it was reported, I feared for the consequences. As an indication of how serious this matter is let me point out that yesterday the Lieutenant Governor of Alberta, himself a full-blooded Cree, speaking with the magnificent record he has had during the years, to the benefit of his people, spoke out strongly and definitively. That is an unusual thing for a representative of Her Majesty, provincially or otherwise.
I say to the government through you, Sir, that I have no consideration for the irresponsible individuals involved, but the vast majority of the Indian race whose contributions to this country have been tremendous and law abiding deserve more than the consideration they have been given to date. I would go further by asking whether the use of the RCMP on Parliament Hill on Monday was a course in keeping with the traditions of the force and the excellent relationship that has prevailed between that force and the Indian peoples?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It being one o'clock the House will take recess until 2 p.m.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to the order made earlier this day, the House will revert to routine proceedings.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council)
presented the report of the special committee appointed to prepare and report lists of members to compose the standing committees of the House, as follows:

[Stage Direction]
Messrs.
Andres	Jarvis	MilneCaron	Lambert	MurtaCondon	(Belleohasse)	NeilCorriveau	La Salle	NystromCot£	Lessard	PetersDaudlin	Maine	SmithDouglas	Marchand	(Saint-Jf(Bruce)	(Kamloops-Cariboo)	TessierGoodale	Masniuk	TowersHargrave	McCain	WhittakerHurlburt	Mclsaac	Wise Yanakis
October 3, 1974
[Stage Direction]
Standing Committees
BROADCASTING.	FILMS AND ASSISTANCE TO THE ARTS Messrs	INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT Messrs	Baker	Fleming	McKinnon	Anderson	Dinsdale	Marchand(Gander-Twillingate*	Grafftey	Nowlan	Bussieres	Elzinga	(Kamloops-Cariboo)Begin (Miss)	Guilbault	Raines	Campagnolo (Mrs.)	Firth	MilneBlaker	Johnston	Roberts	Clark	Gauthier	NeilBlouin	Kempling	Stollery	(Rocky Mountain)	(Roberval)	NielsenDarling	Marceau	Symes	Cot£	Lajoie	PearsallDouglas (Bruce)	Matte	Yewchuk	Cyr Demers	MacDonald (Miss) (Kingston and the Islands)	Watson Yewchuk

[Stage Direction]
Messrs

[Stage Direction]
Anderson	Gray	Paproski	Messrs.	Begin (Miss) Breau Brewin Bussieres Crouse Cyr Dupras Forrestall	Haidasz Hopkins Howie Langlois Lapointe Laprise Leggatt MacLean	Pelletier (Sherbrooke) Roberts Stanbury Stewart (Marquette) Stewart (Cochrane)	Blais Carter Dick Fairweather Fox Gilbert Hnatyshyn	Holt (Mrs.) Lachance Landers MacGuigan Marceau Nielsen Pinard	Poulin Prud'homme Robinson Rondeau Wagner WoolliamsFriesen	McKinnon	Wagner	Gendron	Munro	Wenman	
(Esquimalt-Saanich)

[Stage Direction]
FINANCE, TRADE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS	Messrs,
Messrs	Alexander	Ellis	OrlikowAppolloni (Mrs.)	Epp	ParentBawden	Holt (Mrs.)	O'Connell	Caccia	Fleming	PortelanceClermont	Joyal	Ritchie	Condon	Friesen	RompkeyComtois	Kaplan	Rondeau	Dionne	Johnston	SkoreykoCullen	Kempling	Saltsman	(Kamouraska)	MacGuigan	StolleryGillies	I^ambert	Stevens	Dupont	Olivier	YewchukGray	(Edmonton West)	Trudel	Hees	Martin	FISHERIES AND FORESTRY	MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATESMessrs.	Messrs.	Allard	Carter	Leggatt	Beatty	Gauthier	MartinBaker	Crouse	Marchand	Bechard	(Roberval)	Nielsen(Gander-Twillingate)	Cyr	(Kamloops-Cariboo)	Clermont	Herbert	O'ConnellBechard	Darling	Marshall	Cossitt	Huntington	RodriguezBlouin	Dionne	Oberle	Demers	Lachance	SchellenbergerCampagnolo (Mrs.)	(Northumberland-	Pearsall	Flynn	Langlois	StevensCampbell	Miramichi)	Rooney	Francis	Leblanc	Whiteway(LaSalle-Emard-Cote	Fraser	Smith	(Laurier)	Saint-Paul)	Landers	(Churchill)	HEALTH,	WELFARE AND SOCIAL AFFAIRS	Messrs.	MISCELLANEOUS PRIVATE BILLS AND STANDING ORDERS	Brisco	Haidasz	Philbrook	Broadbent	Halliday	Railton	Campbell (Miss)	Holmes	Roy	Campbell	Loiselle	Nystrom(South Western Nova)	Holt (Mrs.)	(Laval)	(LaSalle-£mard-Cote	(Chambly)	ReidCorbin	Isabelle	Rynard	Saint-Paul)	Loiselle	ReynoldsElzinga	Macquarrie	Tessier	Duquet	(Saint-Henri)	ScottGauthier	Matte	Yewchuk	Fortin	Munro	Smith(Ottawa-Vanier)	Nicholson (Miss)	Lessard	(Esquimalt-Saanich)	
October 3, 1974
Standing Committees
NATIONAL RESOURCES AND PUBLIC WORKS	TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS
Messrs.
Messrs.
Abbott	Douglas	Hamilton	Benjamin	Horner	McGrathAlkenbrack	(Nanaimo-Cowichan-	(Qu'Appelle-	Campbell	Korchinski	MclsaacAndre	The Islands)	Moose Mountain)	(LaSalle-fimard-Cote	Lee	McRae(Calgary Centre)	Ellis	Malone	Saint-Paul)	Loiselle	NowlanBawden	Ethier	Martin	Collenette	(Saint-Henri)	ReynoldsBlais	Foster	McRae	De Bane	Lumley	TurnerCaouette	Gendron	Milne	Duclos	MacKay	(London East)(Villeneuve)	Goodale	Railton	Fortin	Mazankowski	WatsonCossitt	Young

[Stage Direction]
Messrs.

[Stage Direction]
Messrs.
Abbott
Benjamin
Blais
Blaker
Cadieu
Clarke
(Vancouver Quadra) Collenette
Darling
Dionne
(Northumberland
Miramichi)
Duclos
Duquet
Hamilton
(Swift Current-Maple Creek)
Lee
Matte
McKenzie
McKinnon
Pearsall
Reid
Scott
Allard
Andres
(Lincoln)
Boulanger
Dupras
Guay
(St. Boniface) Hamilton (Swift Current-Maple Creek)
Kempling
Knowles
(Winnipeg North Centre) Knowles
(Norfolk-Haldimand)
Landers
Loiselle
(Saint-Henri)
MacFarlane
Mac Lean Marshall Masniuk McKenzie Parent Railton Robinson Turner (London East)
Your committee also recommends that the provisions of Standing Order 65(1)(r) with regard to the maximum membership of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization be suspended and that the said Standing Committee be composed of the following members:
(Laurier)

[Stage Direction]
Messrs.
	PUBLIC ACCOUNTS		Baker	Knowles	Nicholson (Miss)
			(Gander-Twillingate)	(Winnipeg North Centre) Nowlan	
Messrs.	Baldwin	Lambert	O'ConnellBoulanger	(Edmonton West)	OlivierBlackburn	Cullen	Loiselle	Fortin	MacFarlane	ReidCaouette	Darling	(Chambly)	Fox	Munro	Roche(Villeneuve)	Demers	Martin	Kaplan	(Esquimalt-Saanich)	Clarke	Dupras	McKinnon	(Vancouver Quadra)	Flynn	Mitges	Clermont	Herbert	Schumacher	Comtois	Joyal	Towers	Crouse	Leblanc	Mr. Sharp moved that the report be	concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
* *
*

[Stage Direction]
Messrs.
Brisco	Hogan	MacDonaldCaron	Joyal	(Egmont)Coates	Lambert	McRaeFrancis	(Bellechasse)	MuirGoodale	La Salle	PelletierGuay	L<ee	(Sherbrooke)(St. Boniface)	Lessard	RooneyHargrave	Lumley	Stewart
(Marquette)

Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and agreement has been reached with regard to the method by which the House will be asked to deal with
(Mr. Sharp.]
October 3, 1974

supply. I understand there will be unanimous consent for a special order, which reads as follows:
That, each standing committee to which the main estimates, 1974-75, or supplementary estimates (A), 1974-75, are referred, shall report, or shall be deemed to have reported, the said estimates to the House not later than October 22, 1974:
That, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order 58(4) (a), twenty-four hours' notice shall be given of motions to concur in the said estimates or to restore or reinstate any item in the said estimates;
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order, any bill based upon the said estimates may be advanced any number of stages in any sitting;
That, on Wednesday, October 23, 1974, Thursday, October 24, 1974, and Friday, October 25, 1974, the only business taken up under government orders shall be the consideration of the said estimates and of any bill or bills based thereon;
That, on the aforementioned days, no private members' business shall be taken up and Standing Orders 15(3), 26 and 40 shall be suspended;
That, the hours of sitting on Wednesday, October 23, 1974, shall be 2:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. to 10:30 p.m., and the hours of sitting on Thursday, October 24, shall be 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., 2:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m.;
That, at 4:00 p.m. on Friday, October 25, 1974, the proceedings then in progress shall be interrupted and every question necessary for the disposal of any item of business relating to the said estimates and the passage at all stages of any bill or bills based thereon shall be put forthwith without further debate or amendment;
And that, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order 6(3), the House shall adjourn on Friday, October 25, 1974, immediately after completing the business of supply referred to in this order.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the order proposed moved, I take it, by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) and seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang). Shall it be so ordered?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, may I say very briefly that there have been the usual interesting exchanges among the House leaders. Because the government got itself into an unfortunate predicament and had to be defeated last May 8, it is now in the position where procedures have to be adopted to deal with the 1974-75 main estimates which, together with Governor General's warrants-which I see the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) has before him in large quantities- have almost been expended. So we are prepared to accommodate the government. I want to say, in light of the rather extraordinary claim the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) made yesterday for further streamlining and thereby loss of opposition privileges, that when the government is in a position where it needs assistance, there is always on an individual basis a willingness to co-operate. This is what is being done now. As time goes on, I am sure the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) will see how much more co-operation he receives from government House leaders than he did when he was in his other occupation dealing with people at the United Nations.
There is another matter which I think I should mention. The three days which will be devoted to discussion of the estimates in the House will be without interruption either by the opposition attempting to make use of Standing Order 26 or by the government bringing in large clutches of government statements to be made on motions by ministers. This will give the House, and particularly members who have come here since 1968, an opportunity to see how
Estimates
this House can operate in what will be an atmosphere and climate resembling the old committee of supply. We hope ministers will bring forward the details of their estimates without any sins of omission or commission, and that we will have an interesting debate. I say this because it may well be that in the discussion of our rules this procedure will serve as a pilot plan for the proposition this party will make so that we can work out a system of reverting, at least in part, to the old committee of supply rules.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker I wish to confirm the fact that the motion presented by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) does represent an agreement arrived at among the four House leaders. If some members think that not sufficient time is allowed for debate of these estimates, and others think there is too much time, I can tell them that the amount of time in the motion represents a compromise.
I believe the point made by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) should be emphasized, namely, that what we are dealing with here is not a brand new set of estimates but, rather, estimates for the current fiscal year, seven months of which have already been voted or approved in one way or another, most of which has already been spent. It seems, therefore, that we should handle the discussion of these estimates with as much expedition as possible. I feel the arrangement worked out by the House leaders in bringing in this motion takes into account all the important factors.
Perhaps there is one other element in the so-called agreement, among others, which should be mentioned. It should be understood that during the three days October 23, 24 and 25 when we are debating the estimates on the floor of the House, most, if not all, of that time will be spent, in committee of the whole so that there can be an honest back and forth discussion of these estimates.
On behalf of my party, I wish to support this motion. [Translation]


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to confirm what the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) has said, that there was unanimous agreement between the House leaders of the four parties. We took part in the discussions and we endorse it completely for it meets a need we have often stated in this House that the spending of the taxpayer's money was not discussed sufficiently in the House. This agreement provides for three days' discussions in Committee of the Whole, with addi-tionnal sittings, which constitutes some kind of compromise as was said previously. Some would say it is not enough, others that it is too much. To my mind, it is one step towards more effective and better planned procedures in the short and the long term.
I sincerely hope. Mr. Speaker, that there will be more agreements of this type to make House business more effective and better adapted to current needs. These would give each member the opportunity of putting forward his ideas and of checking on the present administration.

October 3, 1974
Estimates


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The House has heard the proposal. Is it agreed that it shall become an order of the House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.


BUSINESS OF SUPPLY
[Stage Direction]
Two messages from His Excellency the Administrator of the Government of Canada transmitting estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 1975 and supplementary estimates (A) for the financial year ending March 31, 1975 be presented by Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board) and read by Mr. Speaker to the House.
Mr. Chretien:: Mr. Speaker, the main estimates that I table today are identical to those which were introduced in the last session of the previous Parliament. Hon. members will recall undoubtedly that the examination of that budget was nearly completed by most standing committees at the time Parliament was dissolved.
In March last, the Commons voted interim supplies for the period from April to June inclusive. For the four following months, from July to October, the government obtained its operating funds through special warrants as authorized under the Financial Administration Act. The funds provided in those warrants should meet government needs only until the end of October. I trust that by that time Parliament will have voted all the necessary votes for the current fiscal year. For that matter, Mr. Speaker, agreement was reached on that a moment ago.
Nearly all budget items for which special warrants were issued were already included in the estimates under study when Parliament was dissolved.
The supplementary estimates that I also table today provide for the issuance of special warrants for any budget items not provided for in the main estimates. They also cover expenditures to be incurred in weeks to come to subsidize consumer oil product prices as well as the price of wheat for Canadian consumption. The amounts required to subsidize consumer oil product prices represent 90 per cent of the supplementary estimates.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order, or comment, which I think I am entitled to make at this point. I understand the gratitude which the minister feels at being in his present position and not in the one he held previously. As a result, he has probably forgotten to let us have copies of the supplementary estimates which usually come to us, or copies of the statement. I let it pass for that reason, although I think I should file a caveat at this time, on behalf of our party, that if on examination of those supplementary estimates we discover in them any dollar items or votes of expenditure covering some of the lavish promises in money which

the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his friends were flinging around during the course of the election campaign-such as the Toronto park, of which the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) is aware-we will reserve the right to deal with them. We have not seen them, and it may well be that the government is virginally pure.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I do not believe so.


Gerald William Baldwin: I have my doubts, also. But I simply point out that if we find that this is not the case, we will take very strong exception and will have to take action against the government.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I rise on the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was happy in the other portfolio, and I am happy here-because I am a happy politician.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I would like to tell the opposition House leader that there will be another series of supplementary estimates presented in the House later in the year, probably in November.


MAIN ESTIMATES, 1974-75-REFERENCE TO STANDING COMMITTEES
Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move, pursuant to Standing Order 59, a motion to refer the main estimates to the several standing committees. This is a very long motion; it would take me ten minutes to read it.


Some hon. Members:: Dispense.


Mitchell William Sharp: In order to save the time of hon. members, I have circulated to all parties copies in both official languages. It is exactly the same as the motion passed at the last session, and in view of this perhaps it can be agreed to dispense with the reading.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps it can be agreed that although the text of the motion is not fully read it be included in Votes and Proceedings and in Hansard as if it had been read.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion would be correct if it were to be put in this way.
[Editor's Note: The motion referred to is as follows:]


Mitchell William Sharp: that the estimates of sums required for the service of Canada for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1975, be referred to several standing committees of the House, as follows:
To the Standing Committee on Agriculture
Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, L30, 35 and 40 relating to the Department of Agriculture.
Vote 45 relating to the Canadian Dairy Commission.
Votes 50 and 55 relating to the Canadian Livestock Feed Board.
Vote 60 relating to the Farm Credit Corporation.
To the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts
Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 and 35 relating to the Department of the Secretary of State.
October 3, 1974

Vote 40 relating to the Canada Council.
Votes 45, 50 and 55 relating to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
Votes 10 and L15 relating to Information Canada.
Vote 60 relating to the Company of Young Canadians.
Vote 65 relating to the National Arts Centre Corporation.
Votes 70 and L75 relating to the National Film Board.
Vote 80 relating to the National Library.
Votes 85 and 90 relating to the National Museums of Canada.
Votes 95, L100 and L105 relating to the Public Archives.
Vote 15 relating to the Canadian Radio-Television Commission.
To the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence Votes 1, 5, 10, L15 and 20 relating to the Department of External Affairs.
Votes 25, 30 and L35 relating to the Canadian International Development Agency.
Vote 40 relating to the International Joint Commission.
Votes 1, 5, 10, 15 and 20 relating to the Department of National Defence.
Vote 25 relating to Defence Construction (1951) Limited.
To the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs Votes 1, L5, 10 and 15 relating to the Department of Finance.
Vote 25 relating to the Department of Insurance.
Vote 30 relating to the Tariff Board.
Votes 1, 5, 10, L15, L20, L25, 30, 35 and 40 relating to the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Vote 45 relating to the Standards Council of Canada.
Vote 50 relating to Statistics Canada.
Vote 20 relating to the Economic Council of Canada.
Votes 1 and 5 relating to the Department of National Revenue.
To the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry
Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 relating to the Department of the Environment.
To the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20 and 25 relating to the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50 and 55 relating to the Department of National Health and Welfare.
Votes 60 and 65 relating to the Medical Research Council.
Votes 1 and 5 relating to the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs. Votes 10 and L15 relating to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
Votes 20, 25 and L30 relating to the National Capital Commission. Vote 30 relating to the Food Prices Review Board.
To the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Votes 1, 5, 10, L15, L20, L25, 30, 35, 40, L45, L50, L55, L60, L65, L70, L75, 80, 85 and 90 relating to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Vote L95 relating to the Northern Canada Power Commission.
To the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works Votes 1, 5, 10 and 15 relating to the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Votes 20 and 25 relating to the Atomic Energy Control Board.
Votes 30, 35, L40 and L45 relating to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited.
Vote 50 relating to the National Energy Board.
Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, L30, 35 and 40 relating to the Department of Public Works.
To the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 relating to the Department of Justice. Vote 1 relating to the Department of the Solicitor General.
Votes 5, 10 and 15 relating to Correctional Services.
Votes 20 and 25 relating to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
Estimates
To the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration Vote 1 relating to the Department of Labour.
Vote 30 relating to the Unemployment Insurance Commission.
Votes 1, 5, 10, 15 and 20 relating to the Department of Manpower and Immigration.
Vote 25 relating to the Immigration Appeal Board.
Vote 5 relating to the Canada Labour Relations Board.
To the Standing Committee on Regional Development Votes 1, 5, 10, L15, L20 and L25 relating to the Department of Regional Economic Expansion.
Votes 30, 35 and 40 relating to the Cape Breton Development Corporation.
To the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications Votes 1 and 5 relating to the Department of Communications.
Vote L10 relating to the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation.
Votes 1 and 5 relating to the Post Office.
Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, L30, 35, 40, 45, L50 and 55 relating to the Department of Transport.
Vote 60 relating to the Atlantic Pilotage Authority.
Votes 70 and 75 relating to the Canadian Transport Commission.
Vote 80 relating to the Great Lakes Pilotage Authority Ltd.
Vote 85 relating to the Laurentian Pilotage Authority.
Votes 90, 95 and L100 relating to the National Harbours Board.
Vote L105 relating to Northern Transportation Company Limited. Vote 110 relating to the Pacific Pilotage Authority.
Votes 115 and 120 relating to the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority. Vote L65 relating to the Canadian National Railways.
To the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections Vote 10 relating to the Chief Electoral Officer.
To the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50 and 55 relating to the Department of Veterans Affairs.
To the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates Vote 1 relating to the Governor General and Lieutenant Governors. Vote 1 relating to the Privy Council Office.
Vote 15 relating to the Commissioner of Official Languages.
Vote 25 relating to the Public Service Staff Relations Board.
Vote 1 relating to the Ministry of State for Science and Technology. Vote 5 relating to the Science Council of Canada.
Vote 110 relating to the Public Service Commission.
Votes 1, L5 and 10 relating to the Department of Supply and Services.
Vote 15 relating to Canadian Arsenals Limited.
Vote 20 relating to the Auditor General.
Vote 20 relating to the Canadian Commercial Corporation.
Vote 5 relating to the Canadian Intergovernmental Conference Secretariat.
Votes 1, 5, 10, 15 and 20 relating to the Treasury Board.
Votes 25, 30 and 35 relating to the National Research Council of Canada.
To the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization Vote 1 relating to the Senate.
Vote 5 relating to the House of Commons.
Vote 10 relating to the Library of Parliament.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: There must be some misunderstanding, Mr. Speaker. We have not received a copy-


Gerald William Baldwin: It has just arrived by special messenger.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: While we do not desire to hold up the House, I think we should have an opportunity, not only in

October 3, 1974
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker
self-defence but in the interests of the country, to read this motion before we pass it, perhaps on the understanding that we could revert to it later in the afternoon in order to get the business done.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, may I apologize. I thought that arrangements had been made to have the orders distributed. They are exactly the same as on the previous occasion, and I have no hesitation in giving the usual assurance.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. At the moment I have a motion which is properly before us. If we are going to deal with it now, I must read the entire motion or have the mover read it.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, you can dispense, or let the matter stand. We have no objection to proceeding with it a little later this afternoon.


Mr. Speaker:: It is proposed that the matter stand over until later this day. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let us fix the
time at six o'clock.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there will be any doubt about the second motion which I shall now move.


SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (A)-REFERENCE TO STANDING COMMITTEE
Mitchell William Sharp: That supplementary estimates (A) tabled this day be referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We will resume the business that was interrupted by the order made earlier.


SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Louis Duclos for an address to His Excellency the Administrator of the Government of Canada, the amendment thereto of Mr. Stanfield (p. 42) and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Broadbent (p. 53).
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, at the time of the adjournment, which now seems like a millennium ago, I was dealing with the situation on Parliament Hill. I had mentioned that I felt, disagreeing to the utmost with resorting to violence, that the government must assume considerable responsibility for the manner in which, from the time this group left Vancouver, the government continued to vacillate and did not take action. I

mentioned the RCMP and rather questioned the use of that body for the kind of action it was engaged in here on Parliament Hill. Indeed, when I was prime minister I refused to permit the RCMP to be used for strike breaking in Newfoundland because I felt that that body should not be used in any way, directly or indirectly, which was inconsistent with its tradition.
Now, sir, I intend to say a word or two regarding parliament, and in particular some of the changes that have taken place in the last few months. I mentioned that there had been changes. As one looks at the government front bench, one cannot but be impressed by the fact that today you are a minister and, with your government still in office, tomorrow you are not. It is a case of in again and out again. The only one who ever found a way to get back again was the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey).
I think of the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz) who brought many votes to the Liberal Party in the election. I remember him being spoken of by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in words of adulation and eulogy which could only lead one to believe that he was a minister who was certainly in the best graces of the Prime Minister. But out he went. Then there is the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Stanbury). He, too, was in that delightful position. He was a minister of national revenue who had performed in a way that met the praise of the Prime Minister and other ministers. He is gone.
Then you think of one or two others who disappeared, and one can only think of the Biblical words, "greater love hath no man than this"-that he lay down the portfolios of his friends for his own survival.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: It is the strangest thing I have ever known. If I were to use the language that might be used by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) in reference to the chickens of two years ago, I would say "the slaughter of the innocents". It is all because for some reason the Prime Minister decided they must go. However, there is another minister who apparently saved himself by his tears, and I know he will identify himself immediately.
I congratulate the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) on his victory in his constituency. I will always defend my brother members in my own province, so I was deeply concerned by the reply given to Douglas Fisher by the Minister of Agriculture when asked how things were going. Mr. Fisher said that when he asked the minister about his party's prospects, he was his usual candid self and said, "If the Prime Minister would send Otto Lang off to China on a mission, things would be better". The interesting thing is that he did not go, Mr. Speaker, and I saw the two of them sitting together, placed there no doubt by the Prime Minister because of this little interlude. I can only conclude that great are the uses of victory because there they sit, cheek by jowl.
I am concerned about the way in which the Minister of Justice, in giving some legal opinions on what should be done, is not only being overawed but overruled by the Prime Minister. He will recall various incidents, but I remember the one on June 24 when the FLQ kidnappers of Mr. Cross were found in Paris. The Minister of Justice said that he did not see any difficulty in extraditing them.
October 3, 1974

He said the prisoners were originally sent to Cuba in exchange for Mr. Cross, but that did not protect them in other countries. An hour or two later, the Prime Minister said it would not be this government's plan to take steps for extradition. That must have been an awful setback for the Minister of Justice.
Parliament is a great place, Mr. Speaker. I never get over my admiration for the place or my interest in it because of incongruities such as I have mentioned that happen with great regularity on that side of the House.


Mr. Lang:: Remember 1962.


An hon. Member:: Otto, you just sit quiet.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, I am glad to have Otto's participation. I have two or three more here, but I did not want to use them because he was so jovial with me today. As I have said on other occasions, when you come to parliament on your first day, or indeed during your first six months, you wonder how you ever got here. After that you wonder how the other 263 members were elected. In this place there is strong argument, but nonetheless there is respect and regard for the integrity of those who sit opposite. Above all, I am interested in seeing the quality of the members who come to this House after every election.
I am not being perfunctory when I say that the mover and seconder of the address in reply performed their duty admirably, difficult as it must have been, when measured by reason, to say the things that they said. I admire those who can speak in both languages with the facility displayed by so many. I recall that the former member for Prince Albert, also the then prime minister of Canada, had a wonderful hold in the province of Quebec. He made only two speeches in French in his years in office. Once he said "oui" and the second time "oui, oui". That had a tremendous effect. When I listen to those who are able to speak in both languages, I have a deep sense of regret for never having been able to do it. I understand what is said. When I try to reply, the quality of my French is such that nobody, from Vancouver Island to Newfoundland, who does not speak French understands. That is trilingualism, as practised in Prince Albert.
Speaking seriously about the Prime Minister's speech-I wish he were here; I know how busy he always is when I speak-he said parliament must be the heart of the nation. I did not read Hansard this morning, so I must depend on memory. Mr. Speaker, who was it who drove a dagger into the heart of parliament when the rule changes were forced through by closure two or three years ago in this House? Those rule changes turned this House into a puppet, to be pushed around by the Prime Minister and those associated with him.
When the so-called reform of the rules of parliament began under Mr. Pearson and was continued under the present Prime Minister, I stood against most of the changes and was virtually alone. Many of my colleagues fell for the argument that parliament must be made more efficient. That is always the Machiavellian argument used when parliament is about to be emasculated. I can tell the House this about the proposed rule changes: as far as I am
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker concerned they will not pass unless they are based upon the principle that we in the opposition have rights, as well as the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I am glad to see the Minister of Justice applauding.


Daniel Aiken Lang: That is what the Prime Minister said.


John George Diefenbaker: I think we all know how the minister voted last time. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Mar-chand) always approves of strengthening parliament.
When the Prime Minister spoke, he did so in solemn tones saturated with sacrament. He spoke feelingly of his high regard for members of parliament. But, Mr. Speaker, I have a good memory. What manner of changed thinking has come over the Prime Minister who on July 26, 1969, said that members were nobodies! Well, the nobodies of 1969 became the subject of his appreciation in 1974. Then he spoke of some of his fellow members in the Liberal Party. Once he said, "I think we will get rid of some of them; they are bums." Some of them who were here in those days are still here.


An hon. Member:: Some of them just came back.


John George Diefenbaker: One hon. member said that they have just returned. They have returned while yet the light holds forth and burns. It is interesting to note the attitude taken in the last few weeks by some great American papers toward the parliamentary system. They pay the system great tribute. I will not quote because my time is limited. They said, in so many words, that so long as the representatives of the Crown live true to their oaths of office, there cannot be a Watergate in Canada. That was a tremendous tribute to our parliamentary system. The Americans, in attempting to get away from the British parliamentary system, made the president an all powerful king who might believe, as some of his predecessors did, that he is above the law.
In successive amendments to the rules of this House we have lost control of a basic right which is fundamental to parliament-the right to the fullest examination of expenditures. Today there is no such right. Despite all the gyrationS'-we witnessed this afternoon, one cannot get around the situation that there are estimates unpassed from the previous parliament. The first thing we must do is this: we must return to this House, as a committee of the whole, the right to examine ministers on their shortcomings and on their achievements.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I know the attitude of ministers. I have seen it from both sides. When ministers came to me and said, "My estimates are coming up before the House," I said, "You had better be right." There is none of that today. There is virtually no control over the profligate wastefulness in the spending of money. That wastefulness has characterized, in the last six or seven years, the government of this country. Expenditures of ministers, wasteful beyond words, have been unchallengeable in the House. You cannot move a motion against an individual

October 3, 1974
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker
item of expenditure except in those few last hours when the matter comes before the House, as happened three years ago when the House voted expenditures of $18 billion between 8.30 at night and 1.30 in the morning.
The first thing that must be restored to parliament is this right: that ministers shall stand in their places and shall be questioned individually in this chamber, sitting in committee, on their expenditures.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: If that right were in existence, do you think that the Prime Minister would have spent $95,000 refurbishing his summer residence; that there would have been an expenditure on the official residence, 24 Sussex Drive, of a quarter of a million dollars; that the centre block office would have been refurbished at a cost of $61,000? That would not have taken place if in this chamber we had the right to vote against such expenditures. And so on I could go on the subject of waste and extravagance.
Under my government, the total expenditure was around $6 billion. It is now four times that amount. There is no control whatsoever. When the Prime Minister is soliloquizing about parliament, let him make that change in our rules. I do not care about limitation of time in which to discuss, but I think it is necessary to make changes. However, if the Prime Minister seriously wants to restore parliament, the acceptance of that suggestion which is traditional in our country would do more than all the verbal promises and exhortations in which any of us may indulge.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to advise the right hon. member that his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


John George Diefenbaker: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I had no idea of the time I had left; because I have been interrupted. I express to the House my deep appreciation.
The Prime Minister says the question period should be improved. I am not at all convinced that oral questions have not arrived at the point where they bear no relationship to the necessity of being answered immediately. We have spread this period out and out. When I first came here, if there were two or three questions before orders of the day, that would be it. One of the reasons for the lengthy question period today is that this government will not answer questions that are put on the order paper.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: They simply leave them there. Time goes on. From session to session and parliament to parliament, they remain unanswered. What should be done is this. Starred questions should be answered in three days, at the outside. Other questions should be answered within four or five days. If that were done, it would save a great deal of time for the House in the three-quarters of an hour

or hour before orders of the day. Will it be done? Will we be able to get answers to questions?
I wish to refer to one example of how the government answers the opposition. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) is not a provocative person. Some others around me are. I have been in his position. He asked an ordinary question today. Did he get an answer from the Prime Minister? He was simply playing around. Absolute power is a wonderful thing, as long as it is not used absolutely. That is what was shown here today. I want to give a prize example, for the benefit of those members who just came into the chamber. On February 28, 1972, the Leader of the Opposition asked a question of the Prime Minister. It was not of a nature that should arouse one at all. After he decided he would listen to what was being asked, the Prime Minister said:
That was your God-damned question.
That is in Hansard. That is not parliamentary language. If it is, this institution will certainly not live. When you think of all that could be done by parliament, with all the ability that is here, when you finally come down to it it is the government that decides whether or not it is going to live up to parliament. Your Honour has been in the chair for three days. It is not for me to say anything of a flattering nature. All I say to you is this: the manner in which you have discharged your responsibilities assures that you will indeed be a spokesman for all members of this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Let us together restore parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: The government House leader
applauded. If he, in his august and high position as leader in the House, will translate that applause into actuality in the rules, his arrival at that position will be marked as a forward day in the history of parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I do not expect answers to be so full as to cover everything under the sun, but I do expect them to be handed down and, above all, to be true. If we together bring about reform of the House and its rules, no one will be a more enthusiastic supporter than me. However, if the House leader brings in any substitute, caricature change in order to gain for the government more and more power, to the absolute exclusion of the opposition, parliament will in fact cease effectively to exist.
The Prime Minister said he was going to reform the Senate. Whenever he is in difficulty, he thinks of things to be done to take the eyes of the people off the problems that face the country. I remember very well when Mr. King defeated me in Prince Albert in the election of 1926. The major part of his policy was that he was going to reform the Senate. In sepulchral tones he spoke of that body. He said, "We are going to put an end to it." He secured the consent of everyone he appointed to the Senate that they would agree to their own dissolution. When in 1940 we asked to see those consents, he said they
October 3, 1974

were personal. The only change was that he substituted live Grits for dead Tories: that was the total reform.
I can see the Minister of Justice avidly thinking of the Senate. I cannot hear his judicial words. We now have a new promise. The Prime Minister is giving a sop to the opposition. If any old Tories in the other place die, he will appoint Tories in their place. That is reform. With support amounting to 85 per cent in the Senate, that statement on his part is indicative of the degree of his desire to bring about the change of which he speaks.
Then there is the question of constitutional reform. During the election campaign the Prime Minister spoke critically of the government of Quebec for having brought in Bill 22. I was able to quote him. In my opinion, it was the worst action which could have been taken in relation to national unity. All over Canada the doctrine of bilingualism was accepted. Now, the province of Quebec turns its back on that doctrine and says: It can apply elsewhere but it is not going to apply here.
What should be done? I would have thought a government with courage would have disallowed that legislation as being unconstitutional. Let the Minister of Justice not tell me it is constitutional, because the godfather of constitutionalism in the Senate, Senator Forsey, says it is entirely unconstitutional. So does Frank Scott. Well, the excuse now being given for not disallowing the bill is that the disallowing process is dead.


Daniel Aiken Lang: No.


John George Diefenbaker: I am glad the Minister of Justice indicates that he does not hold the view to which I have referred, because the statement he made recently was this: as far as the legislation passed respecting oil in Alberta and Saskatchewan is concerned, if necessary it will be disallowed. So disallowance is still a constitutional possibility, or was only a matter of six months ago. Now the Prime Minister tells us he intends to ride the horse of constitutional reform, that he intends to patriate the constitution and make it truly Canadian. Mr. Speaker, every word and line in the British North America Act of 1867 was prepared in Canada by Canadians before it was ever sent to the British parliament for ratification.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Then he says that if he cannot do it by agreement, he will resurrect-he did not use the word "resurrect" because he does not use Biblical expressions- if he could not do it by agreement, he would resurrect the Victoria charter. Sir, the premier of Quebec was wiser than all the other premiers when he refused to accept the Victoria charter while it was up for ratification and acceptance. What would have happened to us in western Canada if it had gone through? I am surprised the premier of Saskatchewan and the premier of Manitoba accepted it.


John Edward Broadbent: Not the present premier.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, no; that is right. The Premier of Saskatchewan, who also exercised quite an influence in the affairs of the NDP, gave it his support.


An hon. Member:: Thatcher?


Daniel Aiken Lang: No, it was Schreyer.


John George Diefenbaker: I was just about to pay a tribute to the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) on
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker becoming acting leader, but because of this interruption I shall have to omit doing so.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: There is a section in there which emasculates the provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba by providing for a certain population basis affecting the four western provinces. In Manitoba and Saskatchewan our populations are declining. We would be the only two provinces under the Victoria charter to be placed in a secondary position had that proposal gone through. I hope the Prime Minister will not try to bring back that charter.
Something else is to be brought about. Apparently we are not getting enough information in Canada. We are told that the powers of Information Canada will be strengthened so as to provide a mechanism for disseminating the kind of information which is necessary. Well, some of the information which has been disseminated by that body certainly does not come within this ambit. If we can patriate the constitution, well and good; but not until changes can be brought about in the Victoria charter which will meet general agreement.
I shall conclude by dealing with certain recent activities in the field of foreign affairs. We did not get a chance to discuss foreign affairs while the present leader of the House was foreign minister. Foreign affairs during that period were as foreign as the constitution of Timbuktu.


Mitchell William Sharp: There was more debate during my time than at any other time.


John George Diefenbaker: There was none whatsoever, except in the most general way. The other day Mr. Ivan Head let the cat out of the bag and I think the time has come to say to him, "Ivan, ho. Stop. Whoa." He has no business whatsoever to be enunciating policy. I do not normally mention civil servants, but I cannot forget that Mr. Ivan Head wrote the introduction to a book of speeches by the Prime Minister and pronounced them to be pure poetry. And he had written them himself! What is the situation? The Prime Minister cannot be permitted to get away with the idea that he can deny that Ivan Head expressed himself regarding the new leftward turn in foreign affairs in Canada. I will read a few excerpts. These are from the Canadian Press:
Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau is determined to give Canada a strong, new activist role on the left wing of international affairs, Ivan Head, Mr. Trudeau's special foreign affairs adviser, said Wednesday.
With the help of Allan MacEachen as his new external affairs minister, Mr. Trudeau will seek to heighten Canada's world influence by taking a more moralistic approach to world problems.
Do you have to be on the left to be moralistic?
The new emphasis will be on the human problems affecting people wherever they live and on strengthening Canada's ties with Europe, Japan and the developing countries of Asia and Africa.
That is Mr. Head speaking, and Mr. Head knows. He went on to say the Prime Minister will be making many visits abroad. He will be visiting the Swedish Prime Minister who, Mr. Head said, has greatly impressed the right hon. gentleman with his "outspoken left-wing approach to international problems. According to this report, Mr. Head went on to say that the Swedes, with their denunciation of the Viet Nam war and the military revolt in Chile, had

October 3, 1974
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker become "the cutting edge of the left-very active, outspoken and moral." The report adds:
Canada can be expected to take a similar, though not necessarily identical, approach to such problems in the future, he said.
And a little later:
Mr. Head said Mr. Trudeau met the Swedish prime minister in Austria last winter and was keenly interested in learning more about Sweden's activist foreign policy.
Mr. Head did say there was a leftist turn. Indeed, the day before he spoke to the Canadian Press reporter there was a dispatch from the United Nations under the heading "MacEachen to initiate shift in foreign policy". This is an article by Duart Farquharson in which we find the following:
External affairs minister Allan MacEachen believes a renewed era of tough U.S. bargaining with Canada may have already begun-
In the same article, the following is stated:
Canada's image abroad, so far as it is reflected in the personal characteristics of its new spokesman to the world, is also in for a change.
They infer that from his transfer from House leader to minister of foreign affairs, because apparently he cannot be pushed around by "Heads". The article continues:
Turning to Canada's relations with the rest of the world, the external affairs minister confirmed in broad terms a recent report out of the prime minister's office that the Trudeau-MacEachen foreign policy will be to seek a strong, new active role on the left wing of international affairs.
That is a report from New York of what the minister said. But the Prime Minister says that Mr. Head never said the same thing. When Mr. Head gets a full head of steam, one never knows what he will say when it comes to leftist ideas. I am not satisfied with the position in which this very reliable young reporter has been placed. He is in the position of having it look like he had written something that was fiction. What is the foreign policy of this country with reference to leftist turns? Why should we not know that? Is this a radical departure from current policy which has never received the support of public opinion, which has never been discussed nationally and which has never been dealt with in this place, where foreign policy views should be accepted?
Because there is so much approval of the committee system, I make the suggestion that the foreign affairs committee be called together-and I should like to be a member of it, if I might be chosen for this purpose-so that Mr. Head can be given the opportunity to state what he has said, rather than hearing these alibis for his statements. What did he say, and where are we going? Is Canada taking a turn to the left? Does all this result from what the Prime Minister of Canada said when in Russia speaking to Sacha Kosygin, that we in Canada fear the United States economically-and we do-that we fear the United States culturally-and we do-and that we even fear the United States militarily? Is it any wonder that our relations with the United States today are at their lowest ebb?
It has now been revealed that the CIA has been upsetting governments, undermining governments and giving bonuses to those it has been helping. This is something I

have said on other occasions since 1963 when the Liberal party was the beneficiary of the antagonism of the government of President Kennedy, when the president's chief lieutenant in relation to polls and the like, Mr. Harris, came to Toronto with a certain group, following which the Liberal Party found itself with endless funds during the last two weeks of the campaign. I could not understand that. There was also the interference which took place when General Norstad was sent here to say what Canada should do.
In addition, there were schools for pressmen, held by the United States Embassy, to give them the basis upon which to attack the government which I had the honour to lead. Why? Because we took the position that as the danger of air attack on America from the north no longer existed, there was no reason that we should extend the nuclear family. The United States itself had determined that in fact there was an end to the danger of attack from the north. We were reviled for that. The Liberal party turned a complete somersault following the visit of a former prime minister to New York. After his return in the month of January, he said in Scarborough that Canada should accept nuclear weapons. I would like this whole matter looked into.
We noticed the other day that the CIA revelations are not to cover the period 1959 to 1964. I should like to have some of these CIA individuals on the witness-stand before our foreign relations committee, so that they might have the opportunity of explaining whether Canada was one of the nations that received treatment similar to other nations in North America as a result of the unjustifiable and unnatural actions of the CIA. For this and other reasons I should like an opportunity to be provided for a discussion of foreign affairs in this House. Until we have had that opportunity of discussion, let Mr. Head keep his mouth shut, and those connected with external affairs not push Canada into a leftist position.
Where are we going? The minister was in New York the other day and he suggested that Mr. Moroz, a patriot who has committed no offence, like hundreds of thousands of others in the U.S.S.R. who have been put into mental hospitals and the like, is getting along fine and is enjoying good health. What manner of nonsense is it, that Canada does not speak out in the United Nations calling upon the U.S.S.R. to uphold the principles of the United Nations charter which provide for the right of self-determination and which deny those things contrary to every concept of democratic government? Why has Canada not spoken out? Why the silence, as well, regarding the three Baltic countries and the Ukraine? Why does Canada not speak out, instead of taking this attitude of saying nice things to the U.S.S.R.? Why does Canada not get down to asking that immortal question: How is Moroz getting along, and is his health good?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, I follow the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) with mixed feelings. He is certainly eloquent and humorous. He can fill the galleries, but I noticed that many did not stay for his entire speech. Nevertheless, he is always in the right, place at the right time.
October 3, 1974


James Aloysius McGrath: Look at the galleries now.


Harold Thomas Herbert: Quite frankly, he says very little. He spoke about this institution. I have heard the remark that the day he retires we will probably save four days each session. Considering the length of the speech he has just made, I am inclined to agree.


An hon. Member:: That is an uncalled-for statement.


Some hon. Members:: Shame, e (i5io)


Harold Thomas Herbert: The opener in this debate spoke about Quebec Bill 22. I wonder what his qualifications are for talking about Bill 22, particularly when we consider what action should be taken to protect minority rights in other provinces. I found his comments on the constitution rather strange. The nub of the problem, surely, is that it is the desire of the vast majority of Canadians that we settle our own destiny in our own country.
Mr. Speaker, may I offer you my sincere congratulations upon your appointment. May I also extend congratulations to the member from my neighbouring constituency of Beauharnois-Salaberry (Mr. Laniel) upon his appointment as Deputy Speaker, and to the hon. member for Thunder Bay (Mr. Penner), and Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Morin) who will be assisting the Chair. I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to convey to the Governor General the hopes of my constituents and myself that he will soon be fully recovered and able to resume his arduous responsibilities.
The mover and the seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne deserve our plaudits for their professional maiden speeches in this House. This is an indication of the calibre of the contribution which we can expect from the newly elected members.
The recent election has undoubtedly taken away the weight of uncertainty that characterized the twenty-ninth parliament. Action by government or opposition supporters was influenced by the daily possibility of an ending of that parliament. It is remarkable, and I am sure it will be so recorded, that so much was achieved under those extremely difficult and trying circumstances. I am proud that, though legislation tended to be either popular or relatively short-term, we can look back and say that it was a good job well done.
Now that the strain of minority government is removed, we can include long-term plans. I hope that an early step will be the revision of our rules, to improve our efficiency. It would take more than a supreme optimist to believe that under our existing procedures the more than 60 pieces of legislation which the government wants to present this session can be dealt with through to the stage of royal assent. Yes, there will be moans from the opposition about time to study. They tried that argument in the last session when they had a majority in each standing committee. So many of the opposition did not do their homework in the twenty-ninth parliament. With relatively few new faces on the other side of the House, I am not expecting much improvement in this thirtieth parliament, and that is a pity since I firmly believe that good opposition is essential for good government.
The Address-Mr. Herbert
I am fortunate indeed to be the representative of one of the most interesting constituencies of this country. I sincerely thank the electors who have expressed their trust in me by sending me here for a second term. I hope I can render to all constituents the kind of service that they expect and deserve. The constituency of Vaudreuil is almost equally divided by language groups, French mother tongue citizens being a small majority. The constituency includes a large rural area, where the language used is mostly French. The soil is good and in addition supports many stables, so that the number of horses in the riding is considerable. Farming is mixed, with the emphasis being on dairy herds. The mainly urban area on the island of Montreal is one of the fastest growing regions in the country. The people in this area, who are mainly Englishspeaking, commute to the big city to work. An improved public transportation system is a major need.
The constituency of Vaudreuil probably includes, in total, as many sporting clubs and establishments as any other in the country. Very few sports are not actively pursued in this region. It is in part because of this local interest that I have been trying, and will continue to try, to persuade the government to form a ministry of sports so there can he much greater federal influence in this area. I believe that the present level of federal financial involvement is totally inadequate.
During the election campaign, the two subjects that were included in three-quarters of the questions posed to me were inflation and the future of agriculture in the province of Quebec. I intend to refer to both of these subjects later in my remarks. Quebec Bill 22 was also raised. Like the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette), whose reference to the subject will be found on page 54 of Hansard, I think that people in the province of Quebec can well take care of themselves without Bill 22. However, the bill has been passed, and today I wish only to echo the sentiments expressed yesterday by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). His remarks can be found on pages 47 and 48 of Hansard. I heartily and enthusiastically endorse his comments on Quebec Bill 22.
A subject raised since the election has been the question of the sharing of police costs, activated by Quebec Justice Minister Choquette by letter to our Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand). As you know, I have taken a strong stand in support of Mr. Choquette-not on his figures, which I am not qualified to judge, but on the principle that financial aid obtained from the federal government to assist in a matter falling under provincial jurisdiction should be available, on a comparable basis, to all provinces.
Furthermore, I contend that the special protection which must be afforded Canada's two largest cities, Montreal and Toronto, is a national responsibility which should fall, in some proportion, on the federal treasury. Some members perhaps are surprised that I, a government supporter, would openly discuss a difference of opinion with a minister. That is one reason I am proud to be a member of the Liberal Party. We represent many differing opinions and we can be said to range all the way from left to right. I must admit that this terminology frightens me a little. If one supports increased pensions, one is left; if one supports a healthy industrial climate, one is labelled right. This is unfortunate, since each of us must use our abilities

October 3, 1974
The Address-Mr. Herbert
in the areas best suited to our talents. Nevertheless, in the final analysis, and after full debate, we all accept the majority opinion of our party. We vote together. Diversity of opinion and solidarity of purpose is our strength.
Another matter raised since the election is the discussion, reactivated by the government of Quebec, relating to the transfer of the Ste. Anne de Bellevue veterans' hospital to provincial control. This has raised doubts and fears in the minds of both veteran patients and employees. The problem of shortage of nurses at this hospital has not been helped by the news of the discussion. The town in which this hospital is situated is also concerned, since federal compensation to this municipality forms a large part of its annual budget. Transfer of control could mean a cut in revenue of $200,000 per year. An early statement on the probable course of events at this hospital is imperative.
I stated earlier that I would be making some reference to the state of agriculture, specifically in my constituency but more generally throughout the province of Quebec. The British North America Act provides that parliament and the provincial legislatures shall exercise concurrent jurisdiction with regard to agriculture, subject to the provision that when a provincial law is repugnant to a federal enactment, the latter shall prevail. This means that a provincial statute cannot apply within the boundaries of the province whose legislature enacted it, if it conflicts with or duplicates a federal enactment. In other words, it shall apply only when the subject matter it deals with is not regulated by federal legislation or, if the said subject matter is regulated by a federal enactment, when it merely supplements the federal statute.
The power to legislate with regard to agriculture does not imply the power to legislate with regard to the disposal and marketing of agricultural products. It does not allow the federal government to legislate with regard to the disposal and marketing of agricultural products in any province, nor does it allow a province to legislate with regard to the disposal and marketing of agricultural products within its boundaries. If the federal government wants to legislate with regard to marketing, it must invoke the power it possesses to legislate with regard to trade and commerce, in which case its legislation, to be valid, must regulate international and interprovincial commerce only. As for a province, it can also legislate with regard to marketing, either because of its power with regard to property and civil rights within its territory or because of its residuary power over all things local in nature within its territory. The exact scope of provincial powers with regard to marketing is unknown, but it seems to include the creation of a marketing agency which shall be designated as the only buyer for a product which the local farmers want to sell on the local market.
The basis of Canada's national agricultural policy is the premise that "a stable agriculture is in the interests of the national economy and that farmers as a group are entitled to a fair share of the national income". Quebec's Department of Agriculture and Colonization has one overriding and clearly defined objective: it wants to make agriculture profitable and bring it into line with the social and economic needs of the 1970s. The over-all trend in Quebec agriculture is a declining farm population and a reduction

in total farmland. In the last decade, the farm population decreased by one half. It would therefore appear that although the federal and provincial objectives are excellent and the jurisdictional responsibilities are reasonably definable, somewhere and somehow the respective legislative bodies are failing to meet their objectives. This problem must be tackled as a priority consideration by this parliament.
Questions in my constituency during the campaign, and since the election, on the subject of inflation fall into three groupings: government programs, regulations concerning the application of these programs, and the public service or bureaucracy which administers these programs. Regarding the programs, while there was often broad criticism it was difficult for me to pin down specific suggestions for change. Because, personally, I dislike generalizations, I am not bringing back to this parliament any ideas for change. However, the way in which the application of the programs is handled has been criticized in great detail. The three matters most mentioned are the Unemployment Insurance Commission's handling of the unemployed, the Local Initiatives Program, and the Opportunities for Youth program. All these emanate from the one Ministry of Manpower and Immigration.
It is not hard to understand the background to the criticism which originates in my constituency. There is a shortage of help in many skills, as well as a shortage of unskilled labour, and this in a province where the total rate of unemployment is too high. This shortage of labour covers all segments of the economy, such as industrial help, farm help and service help, and it is a natural reaction to criticize those thought responsible for this apparently inequitable situation.
The Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) has told us that soon to be released is the report on what we popularly call the work ethic. If, as he suggests-and I do not have any reason to take issue with his statement-the general attitude of Canadians toward productivity is very healthy, then as a logical sequence he will have to find more efficient ways to get the unemployed into the job vacancies. With regard to the public service, the criticisms arise from publicity that has been given to the number of persons in the service. I had correspondence with the previous president of the treasury board and he knows I am far from satisfied with the approach that is being taken to establish the level of efficiency in the various departments. I intend to maintain communication with the new President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) to follow closely the progress of the studies under way. Perhaps I should get off on the right foot by saying how pleased I am about the appointment of the hon. member for Saint-Maurice to this important post, and despite the timing I do make my comment most sincerely.
Last evening I had the pleasure to visit the newly redecorated Victoria Memorial Museum. I certainly recommend this display to all visitors to the capital city. This museum building was used by parliament after the great fire that destroyed our previous chambers. It was also in this building that Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who was elected from Soulanges county in my constituency, suffered a stroke.
October 3, 1974

In the few minutes remaining to me I would like to refer to the Senate. I am convinced of the need for a second review of all legislation. In the previous parliament there was, and probably there will always continue to be, an objection when the Senate returned a bill which had been passed by this House. Heated debate and emotional effect make a second look extremely important. However, to be fully effective and to achieve maximum efficiency, the manner of the appointment and the term of office of Senators must be reviewed. I am introducing a private member's bill that would vacate the seat of a Senator at the time of a general election, which would effectively limit the term of appointment to between 10 and 15 years.
I would also like to see a system introduced whereby the leaders of recognized parties would be consulted after a general election in provinces where Senate vacancies were created. These parties would have to obtain 50 per cent or more of the votes cast for the party with the greatest number of votes in that province. Such a system should heavily favour the elected government, but would also ensure reasonable representation from other parties.
I listened attentively when the Speech from the Throne was read, and although much of it is by necessity repetitious of the previous Speech from the Throne, I am most pleased with its content. Add to that the listing of the bills that are to be presented to this session of parliament and it will be readily understood why I look forward with keen interest and enthusiasm to the weeks and months that lie ahead.


Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, when I spoke for the first time in the twenty-ninth parliament I addressed my words to the youth of Canada. I do so again because I want to repeat my plea to them to have faith in the political and parliamentary process of our country. I want them to participate in the continued development of our country and to help make our society more human in an age when the computer threatens to submerge the individual. We are not at the end, but only at the beginning of a new century of development in Canada.
As we begin our work in this parliament, I wish to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on election to your high office. Your task is more difficult than the public may know. I wish you well and pledge my co-operation. I am delighted to see the table officers back in their accustomed positions. They perform invaluable work in this chamber.
It is a privilege for me to come here to represent again the people of Edmonton-Strathcona. We are an integral part of the vibrant city of Edmonton whose charms, business development and social and cultural services have been captured in a new, handsome booklet, "Edmonton", published by the Chamber of Commerce. Among the developments within Edmonton-Strathcona are three of current significance to the federal government. First, the old Strathcona Heritage conservation area, a fascinating project aided by Heritage Canada, which will both preserve and develop the core of our community; second, Fort Edmonton park, a very attractive reconstruction of the earliest history of Edmonton, well deserving of federal support; third, the relocation of the CPR Strathcona yards,
The Address-Mr. Roche
facilitated by the railway legislation passed in the previous parliament.
I shall be working in the months ahead to advance these major projects which will have significant benefit for the people of Edmonton-Strathcona. But I want to place the interests of Strathcona within the larger area of the interests of Canada. It is essential for all Canadians to understand what is happening, not only in our own country but throughout the world. No longer is it sufficient for us to come into parliament and confine our interests to the area between St. John's, Victoria, and Inuvik. The whole world has become a community, and while it is true that we legislate only for Canada, it would be tragic if we failed to respond to the crisis of humanity that now dominates world concern.
The government's throne speech is not oblivious to this point. We read the following words in the speech:
Canada is contributing to international measures to reduce the unjust and potentially dangerous gap between the rich and the poor. This will involve us not only in increasing the flow of financial assistance to developing countries but in re-examining other policies which affect our economic relations with the third world.
This paragraph, inadequate as it is, prevents the throne speech from being a total disaster in the area of international relations. The complacent tone of the throne speech betrays a lack of concern-it can hardly be ignorance-for the true state of the world today. The Secretary General of the United Nations, Mr. Kurt Waldheim, is warning us that we are in a "global emergency". Our times are characterized by an interlocking set of problems on a scale never seen before; mass poverty, food shortages, an energy-cost crisis, a continuing oppressive burden of military expenditure, inflation exacerbated by world monetary instability, and the prospect before us of a doubling of world population by the turn of the century.
These new problems are not simply extensions of old ones. As Maurice Strong, the distinguished Canadian who directs the United Nations' environment program, says, "they are of a wholly new character and require new perceptions and new kinds of responses." Here I welcome the appointment of the new Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) because he has revealed in the past sensitivity to the economic and social breakdowns that are a fall-out of technological excess. In a far-sighted speech to the University of North Carolina in 1971, the minister said:
We begin to see that public problems bedevilling us are rooted in our inadequate world view and impoverished social ethic .. . Once man- the human person in community with others-is given first place in our perception, we begin to reassess economic systems and political ideologies in this light. We try to think through how systems can be changed to fit and serve people, not the other way round.
When to this philosophy is added the power to make Canada's foreign policy, I see a sign of hope despite the throne speech. When he was in New York for his first United Nations speech, the minister gave a press interview in which he said:
We will seek out new approaches in an effort to reduce economic disparities in the world. I will have the department looking for new and imaginative developments in this field.
Mr. Speaker, in encouraging the minister to develop a more active Canadian policy "to reduce economic dispari-

October 3, 1974
The Address-Mr. Roche
ties", I want to tell him the answers are at hand. There is no need to grope in the dark. The global problems that have produced a suffering humanity in the developing nations have been analysed by the international experts. The United Nations has told us what must be done. What is required is strong political leadership by Canada and the other developed countries-a leadership that recognizes the moral, economic and social responsibilities of our technological power.
I want to propose two specific steps to help Canada more adequately to meet our responsibilities: first, recognize the new international economic order advocated by the United Nations; second, develop a comprehensive national population policy. These two steps go together. Let me explain. In the spring of 1974, the sixth special session of the United Nations General Assembly, dealing with the distribution of raw resources, pointed out that the bulk of the profit from the whole vast expansion of trade and wealth in two decades had, to an overwhelming degree, ended up in the pockets of the rich. The "trickle down" theory, by which the poor are supposed to be better off when the rich get richer, has not worked even in the context of the most rapid economic expansion in human history.
As the outstanding economist-environmentalist Barbara Ward puts it, the world economic system is proving unable to deal with two fundamental disruptions. She said:
On the side of demand, it does not enfranchise the mass of the people. On the side of supply, it may not be able to mobilize sufficient resources at a tolerable environmental cost in order to check inflation and preserve the biosphere.
World debate is sharpening on what are called the two limits: the limit of endurance of human beings deprived of the essentials of life, and the limit of the planet's endurance of the rising claims made upon it. The way out of this dilemma is the systematic acceptance of distributive justice. This, of course, has long been talked about by a small minority of people within politics, religion and the social sciences.
Now the gravity of events has propelled the United Nations to take concrete steps to obtain it. The most significant of these is the General Assembly's adoption of the new international economic order. The new order is needed because the poor nations are falling farther behind in the development struggle. They are caught in the present crisis which is itself the outcome of all the problems that have accumulated over the years in the field of trade, in monetary reform, world-wide inflation and inadequate financial assistance for development. The new order thus attempts to resolve these outstanding problems through "a fundamental restructuring of the world economic system."
The capacity of the developing countries to produce and earn more must be expanded. Expanded emergency assistance and forgiveness of outstanding debts on the part of the developed countries are initial moves. This would prepare the way for structural changes in international relationships that would include such efforts as these- now I am going to make a very brief digest of what is proposed by what I call "international order"-first, to evolve a just and equitable relationship between the price of raw materials, primary commodities and manufactured goods exported and imported by developing countries; in

other words, to work for a link between the prices of exports of developing countries and the prices of their imports from developed countries.
Second, to reverse the continued trend of stagnation or decline in the real price of several commodities exported by developing countries-for example, cocoa from Ghana-despite a general rise in commodity prices, resulting in a decline in the export earnings of the developing countries. Third, to ensure that developing countries can import the necessary quantities of food without undue strain on their foreign exchange resources and balance of payments, to ensure essential imports, including fertilizers, from developed countries on favourable terms. Fourth, to improve access to markets in developed countries through the progressive removal of tariff and non-tariff barriers and of restrictive business practices.
Fifth, to increase participation by developing countries in the decision-making process of world monetary organizations, so that the international financing of development can be speeded up. Sixth, to formulate an international code of conduct for the transfer of technology corresponding to needs and conditions in developing countries. Seventh, to regulate the activities of multinational corporations so that they conform to national development plans in host countries, to prevent their collaboration with racist regimes and colonial administrations.
These and other steps are regarded by the United Nations as necessary for the establishment of a new system of international economic relations based on equity, sovereign equality and interdependence of the interests of developed and developing countries. In short, the new order provides an instrument for a world-wide partnership for economic and social development. There is a long way, however, between the United Nations advocating a new international economic order and its acceptance by the developed countries. There is no hint about this in the Speech from the Throne.
At the World Population Conference in Bucharest, Canada carefully avoided even mentioning the new order, even though many nations called for the World Population Plan of Action to be constructed within the framework of the new order. For example, Finland stated unequivocally that it supported the new order as "a prerequisite for the realization of the Plan of Action." This brings us to the need for a comprehensive national population policy, which in turn requires an understanding of the world population problem. The problem has a double thrust: rapidly expanding numbers of people in the developing regions of the world, and the high standard of living in the developed regions.
It took from mankind's first evolution until about 1800 to reach the one billion mark. We reached two billion in about 1928, and three billion in 1961, with four billion expected next year. Thus, the intervals for accommodating an additional billion human beings have fallen from 128, to 33, to 14 years. The time span continues to shrink. Demographers can now say with certainty that there will be seven billion people by the year 2000-nearly double the amount today. In 1972, world population increased by 71 million, the difference between 120 million births and 49 million deaths.
October 3, 1974

Medical and health advances have cut mortality rates at both ends of life; more babies survive and people live longer. Nearly half the population of the world is under the age of 15. There are now twice as many potential mothers alive as a generation ago. Even with declining fertility rates, world population will continue to climb and not level off until well into the next century at the earliest.
It may not sound serious when we state that world population is growing at an average of 2 per cent a year, but it is the cumulative effect and uneven distribution of this growth that makes it extremely serious. Most of this increase is taking place in the developing world, which already contains two-thirds of humanity. In many countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America are found millions upon millions of people who exist in poverty-stricken conditions.
Our understanding of the population problem is incomplete if we do not grasp the fact that the one-third of humanity in the developed nations consumes more than 60 per cent of the earth's wealth and resources. A baby born in Canada, where the population problem is not visible, will grow up consuming 50 times the resources and energy that a baby in the heavily populated developing regions will consume. This implies that the developed world is responsible for a much greater per capita environmental impact than the less developed nations, which naturally view this situation as exploitative.
Therefore, the problem in the third world is not population as such. Rather, the problem is extreme poverty perpetuated by the control which the developed world exercises over the bulk of the earth's wealth and resources. In taking for granted ever higher standards of living, which put such strain on the resource and environment capacities of the planet, the minority of rich get richer at the expense of the multiplying poor. The World Population Conference emphasized that large populations are not the cause of underdevelopment but are the result of underdevelopment. The population problem, therefore, concerns not just members but the quality and dignity of all human life.
Family planning programs alone will not solve the problem because, as we have seen, the problem is bigger than the number of births taking place. India and many other developing countries are telling the world that since poverty is the main cause of the massive increase in population, poverty must be eradicated. Then will follow a sharp decline in the rate of population growth. In the development countries, population stability has followed economic development. Family planning, when pushed by the west, can easily be construed by the third world as a device to salve our consciences without adopting structural reforms of world economic and social systems. As so many countries told the World Population Conference that family planning was not a magic panacea, the World Population Plan of Action was rewritten to put a heavy emphasis on "rapid socio-economic development" rather than family planning as the route to population stability.
On economic and social policies, the plan of action states that fertility rates have declined relatively slowly in developing countries partly because of "the inertia of social structures and the insufficiency of economic progress."
The Address-Mr. Roche
Development efforts should be aided by the entire international community, and "attention must be directed to the just distribution of resources and to the minimization of wasteful aspects of their use throughout the world." Implementation of international strategies "should lead to at reduction in the widening gap in levels of living between developed and developing countries and would be conducive to a reduction in population growth rates particularly in countries where such rates are high."
The plan also proposes "more rational utilization of natural resources, without excess, so that some are not deprived of what others waste." Other recommendations call for high priority efforts to improve food production and develop new food sources, and international co-operation to ensure provision of fertilizers and energy.
The answer, then, to what constitutes a global population policy is indeed an involved one, reflecting the complexity of the problem. The United Nations' answer gives the highest priority to the protection of those already born. Implementing such a global policy-before it is too late-will challenge the ingenuity and moral strength of man as never before. In a world preoccupied with increasing worries about today, it is not easy to mobilize public opinion to support population policies the effects of which can only be seen over very long periods. That is why the attention of the people within developed countries must be immediately obtained, to get on with the job.
Because of our international reputation, technological capacity and wealth, Canada is in a unique position to give the leadership for which mankind is crying out. As Canadians begin to comprehend the full dimensions of the population iceberg, the help of non-governmental organizations will be especially valuable in not only transmitting ideas to the government but in developing public opinion.
Shortly before Bucharest, the Canadian Council on International Co-Operation brought together 280 representatives of 40 major non-governmental organizations who proposed an outline of a national population policy for Canada. The thrust of the recommendations made to the Canadian government was to be responsive to the social and economic needs of the world population in meeting our global responsibilities. The group set down some principles that I consider to be a firm basis on which to build a policy. I shall list just four. First, as a wealthy nation, Canada should set the example in reducing the growth rate of consumption of resources, increase our food production, particularly of plant proteins, and press for the development of fair global distribution systems for food products and natural resources. Second, administer a clearly stated immigration policy fair to all prospective immigrants, and stop promoting the brain drain of developing countries. Third, improve family life education and family planning services while recognizing that the widespread and growing use of abortion is the antithesis of the concept of family planning and reflects a lowering of respect for the value of human life. Fourth, give higher government priority to the social and economic development of the poor countries by more equitable trade, monetary and capital investment arrangements.

October 3, 1974
The Address-Mr. Hogan
The recognition of the new international economic order and the development of a comprehensive national population policy are urgent steps to take if Canada is to meet the desire of the new Secretary of State for External Affairs to "reduce economic disparities in the world." It is time to replace band-aids with structural solutions. The United Nations World Food Conference in Rome, in November, is the place to demonstrate this new approach. Emergency food aid by Canada is necessary, but it will not be enough. The food problem does not stand alone. Measures to resolve famine must be situated within a total strategy of development. I appeal to the new minister, on behalf of those millions who see in Canada a sign of hope, to give this new leadership.


Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my first reaction in looking at the House of Commons today is to see a combination of the old church and the new church. I see the old church in terms of the stained glass windows, and the new church in terms of the many empty pews that are evident.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Andrew Hogan: I think the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche) is a really good preacher. We must get to know one another better. I think the members of the House, regardless of political persuasions, would want to wish my predecessor, Donald Maclnnis, the best of health and success in his retirement.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Andrew Hogan: As a member of a social democratic party, I would be remiss if I did not mention, with much respect, that great Canadian who represented the old Cape Breton South constituency as a CCF'er for many years, Mr. Clarie Gillis.
In listening to, reading over and considering the contents of the Speech from the Throne, I came up with the following observations for the consideration of the House. I first want to speak on the international financial crisis as it pertains to Canadian leadership. I find the throne speech, even given its traditional time limits, very deficient in not stressing for us members of the Commons and for all the Canadian people the serious international financial crisis which is presently upon us. It is true that there is a line in the speech about balance of payments problems and the rapid accumulation of large currency reserves by a few countries, but that reference scarcely brings out the urgency of the situation.
The combined monetary reserves of the importing countries at the end of 1973 aggregated less than $150 billion. An increased cost of oil by the OPEC countries suggested for January 1, based on inflation on their imported goods at that time, could lead to losses of reserves in the realm of $7 billion a month. This haemorrhage of reserves at that rate could quickly lead to an anaemic and mortally wounded international economy.
Because of the extremely serious implication of this still evolving confrontation between the oil producing and oil consuming nations, it seems that Canada as an important

middle power should have long ago shown leadership by initiating attempts to get these countries together. If we had tried to play a role in creating a conciliatory environment, it might have avoided the harsh and threatening words exchanged by Mr. Kissinger, President Ford and some of the Arab leaders only last week on this issue.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Andrew Hogan: As a new member, I may be revealing an innocent naivete, but it surely looks as if Canada missed a chance to play a limited but crucial conciliatory role on this matter of international oil producers versus consumers confrontation, fully more important to the world in the long run than helping to set up a Cyprus peace force. Even at home we have witnessed the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) in a worth while defence of the need of the agricultural producers receiving a just price, and the necessity of marketing boards helping them do this, going too far and attempting to exclude consumer representation from any producer marketing boards, and thus indirectly promoting an increasing conflict between producers and consumers. Thus, as I see it, we as a nation have failed to help bring together the oil producers and consumers at an international level, and at the national and domestic level there has been a tendency to at least indirectly encourage a confrontation between farmer-producers and Canadian consumers.
Surely we have enough conflicts in our society between races, as we witnessed recently outside these walls, as well as linguistic, regional and labour-management conflicts and we do not need a minister of the Crown, with chauvinistic departmentalism, indirectly encouraging, even if inadvertently, another one. This type of talking and thinking seems even more inexcusable when we realize that, given increasing world-wide demands for food because of growing population and rising expectations, coupled with decreasing, scarce food supplies, the situation likely will require that this government will need nation-wide support in a serious attempt to revamp and overhaul much of our present agricultural policy. That is, of course, if Canada is to play an important role, not only in satisfying our own national needs but the needs of the developing countries for at least the next 25 years. I say this recognizing, of course, that in the longer run these countries will have to gradually learn to feed themselves.
I am confident that the world has the capacity to increase food production more rapidly than the growth of population, as it has in the past two decades. I am, of course, not an agricultural economist, but this view is expressed in the preliminary assessment of the world food situation, present and future, which was prepared for the World Food Conference to be held in Rome in November. Canada ought to have, for humanitarian reasons as well as for reasons of national interest, an increasingly larger stake in helping, through its food policy and other general trade and aid policy, the forgotten billions of human beings who live in the third world.
In mentioning the need for international aid, many hon. members probably saw the statement by President Perez of Venezuela in response to President Ford's recent plea
October 3, 1974

for lower oil prices. In an open letter to President Ford which appeared in the New York Times last week, the Venezuelan president reminded him, among other things, that the developed countries had some years ago made a commitment to give at least 1 per cent of their gross national product in aid to the developing countries. He pointed out to the United States president that this had still not been done. We in Canada, who are among the fat cats of this world, should consider it shameful that as of 1974 we have not fulfilled this obligation. Let us hope the present government, now that it has a progressive left wing Cape Bretoner as head of the external affairs department, will fulfil this promise during the life of the thirtieth parliament. It is, surely, the least Canada can be expected to do.
During the election, government spokesmen argued that inflation was largely an imported phenomenon and that little could be done about it except such things as indexing income taxes and pensions so as to relieve some of the worst effects. To judge from the Speech from the Throne, having been given a decisive mandate to govern, hon. members on the treasury benches seem so uncertain about what to do that they are talking about meeting all kinds of groups in Canadian society to find out from them what action the government should take. This suggests a series of mini summits which would be a pale imitation of the recent international summit meeting in which the President of the United States took part. In my opinion, it also suggests an abdication of the role of leadership which the party opposite has just been given.
Their spokesmen argued successfully before the electorate that they indeed possessed the capacity for decisive leadership. Let them now show it and govern this country and fulfil their mandate. We heard the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) during the campaign proclaim that as well as seeking votes he was exercising his notion of participatory democracy in order to set the stage for action in the next parliament. Mr. Speaker, the next parliament is here. Hon. members and the Canadian people are asking for action, not for more words and public relations meetings without action.
We are all interested in that part of the Speech from the Throne which says the government is "conscious of the need for restraint". There seems to be an implication here that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) will be using fiscal restraint when he hands down the budget. The Speech from the Throne goes on to say that the government "does not intend to deliberately generate slack in the economy to combat inflation".
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that Canadians have heard this song before. My mind goes back at once to 1969 and 1970. Surely the government has learned this lesson. It would be the poor, the working poor, the Atlantic region in general and parts of it in particular, that would bear a crushing and uneven burden if this path were again followed. I mention in particular a good deal of Newfoundland, which is surely due for some special and positive consideration on the twenty-fifth anniversary of its entry into confederation, as well as particular areas in New Brunswick.
With this Liberal policy of 1969-70 came the usual increase of unemployment in the Atlantic region which
The Address-Mr. Hogan
has become the earmark of our place in the Canadian confederation. In Cape Breton, fo'r example, that policy helped to bring the unemployment figure to some 20 per cent, as reported by the president of the Cape Breton Development Corporation when he appeared before the Standing Committee on Regional Economic Expansion in 1973. In this connection I want to remind the government that in concocting the formula for this winter's LIP program, the office of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) reported a figure of 16.6 per cent for unemployment in my constituency of Cape Breton-East Richmond, a 15.5 per cent figure for Cape Breton-The Sydneys, and a 15.3 per cent figure for Cape Breton-Highlands-Canso.
These were last winter's figures, and it would take more than "lip" service and LIP grants to prevent them rising to 20 per cent or even 25 per cent if the government pursues a policy of tight money and fiscal restraint which would see national unemployment increase substantially from the present rate of 5.3 per cent, seasonally adjusted, to the 7.8 per cent forecast for the fourth quarter of 1975 by the independent researchers of the conference board. In terms of the current labour force, this will mean an increase from slightly more than one-half million unemployed at the present time to some 780,000 people unemployed. Expressed by way of annual averages, this will mean the highest unemployment experienced in Canada for many, many years and will amount to the highest percentage figure in 13 years. We all recognize the dilemma which the government presently faces, but when it comes down to choosing between inflation and the rate of unemployment suggested, my colleagues and I would always have to choose what we consider in these circumstances to be the lesser evil-inflation. Why? I repeat, it is because government policy, designed to create unemployment, has always in the past, even in the very recent past, fallen most brutally on those who are most helpless.
Mr. Speaker, I apologize for having to read extensively from notes, but this is my first speech in this House. We all entered kitchens and living-rooms across this country during the last election campaign and looked face to face at human beings who in this seemingly affluent Canada lack money on which to live in 1974. There are people in this nation making trips to the supermarkets to look for bones for soup, as many had to do in the depths of the depression, scrounging for the cheapest possible cuts of meat, whenever they can afford meat at all.
These women and men, many of them old, some of them working poor, many of them native people, go from aisle to aisle in stores and supermarkets hoping they will not meet any of their friends and thus reveal the desperateness of their situation. Moreover, in my riding-as many national reporters testified during the last campaign-the housing situation is, for some, desperate and almost beyond crisis proportions.
As my time is drawing to a close, Mr. Speaker, in this my maiden speech in the House of Commons, I would be less than honest if I did not pay tribute to the hard working efforts of the Cape Breton Development Corporation to reverse an economic situation in that part of the world that almost seemed impossible as recently as eight

October 3, 1974
The Address-Mr. Hogan
years ago. The corporation, which was set up in 1967, for which I among others, including the Secretary of State for External Affairs, fought hard to bring about, seemed doomed to failure in the early years. In recent years, buoyed by the Arab oil-jacking policy that breathed new life into the coal industry, with some solid support from the federal government and hard headed planning and work by Devco leaders, we have found ourselves in the position of being able to express the hope that this depressed economy within the next ten years, with the same government support and enthusiastic leadership, can see a complete reversal of the despairing situation that has existed for the residents of industrial Cape Breton for practically 50 years.
If this is to be more than a hope, then a decision by the federal government to co-operate in an equity position with the government of Nova Scotia in establishing a new steel complex in the Cape Breton industrial area, as recommended recently by the site location experts of the Steel Company of Canada hired by DREE, is an absolute necessity. This unique experiment in a depressed area in an attempt at rehabilitation, initiated by the federal government, in my opinion depends for its sucess on the establishment of such a complex. Such a complex will mean stability of employment in the coal industry that will fairly quickly be almost paying its way again, so that eventually that area and the proud and courageous people who built it will be making a more positive contribution to the tax coffers of this nation. It is up to this government to make sure this experiment that was carried out, popularly called Devco, will not be allowed to die for lack of proper investment funds.
On a final note in connection with the coal industry, many members of this House have heard my predecessor make claims on behalf of coal miners who were pre-retired between 1969 and 1971 as part of the federal government's package to meet the crucial problem that then existed. These men, in receiving their pre-retirement benefits, had those benefits reduced to the extent of their unemployment insurance benefits in the year following their retirement. In 1971 the Cape Breton Development Corporation changed its policy and now unemployment insurance benefits are not considered part of the pre-retirement benefit.
The previous members who represented this constituency took the case of the coal miners who were pre-retired between 1969 and 1971 to the courts against the Cape Breton Development Corporation. They lost the decision in the courts. Before that happened, the chief officer of the Cape Breton Development Corporation had offered to arbitrate with the pre-retirement committee representing these men. This offer was refused.
I note that the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson) is not in the House this afternoon. I hope some of his confreres will bring my comments to his attention. I plead with him to make funds available to the Cape Breton Development Corporation so that these miners who were pre-retired between 1969 and 1971 can receive a benefit to which I believe, while not being a lawyer, they are not legally entitled, but to which I believe they are morally entitled. I make the case for them in terms of morality rather than legality. I ask the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion to call a meeting with

the head of the Cape Breton Development Corporation, Mr. Kent, and myself in order that we might rectify this situation as soon as humanly possible, and give these men their moral due.
The minister and members of the committee on regional development went on record in the last session in support of these men, and I ask now that this verbal support be translated into action in terms of payment to them that is, while not legally due on the part of the Cape Breton Development Corporation, morally due. God knows they need it and would appreciate it, as I found out during the last election campaign.
In part of my constituency there lives a hardy breed of men who, like other maritimers, make their living from the sea by fishing. The east coast fisheries are in serious straits, especially the inshore fishery. I promise to do my best to co-operate with the new minister of fisheries (Mr. LeBlanc) and maritime representatives from other fishing areas to help devise a short and a long-term policy for the maintenance and rebuilding of this industry, to prepare for a world, as we have previously noted, that is facing an increasing deficiency in food, especially in high-protein food such as fish. The fishermen in my area, from Glace Bay to Louisbourg through Morien, Main-a-Dieu, l'Ardoise and Bateson, are anxious to have the new minister meet with them to dialogue about their needs. During this session of the House we will be attempting to bring their pressing needs to his attention.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker and hon. members, may I suggest that the throne speech, as the expression of the government's supposed legislative program in brief outline, leaves a lot to be desired. It does not appear to represent an adequate response to the serious international and national problems that face our nation at this time. On a more positive note, may I express the wish, in this my first speech in the House of Commons, that this thirtieth Canadian parliament, which will likely last for four years, may go down in the history of this country as the parliament that, despite grave national and international problems, did most for the poor of this country, for the underdeveloped areas of this nation and especially for the needy countries in the world.
Merci beaucoup, monsieur le president, mes chers amis.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I hope you will allow me to congratulate you upon the election to your high position. Having known you as long as I have, I am sure you will bring honour to that position. I should also like to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne for their very excellent contributions.
Much has been said of CEMA and marketing boards in general. Let me be the first to say that I am, and always will be as long as I am a member of this House and a farmer, a strong supporter of national marketing boards. I suggest that they very closely represent the true concept of confederation, perhaps more than anything anyone else has attempted in this nation. These marketing boards are composed of producers all across this great land who work together not only for their own good but for the good of society. I say that regardless of what anyone has suggested.
October 3, 1974

We all realize that in our confederation which was created a little over 100 years ago there are still some problems. The Canadian Egg Marketing Agency has been in existence a little over one year and one might expect that there would still be problems. It is for this reason that I am pleased to note there will be public hearings by a parliamentary committee in order to determine the real facts in respect of what CEMA has been attempting, along with the real facts about what it and others have done.
Yesterday the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) referred to me as a shooting star. I have heard the Leader of the Opposition referred to as a model of the early experimental space ship called "Stasis," a Greek word meaning one who stands still. It was a rocket space ship which did not go anywhere. This Minister of Agriculture wishes to make clear from the start several points about his own personal life, because many things have been stated recently in the press. I can understand the feeling of members of the press about this character because many of them blame him for proving them so wrong on July 8.
It has been stated that I am a corporate farmer. I am not. I have only 216 acres of mortgaged land, with buildings which need paint. Some people have said that I am a chicken farmer. I have never in my life raised a chicken on my farm. They say I am a beef farmer. I am not a beef farmer. Never in 20 years have I raised beef cattle. They say I am a rich man. I want to say I have a richness that cannot be deposited in the bank: the bank will not accept it as collateral. It is a richness which I know is enjoyed by some other members of this House. It is the richness of the knowledge of having worked for people in an elected position. I am 50 years of age, but I have worked in this way for 29 years. This has included work in respect of co-ops, credit unions, farm organizations, municipal bodies, and so on. I have enjoyed every bit of it. I have the richness of knowing that I have done and can do something for my fellow man. This is a richness that no one can take away from me.


Mr. Alexander:: This sounds like your maiden speech.


Eugene Whelan: I just want to put the facts straight, since certain articles have been written about me. I want to make clear that I have been on my own since I was six years of age. I was one of nine children, raised on the great sum of $45 a month called mother's allowance, during the dirty thirties when there was no medicare or anything of that nature. So when anyone says-and some have been guilty of this-that this farmer, this member of parliament, this minister, does not know what hard times are, he is not being factual. Sometimes I find it difficult to understand what people write about the actions of the government and the actions of this speaker. This reminds me of an editorial which appeared in the Financial Times of August 5. The article contained these words:
It is time that federal farm policy took account of the fact that this is one of the most urbanized countries in the world. At the last census, 76 out of every 100 Canadians lived in cities and the farm population had dropped to 6.6 per cent from 9.5 per cent five years earlier.
If that were said about some other minority group in Canada, or some racial group, we would have every civil
The Address-Mr. Whelan
liberties group fighting for them. I take it from that article that people who produce the very fruit of life are nothing more than mere peasants-but not a sound is made. I am placing this on the record because these are the things that have been said. Everyone realizes that what I am saying is true. People would not dare say these things about some other minority group.
We hear talk about the waste of food. This was mentioned by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan). I do not think any human wishes to see food wasted because this is deplorable whether it be by flood, by hail, by drought, by disease, by snow or by man. Farmers are food producers and creators of things, and they find this deplorable. I wish to make sure it is fully understood that I feel it is just as deplorable to throw away millions of tons of food every year in Canada.
In the city of Toronto there is a train that hauls away the food every so many days. It is taken to the garbage dump. In one week the city of Toronto throws away more food than has been thrown away in the form of eggs in a year. They feel they have the right to throw it away. A garbageman came to my office and said that he had something in common with me. He told me that I produce the food and haul it to the people, and he hauls it away from the people to the garbage dump.
It is estimated that the food that is thrown away in some of our large metropolitan areas-any of the large cities of our nation-would feed a city of the same population in the have-not world. Each day it is thrown away-and people could live on that little food in some cities. Some of us who have visited other countries in the world such as India and South America surely realize that what I say is true. I visited Lima, Peru in South America, several years ago: there were 500,000 people outside that city with no social services; they had nothing going for them. The companies which owned the fishmeal plants in that area were exporting the fishmeal and depositing the money at that time either in the United States, in Geneva or in some other country, rather than in Peru. The President of Peru made a strong appeal that we assist him in finding protein for his people.
We would find the same type of situation in India or in some other countries. Some people try to create the impression that the Minister of Agriculture, the farm population or the egg producers are happy that food has gone to waste. I suggest it is wrong to attempt to create such an impression. While we are talking about protein, and so on, I may say that according to the letters I receive and the things people say, they would seem to be under a misapprehension about what can be done with a certain quantity of eggs or with any product in the world in the way of food aid. Let us take dry whole eggs. An amount of $1 million will buy enough for a month for 127,000 children. Let us take wheat. An amount of $1 million will buy enough protein for 518,000 children for a month.
In respect of skim milk powder, $1 million will buy enough for nearly 300,000 children for a month. It is not as easy a matter as some people try to suggest when they say that this product could be put into food aid. The people who supply food aid buy it where their dollar will go the furthest. Although egg powder has a very high protein content, it is one of the most expensive types of product

October 3, 1974
The Address-Mr. Whelan
that you can use. It is packed in five-pound tin cans, with nitrogen, and sealed. If the can is pierced, the product deteriorates quite rapidly. You can see the difference in price between the milk powder, which costs 55 cents a pound, and egg powder which is $1.75 a pound. Skim milk powder is shipped in 50-pound bags and the only time you have to worry about it is in times of high humidity, because it has a tendency to sweat inside the bag.
The purpose of our program is to assist other countries to become more productive. If anyone thinks that those countries want us to give food away, let me tell them that this is not so. You can bet your bottom dollar that it is not so. They themselves want to be sure that their people become more productive. Our product is sent to their country at a reasonable price; it is not just thrown away. It is only given away in cases of disaster. Our food aid program is excellent.
We show other countries how to produce their food, we educate them, and so on. Our programs are second to none in the world, mainly because of the productiveness of our farmers. That is why we have been able to play such a large part in providing food aid in the world. Let no one tell Canada, a small country of less than 23 million people, that we have to take a back seat to anyone. The only country which surpasses us in direct food aid is the United States of America.
Shortly we will be announcing some new appointments to the National Farm Products Marketing Council.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: These will include a consumer representative, a labour-oriented representative, and a businessman. We want people of high integrity, of fairness and understanding. I have no fear of persons of this calibre on this board because I am sure they will recognize what we are trying to do. I do not care who we have on this board, because any reasonable person will understand our aim and aid the competent members who are now on the board. This will make the operation of the National Farm Products Marketing Council better than it has been. Let me point out that it is a very new board; it was established only a few short months before I became Minister of Agriculture. I hope it will be recognized that we in agriculture have taken the lead and that we may expect representatives of the agricultural community to be appointed as members of other boards and agencies, such as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the Canadian Transport Commission, the CNR and Air Canada.


An hon. Member:: Why not?


Eugene Whelan: This is nothing new to agriculture in Canada. We have accepted scientific change and automation to a greater extent than any other segment of our society. No other segment of society has accepted it as well as we have. That is why so few of us in agriculture produce so much. When I, as Minister of Agriculture, say that I am proud of Canadian farmers, I mean that. We are the envy of nearly every other nation.
[Mr. Whelan.)
The minister of food production in China pointed out to me how lucky we Canadians are, being a nation of 23 million producing so much food that we can sell to China, a nation of 800 million people. He remarked to me that in our country only about 6!4 per cent of our population is occupied in food production, whereas in China nearly 80 per cent of their population of 800 million is in food production. He told me that our country is the most amazing country and our farmers a most amazing group of people. I agree with him; they are.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: For the past few weeks the news media have been full of editorials, stories and opinion columns about egg marketing. Many of the stories have been accurate but only a few of them have been complete and have told the whole story. Many of them are based on partial information and recommend action that would put our egg industry back in a state of total confusion and chaos. This is one of the prime reasons I believe there should be a full and complete investigation of the egg marketing situation, which is something I have said both inside and outside the House. I want all the facts to come out and all the truth to be told, not just bits and pieces here and there. The consumers of Canada want to know the full truth, and so do the egg producers. I have full confidence in the ability of members of the House to investigate the facts and to conduct a fair and complete inquiry.
I have said that administrative mistakes have been made by CEMA. That should surprise no one, because the agency itself has admitted that mistakes have been made. However, some other things have been said that warrant correction. I should like to answer some direct criticisms from Canadians who have written to me. The federal government has not made loans to CEMA, as was stated in many reports. Many news reports to that effect are false. There have been no subsidies and no grants other than the $100,000 provided as a start-up for any new national marketing agency, and there have been no hidden financial arrangements between the federal government and CEMA. The federal government is not managing CEMA; CEMA has managed on its own, just as has any other company set up under federal legislation.
CEMA has gained certain rights under that legislation. It must also meet certain obligations and carry out certain duties. They are clearly spelled out in the national marketing plan recommended to the federal government only after the National Farm Products Marketing Council held full and complete public hearings across the nation, and only after the council was able to satisfy itself and the federal government that a clear majority of producers favoured that plan. CEMA has admitted mistakes and has taken action to make sure that those mistakes are not repeated. As Minister of Agriculture, I was just as upset by the loss of eggs as anyone else, but I am willing to give CEMA a chance to prove itself, always keeping in mind that the agency must stay within the terms of their plan as set down in the law.
Statements have been made that eggs could be bought much cheaper in Canada if we could follow what is done in the United States. We can look at the prices between January and September 10th. In January of 1974, eggs in
October 3, 1974

New York were $1.01.6 and in Toronto they were 84.6 cents. In February they were $1.00.3 in New York, and 85.3 cents in Toronto. In March they were 90.8 cents in New York, and 88 cents in Toronto. In April they were 80 cents in New York, and 84.8 cents in Toronto. In May they were 66.3 cents in New York, and 77.7 cents in Toronto. In June they were 66 cents in New York, and 81 cents in Toronto. In July they were 71 cents in New York, and 79.1 cents in Toronto. In August they were 79.4 cents in New York, and 78.7 cents in Toronto; and in September they were 85 cents to 89 cents in New York, and 80 cents to 81 cents in Toronto.
These figures show that more stability was provided to egg marketing in the months when the agency has been in operation than ever before. History will show that the buying power of people in Canada for eggs may have been higher in 1971, when farmers went broke because they were selling eggs below the cost of production.
How could some of the mistakes made by CEMA have been prevented? Steps are being taken now to ensure that these mistakes are not repeated. There are people who are not satisfied with investigating the mistakes and errors of CEMA. Instead, they want to destroy the concept of the orderly production and marketing of farm products. Some of the things that have seen said about what I should do, and CEMA should do, put me in mind of the Texas hanging judge called Judge Roy Bean. Do you remember what he used to say, Mr. Speaker? He said, "We are going to give you a fair trial and then hang you". Some of the critics of CEMA do not want to go even that far. That is why I am so anxious for a public hearing to be held because I honestly feel, on the information I have, that the public will be satisfied when they know the true facts.
I want to remind people that egg producers have been trying since the 1930s to establish a national system of orderly production and marketing. I would remind them that the ten ministers of agriculture unanimously urged the federal government to set up national marketing agencies. Ontario even had a judicial inquiry under Judge Ross, who said he never saw anything so chaotic or unfair in his life and recommended that it be brought to order.
I would remind them that every political party in Canada, federal and provincial, has supported the concept of orderly production and marketing. I would remind them of the situation that existed before the national marketing agency for eggs was established, and I would add that the same forces exist today. A collapse of the national marketing agency for eggs would probably lead immediately to cut-throat competition among provincial marketing boards for their own provincial markets plus a share of the market in other provinces.
I would remind the hon. members of this House of the situation that exists today in the United States, where there is no form of orderly production and marketing for eggs and poultry products. Broiler producers are going through the most drastic cutback in production in American history right now. Hatcheries have cut egg placement for broilers by 12 per cent, which means that production will be cut back by 23 million pounds per week.
The Address-Mr. Whelan
Bankruptcies are hitting the egg and broiler producers across the United States. According to George Watts, president of the National Broiler Council in the United States, the situation is a catastrophe. Three major companies have already closed part of their plants because they do not have the money to keep operating. Mr. Ed Covell, Jr., of Easton, Maryland, has cut back his production by 15 per cent. That cutback amounts to a million birds. Another major outfit in Maryland has gone broke. Otis Esham, the owner, says it happened so fast he is not sure what went wrong.
That is the kind of choice we have here in Canada; we have the choice of an open market, without any form of orderly production and marketing. That choice would mean that egg prices, broiler prices and turkey prices would go right out of the roof in a few months' time. It would mean that the economy would have to pick up the bills for the bankruptcies. It would mean that eventually the economy would have to pay the price to build brand new barns and brand new farms to replace the ones that end up in bankruptcy today. And who, I ask you, would benefit from that type of chaos? Nobody. Certainly not the farmers. Certainly not the consumers. Certainly not the economy of the country. That is why so much effort has gone into setting up a national marketing plan for eggs and turkeys and broilers here in Canada. And that is why a properly run marketing plan can, and should, benefit everyone in our economy, not just the producer and not just the consumer.
Mr. Speaker, I have a document here which was prepared by a very efficient person in my department before I became minister. It has been mailed to every hon. member, and I suggest they read it because it tells what a marketing board is supposed to do and explains it in a very good fashion. It was prepared by a Mr. Thomas A. Bennett. The document was mailed on Friday or Monday. I believe our efforts today should not be directed toward weakening or destroying national marketing agencies and plans, but toward improving their operations, and I am confident that the members of this House will come to the same conclusion when they complete their inquiry into the egg industry.
Some of the critics of CEMA have said there should be no production controls. Others have said there should be no marketing controls. Some have said that producers should not try to recover their full costs of production from the marketplace. But these criticisms strike at the very heart and principle of an orderly production and marketing plan for the egg industry. Without some form of production control, without some form of marketing control or some method to achieve a return that will over the long term at least cover the costs of production, we simply cannot have orderly production and marketing.
History will show that over the years egg prices have been stable compared with other food products. Some critics have said CEMA amounts to a monopoly in the market. But what is their definition of a monopoly? I find it hard to believe that we can have a monopoly when it involves more than 15,000 producers. I find it hard to believe that we can have a monopoly that excludes control over imports, excludes production from tens of thousands of small flocks, and excludes control over alternative
94

October 3, 1974
The Address-Mr. Whelan
foods. That, my hon. colleagues, is less of a monopoly than any one of a hundred labour unions that exist in any part of Canada today. Look at the PCV licences given to trucking organizations, the licences given to radio stations and the other things that exist in our nation today which operate under federal and provincial legislation. Are we going to ask farmers to accept less freedom and fewer rights than we are willing to grant to other citizens in this country?
There are those who will argue that food is an essential item in our economy and that farmers cannot be given the same rights and freedoms as labour unions. As a former member of a labour union, I just do not understand that. But there are tens of thousands of unionized Canadian workers who are involved in the Canadian food system, and if they do not do their jobs they can disrupt our food supply every bit as much as production decisions made by our farmers; and their impact on our food economy can be much more abrupt and much more disruptive. The west coast grain handlers' strike and the Great Lakes shipping strike mean that billions and billions of pounds of food will never get to the starving people of the world. They will never catch up with deliveries, no matter what anyone says, especially as we are not far from the freeze-up of the Great Lakes.
I do not advocate an end to workers' rights to strike and to bargain for better wages and working conditions. But I do argue that it is irresponsible and unfair to grant rights and privileges to one group of society that we deny to other groups in our society and economy.
Canada's farmers are among the amost efficient, most productive and the hardest working people in our society. I think they deserve at least an even break to achieve a decent standard of living. That is what the movement to establish national marketing agencies for eggs, turkeys and broilers is all about. Yes, mistakes have been made. But what segment of society can claim that it has never made a mistake? What member of this House can claim he has never made a mistake? And some of the mistakes made have been far more costly to our economy than the errors of CEMA. What about oil spills, for example? Why should we demand that egg producers give up their right to control the production and marketing of their product?
I could be persuaded to really dig in my heels and fight every inch of the way to defend the egg producers' rights to run CEMA just the way that many other groups in our society have the right to run their own affairs. I have never suggested that farmers hold their products from the markets, Mr. Speaker. These people get into trouble because they are overproductive, and for no other reason. History shows that in 1971 they were getting 12 cents a dozen for their eggs at the grading station, but consumption did not go up in 1971. The then minister of agriculture paid $2,300,000 to farmers to kill hens in order to take them out of production because they could not find storage or markets or put them into aid programs.
However, I understand the importance consumers place on a continuing supply of top quality food at reasonable prices, so I have agreed to a full inquiry into the egg industry. Also, I have taken action that has limited the price producers can charge for eggs, particularly with respect to imports. But I do not intend to sell our egg

industry down the river or to deny egg producers the fundamental and basic right to establish an orderly system of production and marketing for their commodity, if they want to exercise that right within the boundaries set out in the legislation approved by parliament.
Some people seem to be afraid that farmers will abuse their rights if they gain control over the production and marketing of their commodities. But let us look at the record for the egg industry. Egg prices in Canada averaged 84.6 cents a dozen at Toronto last January, while prices in New York were over $1.00 a dozen. Prices at Toronto averaged below New York prices for January, February, March, August and September. It is precisely because prices in the United States dropped in late spring and summer that they face the bankruptcies, production cuts and upcoming shortages which I mentioned earlier-no planning, no stability, nothing for their producers.
Egg producers have increased their productivity and efficiency much faster than society as a whole. As a result, the average worker in Canada today can buy 4.8 dozen eggs with one hour's pay, compared with 4.4 dozen in 1969, 3.4 dozen in 1966, 2.4 dozen in 1956 and 1.6 dozen in 1950. If the price of all other products had inflated by as little as the price of eggs, there would be no such thing as inflation in Canada today. Egg prices have remained low, mainly because egg producers have increased their productivity.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order, please. I regret having to interrupt the hon. minister, but his allotted time has expired. He may continue only if he has the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Eugene Whelan: I thank hon. members of the House for their courtesy, and will try to finish as quickly as possible. The record for eggs during the existence of CEMA has been better than the over-all record of the total consumer price index or the index for all foods. The consumer price index rose from 139.8 in 1972 to 150.4 in 1973. The index for all foods went up from 141.4 in 1972 to 162 in 1973. But when we look at eggs, we see that the index in 1973 stood much lower, at 136.5. It was only 22.6 points higher than in 1966, and only 27.2 higher than in 1949.
Anyone who says that the high price of eggs is the real culprit in the food basket is not being factual. I challenge the critics of the orderly marketing of our eggs to point to any other sector of our economy which has been able to hold the line so well between 1949 and 1973. As I say, the line has been held precisely because egg producers have improved their productivity. They have introduced scientific ways of taking care of chickens. As a result, production has increased and mortality reduced to practically nil. Research in the field over the years has led to a fantastic increase in the production of this high-protein food. We have come to expect such productivity increases in agriculture. That is partly the reason so many farmers have been put out of business.
Let me turn now to the selected leaks from the Forbes report. Nobody can get that report. At least, I cannot get a
October 3, 1974

copy of it. I asked for a copy and was told that the report will not be published until mid-October.


James Aloysius McGrath: I will send you a copy of it.


Eugene Whelan: You can't get a copy. The public cannot get a copy, but reporters working for the Financial Times and the Toronto Star got selected leaks. Those selected leaks add up to a straight smear job. The report allegedly says that higher food prices will not help the farmer. I wonder if the writers of such an alleged report believe that economists would be better off if their salaries went down. I wonder if they believe all Canadians would be better off if the return on their labour and investment went down. Try telling the farmers of Canada that they would be better off if the price of their produce went down. You know what the answer would be. It would be a dead halt to farming in Canada, with no more grain, no more beef, no more dairy products and no more fresh fruits and vegetables.
You hear people talking about the production of chickens and eggs in the same way as they talk about the production of other commodities. Well, chickens are not like other commodities. For example, look at a factory which makes television sets or cars. The people running it use computers and marketing specialists to judge demand. On the basis of the advice they are given, they produce so many cars, refrigerators or television sets. What happens if they make a mistake in forecasting? They turn the production-line off and put their men on unemployment insurance. In the case of eggs, if there is a mistake we all pay, because everybody pays for unemployment insurance. On the other hand, if the farmer loses he pays for his own loss. You can't turn a chicken off, like a machine. Has anyone ever tried? You just can't turn him off.


An hon. Member:: No, you just can't turn off.


Eugene Whelan: The chicken, which if fed high protein food just cannot be turned off. I did not mean to refer to the male species of the chicken. You can only stop a chicken from laying by chopping off its head. That is the least costly method. Regardless of what is said in this so-called report just referred to, a copy of which I have not been able to get, in my part of the country a lot of egg producers run their operation as a family venture. Judging from what has been said, one would think such people have gone on unemployment insurance. Our farmers are growing older. The average age of farmers in this country is close to 60 years. There are more senior citizens in farming than in any other occupation. Do you think they stay in it for so long because there is so much money to be made? There is no pension available for them and they must keep on producing. Some people think a chicken is a machine. It is probably a much more efficient machine for turning grain into a high-protein food than one which any scientist could devise. A chicken produces one of the best foods in the world.
The writers of the report allegedly say that 80 per cent of our farmers should be shoved off their farms and put on the public dole. Since there is so much talk about how much farms should produce, perhaps we could look at the universities of Canada. Ten of our biggest universities are turning out nearly 50 per cent of all students. If we
The Address-Mr. Whelan
adopted the philosophy of efficiency as set out in the report, the inefficient, smaller universities would be shut down. Furthermore, carrying the comparison further, egg producers are not indentured as some professors are. Our egg farmers do the best job in the world in creating something the consumer needs. Should anyone cut their income? Try doing that to university professors who are indentured. They enjoy more security than members of this House.
The world needs Canadian farmers, Mr. Speaker. They are the best, the most efficient, the most productive farmers in the world, considering the climatic conditions they work under. This country needs good farmers a heck of a lot more than it needs half-baked economists or half-baked economic reports.
I believe some hon. members opposite know a fellow named Dalton Camp. A few weeks ago that gentleman wrote a column in the Toronto Star about the beef industry. I expect a few members opposite wished he had never written that column. Mr. Camp said that beef prices should have been forced down in this country. He wanted beef prices forced down at a time when producers were already losing $100 and more for every head sold to the meat packers. He wanted the federal government to brew a recipe of certain bankruptcy for every beef producer in this country. Why, Mr. Speaker? So that consumers could buy beef for a few cents a pound less for a few months. And what about the long term? Mr. Camp didn't mention that his policies would force beef prices right through the roof two or three years from now. He didn't mention the fact that thousands of Canadians who work in the beef industry as meat packers, truckers and butchers would be thrown out of work. He didn't mention that Canada would then have to depend totally on imports of beef supplies in the future and probably pay a lot of money for low quality meat.
He also did not mention, when alluding to the use of DES, that the Department of National Health and Welfare was against its use. If he had talked to officials of the department here in Ottawa, I am sure they would have told him that they were against its use. That department, and not the Department of Agriculture, wanted to ban the use of DES for the protection of human beings in Canada. The only country in the world which allows the use of this substance is the United States. He didn't say that in his column, but tried to intimate that the ban was a gimmick which we used to protect the cattlemen.
Mr. Camp implied that the Canadian Cattlemen's Association contributed money to the Liberal election campaign, but he did not bother to check his facts with the Canadian Cattlemen's Association or with the Liberal Party. The Canadian Cattlemen's Association set the record straight, but only after the damage had been done. In a letter to the editor of the Toronto Star, Charles Gracey of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association said that not one penny was contributed to any political party during the last election campaign. I wish Mr. Camp had used his connections within the Conservative Party to check his facts with a former president of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave). I expect that the policies the federal
28305-7l/a

October 3, 1974
The Address-Mr. Whelan
government has implemented for the beef industry are closer to the policies of the hon. member for Medicine Hat than they are to the policies put forward by Mr. Camp.
Ministers of agriculture and ministers of consumer and corporate affairs have asked for an inquiry into the beef industry. I understand this will also be asked for by the first ministers of the four provinces concerned. We are taking a very hard look at an inquiry into the beef industry because there is utter chaos there at the present time. I receive many letters from beef producers setting out what they are receiving for cattle, how they are being bought, and many other things. They may not all be right, but they certainly cannot all be wrong. I hope to be able to make an announcement shortly on the action we intend to take in accordance with the request of these people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: Hon. members who represent ridings where farmers and agriculture are important to the local economy know that this country needs to return farmers and agriculture to their proper place in our national society and economy. I wish to put the record straight. The riding I was re-elected to represent is 88 per cent urban. I am sure the members of the New Democratic Party realize this. That is why they threw all their weight behind the president of local 444 of the Chrysler union in an attempt to defeat me. I got the biggest urban vote ever. I said the same things to the people of that city as I am saying here. They realized what I said was right and better for the nation. That is not what the other candidate said. Some people who represent rural ridings should check to see what he did say. I am referring to representatives of the NDP. Those representing rural areas realize that maintaining high agricultural production is most important.
One of my main concerns is what we are doing to our producers through some of the things we are saying. If we destroy the morale of any person who is a productive entity, we will not get any production out of him. I appeal to everyone, when talking about the agricultural industry, to be factual, honest and straightforward. This country needs to return farmers and agriculture to their proper place in our national society and economy. We cannot have anyone, let alone editorial writers who do not sign their names, saying, "What is the matter with the government? They are only a minority. Why don't they forget them?" They know that the policies and programs put forward by this government during the last election campaign are headed in the right direction. Those hon. members know that wage and price controls on farm products would be a disaster. They know that farmers need incentives to increase production. The Leader of the Opposition knows that better than anyone.
They know that farmers need some guarantees of stability for the future. They know that young farmers need assistance to establish viable farms. These are all programs and policies this government intends to present to the House of Commons for approval. People are beginning to see the points I have been making. Last night a local television station showed a farm here in Ontario that is going to be paved over soon because, as I have said all along, our priorities have not been on agriculture and food and farmers but on highways and parking lots.

The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan) spoke about the world food meeting which is to take place in Rome. I attended the FAO meeting last year. I can say that the farmers cannot be blamed for poor world distribution of food. Society as a whole has not accepted the responsibility of assisting those who are not as fortunate as we. In some instances people think it is morally right to throw away almost as much food as they buy. Not many think it is morally right, but some do because they continue to throw away large amounts of food. When I attended the FAO meeting last year I did not meet one minister of agriculture who was a farmer. Therefore, the farmer certainly cannot be blamed for poor world distribution of food.
I have said the farmers of this nation will increase their productivity by 50 per cent in five years if they are given a decent return for what they produce and a guarantee that they will receive the same as the rest of our society wants, demands and receives. Some people do not think that is necessary for the agricultural industry.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: We know that if we could control wild oats in western Canada, in one year we could increase our cereal grains by $1 billion. This would require added fertilizer, better seed, and so on. If the incentive were there, we could increase our productivity in western Canada by 50 per cent in five years. We know the beef industry increased by nearly 10 per cent every year until this year. That is a 50 per cent increase in five years. We also know that we can increase productivity in our industry because of automation and other things that go along with productivity.
As one hon. member previously mentioned, it is not the farmer's job to give away his turkeys. That is the job of society as a whole. Farmers will participate in it. It has been proven in western Canada that they held over 30 per cent of the world stock of grain without receiving any compensation. We are able to take our place in food aid mainly because of our farmers, their productivity and the fact they store grain on their own. They do not receive any help from the do-gooders who run around this nation challenging anything and everything. I would sometimes like to check their bankbooks to see their donations to CARE or other food programs. I am very suspicious of some of those people when they make so much noise.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: I welcome the comments of hon. members. I welcome their sincere criticisms and efforts to improve the programs and legislation we will introduce. The farmers of Canada expect this parliament to take action on the policies and programs outlined during the last election campaign. I look forward to your co-operation in getting on with that job.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We were kind enough to let the minister go beyond his time. Perhaps he will permit a question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: The hon. member can ask the question and the minister can agree to answer,
October 3, 1974

but that would extend his time still further. It will require the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Aloysius McGrath: I thank the House for the unanimous consent. What prompts my question is that the minister's speech was supposed to contain all the answers regarding the egg affair. My question to the minister is this: why was it necessary for CEMA to allow 28 million eggs to rot, and why is the minister withholding from the House the results of the special study undertaken by the Farm Products Marketing Council which he commissioned early this year, and which has been in his possession since early April?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has used extreme figures-28 million eggs, which is equal to 88 tons of protein, out of a total production of 5.7 billion eggs, or 475 million dozen or 32 million boxes or 16 million cases or 32,000 rail cars of eggs produced in Canada in one year. And out of that total production less than one half of one per cent was lost.


James Aloysius McGrath: It was 15 per cent of CEMA's total.


Eugene Whelan: The hon. member, who is, I am sure, a realistic person, knows one has to consider total production. Where any perishable commodity such as eggs is concerned, over production by as little as one per cent can cause utter chaos in the marketplace.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to take part in this debate. Before going further, I wish to congratulate you, Sir, upon your elevation to the position of Speaker. It is a position which I know you will fill with dignity and with fairness to members in all parts of the House.
I wish, also, to congratulate the mover, the hon. member for Montmorency, (Mr. Duclos) and the seconder, the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Lee), of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne on the capable manner in which they have represented their constituencies.
The first session of the thirtieth parliament meets at a time of great uncertainty within Canada. I think that the 30-member riot squad of the RCMP and the 100-man Canadian Forces guard which were required to deal with the riot on Parliament Hill on opening day are symbolic of the unrest which exists not only among Canadian Indians but also among other segments of society throughout the length and breadth of the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: It is wonderful to receive that applause. I hope some of it is for me.
At one time we were known as a peaceful country full of patriotic love for our traditions and our symbols, the true north strong and free. But times have changed and there are many Canadians today who feel, as I do, that they have not changed for the better.
The Address-Mr. Crouse
Speaking of symbols, one which we hold dear is the Canadian beaver. It is pictured as a strong, energetic animal, a worker and a builder. What is implied is stability. All this is true, of course. Canadians are supposed to be like the beaver. However, the beaver has one strange characteristic. In order to build his dam he must first cut down the trees adjacent to the site with his teeth. All goes well with the beaver as long as he is chewing and working, but if he stops chewing his teeth continue to grow at a phenomenal rate. Soon, he is unable to open his jaws either to chew trees or to eat the food he requires. Eventually, he dies of starvation, in the midst of plenty, all because he stopped working and producing.
I believe the analogy of the beaver may well apply to Canadians at this stage in their history. For years the government has adopted policies which tend to curb rather than increase production. This impression is reinforced by figures contained in the booklet "How Your Tax Dollar is Spent" for the year 1974-75 which show an increase in expenditure from $10,767 million in 1968 to a proposed $29.3 billion in the fiscal year 1975. A large proportion of the increased expenditure went toward nonproductive, bureaucratic empire building, with the largest percentage of this occurring right here in Ottawa. Now we read in this year's Speech from the Throne the words of a subservient, frightened cabinet stating, and I quote:
For Canada as well as for most of the world the most serious problem is inflation: it is necessary to deal with its causes and to mitigate its effects.
Of course inflation is not becoming less evident; every financial paper in the country is predicting that it will become even more serious than it is today. What happened to the glib election-time assurances by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) that he is wrestling down prices? The Speech from the Throne warns about the impact of higher oil prices, the adversities which have fallen upon crops in Canada, the failure of industrial commodities to fall in price as expected, declining industrial production, record interest rates and industrial unrest.
Obviously, though, this new awareness of the seriousness of the situation is not matched by any program of action. The Speech from the Throne is nothing more than a proposed five-year plan, a rehash of promises which sadly lacks the one ingredient the situation so urgently requires, namely, leadership.
Weakness in leadership has been the trademark of the Prime Minister ever since he took office in 1968. Like a rudderless vessel, the ship of state has been drifting, buffeted by every economic wind that blows. Instead of laying down a course to be followed, the captain of this ship keeps asking questions. However, neither his first mate, the bosun, or any of his executive officers will give him any worthwhile answers. They need only look at what happened to the former minister of national revenue, the former minister of public works, the former minister of consumer and corporate affairs and the former minister of state for multiculturalism in order to see what happens if you talk back to the skipper.
This lack of direction is evident in the Speech from the Throne. Having admitted that inflation is far more serious than it thought six months ago when preparing the budget, the government nevertheless offers Canadians the

October 3, 1974
The Address-Mr. Crouse
same old economic strategy, namely, appropriate fiscal and monetary policies, the raising of pensions to protect those least able to protect themselves, together with measures to soften the impact of soaring oil prices and cushion the economy against increases in the prices of other commodities. The speech contains at least one ambiguous promise. On one page we find the statement that the government will "exercise restraint in its own expenditures" while on the very next page we read:
The government does not intend deliberately to generate slack in the economy in order to combat inflation.
Which of these statements are we to believe? Hon. members can search as they may; they will not find a single specific federal commitment to set an example by tracking down wasteful spending.
I would be the first to agree that some of the policies set out in the Speech are commendable. However, they will be nothing more than sounding brass and tinkling symbols unless the government can conquer the meanest thief of all, namely, inflation which is threatening the very foundation both of our economy and of our society. Obviously, the government is unaware of the gravity of the situation. I say this not only because of the ineffective nature of the proposals put forward by the Prime Minister but also because of the attitude taken by his heir apparent, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), when he stated at his informal news conference early in September that there would be no recession and that Canada would experience a real growth this year amounting to 4V4 per cent.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) made this prediction despite the fact that every economist in the land sees little hope for significant real growth in our economy for the rest of this year and for most of 1975. In fact, at a recent meeting of economists in Montreal it was predicted that inflation will continue at its present 11 per cent rate while our national unemployment rate will rise to 8 per cent. This, of course, would be nothing new for Atlantic Canada, for in August of this year our unemployment rate stood at 9 per cent, which is some kind of tribute to the inefficiency and lack of effectiveness of the policies planned by this government for Atlantic Canada.
At this same news conference, the Minister of Finance did break the news gently that the cabinet will be delaying the implementation of some election promises. He said: Some social programs and some housing programs may be moved ahead toward the end of the current five-year mandate.
In other words, the promises and programs solemnly pledged for the purpose of getting votes in the July 8 election can now be shelved or postponed until just before the next election. If it were not for the human tragedies brought about by the Liberal Party's broken promises, which mean broken dreams for many Canadians, the finance minister's statement would be almost humorous. I say this because his own leader is reported as saying in Vancouver on June 5, 1974, as reported on the front page of the Halifax Chronicle-Herald, "Trudeau tells voters to be skeptical of promises". The article reads:
Prime Minister Trudeau yesterday began phase two of the Liberal campaign by telling voters to be skeptical of political parties with election promises.
From now until election day the Liberals would elaborate on policies and programs that had already been made public, but there would be no new promises.
"We'll show you how our platform is not invention for an election," he told audiences both here and on Vancouver Island.
The whole thesis of the campaign was that Liberals were running on deeds, rather than promises.
Later in the same article the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is quoted as stating:
"We're not just coming up with invented ideas at the last moment," he emphasized.
He was campaigning with the candidate from that area, Dr. Oberlander, who, as the article states:
-accompanied Mr. Trudeau, interrupted a group of young boys tossing a basketball through a hoop.
He tried, and missed. He then encouraged Mr. Trudeau to take a shot, but the Prime Minister declined, saying he wasn't an exhibitionist.
My, Madam Speaker, how things have changed. That statement was made on June 5, 1974. However, by June 29 the Prime Minister had changed his tune. Promises were made and on the strength of them the Liberal Party improved its standing in Atlantic Canada and elsewhere. On the strength of those promises the Prime Minister and his colleagues received a mandate to go ahead, unhampered by a minority parliament. In Atlantic Canada all the Liberal candidates pledged themselves to 34 action programs to increase wages, to stimulate growth and to cut living costs in the Atlantic provinces.
These promises made by the Prime Minister, backed up by the Liberal premiers in Atlantic Canada, must be a prime consideration of this government. Even though we were told by the Prime Minister to be skeptical of his promises, the people in Atlantic Canada believe easily what they hope for earnestly, and they took him at his word. I say these promises must be kept, for Atlantic Canada lags behind the rest of Canada by all measurements, including that of per capita income. Yet at the same time prices in Atlantic Canada are as high or higher than those in other provinces. It therefore follows that this as an area, and especially my constituents, has less to spend while trying to keep ahead of runaway living costs. You promised action programs. Action programs are essential and must be the government's number one priority.
These are the words and promises of the Liberal candidates as they sought office in Atlantic Canada in July, as advertised on June 29. Listen to what they had to say:
Every action taken and program initiated by the Atlantic province Liberal candidates and Prime Minister Trudeau will ensure that the complex fabric of our economic, social and cultural life developed over generations in the Atlantic provinces will be preserved and strengthened for the people of this region. Our efforts must maintain strong rural communities, strengthen and expand local industries, improve family farm operations, revitalize our fisheries and continue and increase social improvement within the Atlantic environment.
I could not have stated our problems in more fitting words, and having recorded them in Hansard I would remind this Liberal government that they are not to be forgotten in the weeks and months ahead. We must not forget, for example, the promise to lower income taxes for those earning less than $14,000 per year. We must not forget the promise to provide a home ownership savings plan that allows savings up to $10,000 tax free for use as a down payment on a first home. We must not forget the

October 3, 1974

promise to provide transportation links and facilities to assure adequate power supplies at the lowest possible price throughout the Atlantic provinces, or the promise to develop an across Canada oil pipeline, extending it beyond Montreal to the Atlantic provinces.
We must not forget the promises to provide special funds to assist rural industrial development; to continue the decentralization of the federal government to better serve the residents of the Atlantic provinces, providing more jobs in the process-and I hope the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) is listening. We must not forget the promise to examine regional wage policies to ensure equity for all public service employees, something that has not been done for generations in our area. We must not forget the promise to provide assistance to the shipbuilding industry, or the promise, in co-operation with the provinces, to provide a complete network of all-weather highways through the Atlantic region, connecting to major markets in central Canada and the United States.
We must not forget the promise to expand the interprovincial ferry service, with new modern ferries for Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and a replacement for the Yarmouth ferry, the Bluenose. We must not forget the promise to ensure an adequate reserve of freight rail cars for the shipment of Atlantic products and to develop three deep water ports in the Atlantic provinces. We must not forget the promise to invest $150 million over the next five years to provide better breakwaters, wharfs and haul-outs, to provide a new assistance program for vessel and gear improvement, and to implement an income stabilization plan for fishermen to ensure a reasonable average level of earnings.
We must not forget the promise to extend CMHC housing programs to rural parts of the Atlantic provinces and to provide increased financial assistance to the provinces for land assembly programs. We must not forget the promise to provide a $3 million program to promote and market agricultural products from the Atlantic provinces and to provide a special loan and grant program to assist and encourage family farm operators to modernize and improve their farm operations. These promises, and many more-and I will not burden the House by reading them all-must not be forgotten.
Neither must we forget the Prime Minister's special policy on fisheries as announced on June 21, 1974. His 17-point program covered the waterfront, from extending Canada's jurisdiction for fisheries to the edge of the continental shelf and slope to providing incentives so that fish catches are processed in Canadian plants, a program which would be very helpful today in Nova Scotia.
These are some of the solemn pledges they made. They won votes for this government, and the Prime Minister and his colleagues have had ample time to enact these promises into legislation. I, for one, Madam Speaker, as well, I am sure, as my colleagues from Atlantic Canada, intend to hold this government to its promises-promises which the Liberal party has claimed can be the salvation of an area neglected and discriminated against since confederation.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: They have already been repudiated.
The Address-Mr. Crouse


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: As my leader has said, some of them have already been repudiated because I do not believe many of the promises made by the Liberal Party as priority items were included in the Speech from the Throne. I would point out to you, Madam Speaker, that promises without performance will do nothing for our people.
During this inflationary period we have heard much about the cost of food and the impact of rising food prices on our urban society. I am very happy to be following the speech of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). When considering this matter, I believe we must be realistic. I believe we must take a long-term view of the problem. Canadians, in their own self-interest, must protect their agricultural industry and their supply of food. Obviously, consumers must pay a reasonable share of their income for food now so that our farmers can stay in business, or in a few years' time there will be even greater shortages and consumers will have to pay unrealistic prices by today's standards.
We have heard much in recent weeks about the spoilage of eggs. Canadians will not condone the mistakes made by the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency in allowing this to happen. However, this is only the tip of the iceberg and points up the need for closer supervision of our food stocks once they are produced, as well as the need for improved storage facilities. Our surplus eggs should have been made into egg powder, as they were in war time, and either stored for future use in times of scarcity or donated to the millions who are today starving in developing countries. There is absolutely no excuse for allowing food, once produced, to rot and be destroyed when we consider that right now, while I am speaking in this House, millions of people are starving throughout the world.
However, I hope that the officials of the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency have learned a lesson from their mistakes and have taken steps to make certain that they will not happen again. I say this because the world's population is increasing.
We are told that the next generation will have to produce twice as much food because the world's population is expected to double by 1980. Other expectations and demands are also doubling. But the weather is not co-operating. All the productive land is now being farmed or utilized, and the possibility is being discussed of farming the vast areas of muskeg in Northern Canada. This, of course, would require tremendous expenditures in labour and energy, and if the world's supply of food for increasing populations is to be sought from these latitudes, the cost will be so excessive that the world's standard of living must go down and down.
For every problem there is a solution and I believe that if Canada is to play its role in meeting the challenge of feeding a hungry world, then this country will have to give agricultural development the same priority in future years that it has already given industrial development.
The present government, in establishing new priorities for agriculture, must give consideration to the organization and application of our human resources. I realize that in our so-called free enterprise economy we cannot force people to work on the farm. But the fact that a majority of

October 3, 1974
The Address-Mr. Crouse
our labour force accept urban employment in preference to working on farms reveals something about our over-all attitudes, priorities and incomes. Canada, and this government, will also have to give a high priority to improving agricultural productivity through research into new agricultural technology and the provision of capital to farmers so that they can use the new technology.
All of the points I have raised, namely, the supply of arable land, the supply of farm labour, the supply of credit or capital, have become problems for Canadian agriculture, because Canadian agriculture has been at a disadvantage in competing for these resources against the financial power of consumerist, urban, industrialized Canada. Before Canada as a whole can change its priorities toward agriculture, it is necessary for urban Canada to realize that the world is facing a first-class crisis in meeting the need for food.
I do not think many Canadians realize this fact. The stark reality of massive food shortages was made evident to me in January of this year when I visited India, where thousands are dying every month because of malnutrition and a lack of food. In Canada we possess so much that we have not felt to the same degree the impact of the energy, food and other commodity problems falling on most of the world.
The potential for higher food production in Atlantic Canada, and especially in Nova Scotia, is higher than at present, but this potential can only be realized if farming is made more attractive to existing farmers and to our young people. If production is increased beyond our own needs, the surplus will always be in demand somewhere in the world, provided we have the necessary infrastructure established in our marketing and distribution system to take care of it. The ocean washes our shores and we are able to use water transport to the markets of the world. There is also the fact that we are next door to the richest consumer market on the globe.
However, for our Canadian farmer to go ahead under present circumstances and plan maximum production would be to invite financial ruin. He could easily find himself with fields of bountiful crops and no place to sell them. This has happened in the past even when demand was high. Foods must be warehoused, protected and processed, and it may be months from the time of harvest to the time of consumption, not to mention the thousands of miles in distance between the producer and consumer. The farmer as an individual cannot provide what is required in either a regular flow of machinery, seed or fertilizer. Neither can he provide the warehousing, processing and transportation facilities required. Let's face it. Due to the risk nature of his industry he cannot be expected to take all the risks when dealing with the corporate world.
I, as a free enterpriser, am generally opposed to government intervention in trade and business. As a general rule, speaking as a Progressive Conservative, I believe this is the correct position to take. However, changing world economic conditions require some changes in our thinking, and I believe there is a role that society or government can play in developing agriculture in Atlantic Canada by providing the security necessary for the industry to flourish. Our over-all market at present is too small to be a good commercial risk in many fields.
Atlantic Canada requires a machinery parts depot large enough to ensure that our farmers can get fast, efficient delivery of what they need. It also requires grain receiving and distribution depots so that supplies of grain can be delivered in sufficient quantity to guarantee a continuity of feed grains. As production is stepped up locally there would be an assured storage place for produce for later use or for sale.
There is also required a fertilizer depot, large enough to hold sufficient quantities and variations to meet demand. There is especially required cold storage and other receiving facilities, so that the food producer can go ahead and produce, knowing that when he takes off his crop it has an assured storage area.
These facilities should all be at tide water, and some of them could well be located in my constituency where we have adequate harbours in Lunenburg, Bridgewater, Liverpool and Shelburne. In fact consideration should be given to establishing these depots outside our city areas which are becoming congested. I believe the establishment of these administrative and physical facilities would encourage the maximum use of farm land in Atlantic Canada, and with world food demand as it is at present there should be little risk of loss on any public investment.
This would appear to be a job for government rather than private industry, for society as a whole can make an investment for production and take a long-term position on recovery of that investment. Industry, on the other hand, must operate on an immediate balance sheet. However, if such a program as I have outlined were adopted, I see no need for conflict with the private sector. It should be possible to work out, with private industry and the farmer, what is required so that maximum food production becomes possible in Atlantic Canada.
Another basic primary industry which is undergoing many hardships today is the fishing industry. Each month the landed number of pounds of mixed fish declines, while the cost of operating the fishing fleet, both inshore and offshore, keeps soaring higher and higher. The problems of the fishing industry received considerable attention during the recent federal election, but since July 8 we have seen very little action by the government in solving our difficulties.
We in Atlantic Canada believe that states bordering the coastal areas where most fish stocks are found must be given the right and the responsibility to manage these stocks in accordance with agreed principles, in the same manner as they already manage the mineral and living resources on the continental shelf. Freedom of fishing as it has been traditionally practised is an approach that is no longer acceptable, and it can be no longer tolerated if we are to avoid the total exhaustion of this most urgently needed resource.
I believe that coastal states must have the right to reserve for themselves that portion of the fisheries stocks under their jurisdiction which they have the capacity to harvest. Only under these conditions can we hope to conserve the world's fisheries, and only in this way can we protect the vital interests of the coastal communities that depend on this resource in Canada.


I am well aware of the position put forward by our government representatives at the recent conference on the Law of the Sea at Caracas, but despite our best efforts the conference ended without a draft treaty or agreement settling either ownership of marine resources or the width of a coastal state's jurisdiction over those fisheries resources adjacent to its own shores. I do not attach any blame to our negotiators for this situation. I am told that they worked hard. I was not there, but I am informed they worked hard and diligently in putting forward Canada's position. However, time is running out. For years, going back to 1964, I have been asking the government what it intends to do for our fishermen in Atlantic Canada. I believe we must take a firm stand. This is a view that is shared not only by me but also by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson) and by the former Minister of the Environment, the Hon. Jack Davis.
Both ministers stated prior to the July 8 election that Canada should unilaterally take control of the continental shelf off its coasts, if current Law of the Sea negotiations do not go our way. We have strong precedents for following this course. For example, in 1964 the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act unilaterally established a nine-mile fishing zone contiguous to the three-mile limit. Then in 1970 the territorial sea was unilaterally extended to 12 miles. We next established unilaterally our 100 mile limit Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act and, in my opinion, it is now opportune to implement the pledge of the Prime Minister in the July 8 election to ensure that Canadians have exclusive fishing rights within 200 miles of the Canadian shoreline. We, as Canadians, need this type of management control, not only for the conservation of our fisheries resources, but also for the protection of our deep sea fishermen.
Foreign fleets have overrun our main fishing areas, bringing disastrous losses to our deep sea operators. For example, Centennial Sea Foods Limited of Shelburne, Nova Scotia, and C.W. McLeod Fisheries Limited of Port Mouton, Nova Scotia, are now in the process of filing claims totalling more than $225,000 with the Department of External Affairs for damages inflicted by Russian trawlers to lobster traps in July of 1974. Our own Department of the Environment sent officers on an overfly in one of our aircraft to take pictures of these large lobster traps on the decks of the Russian trawlers. There can be no doubt that the Russian fleet is responsible for that, but, they have been responsible in meeting our requests for justice in the past.
What I am concerned about is why it has taken so long for the Department of External Affairs to take up this claim with the Soviet government. I have a letter here from one of the owners of a Canadian ship dated July 11. His name is Crosby McLeod. He made representations to the government, asking it to take up his complaint over his $170,000 loss. On September 19 he was informed that no formal complaint had been lodged up to that date with the Russian embassy.
When I posed a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) on the subject, he stated that representations had now been made. So they
The Address-Mr. Crouse
must only have been made since September 19, even though the loss occurred way back on July 11.


Mr. Dinsdale:: The government has been on holidays.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: This is what I was going to say next. Nothing could better exemplify the holiday spirit which has prevailed with the present government.
The delay in taking up this claim with the Soviet government by our Department of External Affairs is inexcusable and unexplainable. I ask the government, and especially the Secretary of State for External Affairs, if they are going to wait until the companies concerned go out of business due to their heavy losses before any effort is made to secure restitution from the Soviets?
I am pleased to see the new Minister of State for Fisheries (Mr. LeBlanc) in his seat and I congratulate him upon his appointment to this new portfolio.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I hope he is better treated than his predecessor.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I should like to ask him-and I am sure he will answer in due course-what steps he has taken, since receiving this appointment to the cabinet, to restore the Canadian swordfishing industry, worth at one time some $4 million annually to the fishermen of Nova Scotia alone. At present a fleet of 20 swordfishing boats is operating out of New Bedford, Massachusetts. Fishermen operating out of that port are being paid $1.70 per pound for swordfish. Obviously the warnings of the U.S. food and drug directorate about mercury in swordfish are having no effect whatsoever in Massachusetts.
I hope the minister will make it a priority project to visit Washington soon to discuss with his American counterpart the possibility of restoring this important industry, for at one time Canada exported to the United States some 25 million pounds of swordfish annually.
I also hope that the minister will give consideration to opening up the Canadian market for swordfish because there is no reason why we should let Massachusetts alone enjoy this delicacy from the sea. Many Canadians would enjoy a swordfish dinner and perhaps the minister could lend his good offices to the opening up of the Canadian market to our fishermen. It would be a great boon for the Nova Scotia fishermen.
Another serious problem faced by our fishermen is-


Mr. Speaker:: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member as he is beginning to develop a new point. However, I wish to advise him that his time has expired.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I have only a few more observations and I ask for the indulgence of the House to complete my remarks.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I thank the House through you, Mr. Speaker, for its indulgence in permitting me to complete my remarks. I can assure you I shall not be very long.
As I started out to say, another serious problem faced by fishermen in Atlantic Canada is the ICNAF regulations which are considered unrealistic and unworkable. The
102

October 3, 1974
The Address-Mr. Crouse
present allowable catch of haddock, for example, is discriminatory. It is causing Canadian fishermen to destroy as much as 85,000 pounds of haddock per trip. I could not help but think, as we heard about the loss of eggs, that that loss is minuscule when compared with the weekly loss of haddock caught on deck and thrown back into the sea as a result of the regulations that have been established under ICNAF.
While Canadian fishermen are being forced to hold the line, foreign trawlers continue to come to the banks, taking as much as 95 per cent of their catch in haddock. In fact one foreign trawler seized by the Americans under ICNAF regulations had more than 95 per cent of haddock iced in the hold. This practice is annoying our fishermen, decreasing their earnings, and destroying valuable food at a time when half the world is going to bed hungry. The system we have adopted at present is not working to the benefit of Canadians.
Not only haddock but stocks of cod, pollock, herring, flounders and silver hake are also being depleted, with the huge Russian fleet being the biggest offender when it comes to overfishing.
All these problems point out the need for some searching questions to be put. For example, are we carrying out conservation policies for the benefit of our Canadian fishermen or for the benefit of all foreign fishermen? Will we increase our surveillance fleet, as promised by the Prime Minister and, if so, can it take any action against fleets which are overfishing and destroying our fishing gear unless we unilaterally declare some form of control and some form of sovereign rights over our resources on our continental shelf?
Should we continue to spend millions of dollars annually to improve Canadian salmon runs if other countries continue to catch salmon on the high seas, thereby defeating our purpose and our efforts? Unless concrete answers to these questions are found the fishing industry in Atlantic Canada and the people dependent on it will, I am sorry to say, face a very bleak future.




Mr. Speaker:: Before we go on to the next speaker may I interrupt to complete a point of procedure. Earlier this day a motion was proposed which required the consent of the House because it had appended to it a schedule of assignments to committees and the order of estimates being referred to them. It was suggested, at the time of the presentation of that order, that it stand until later today. I understand that there is agreement that that moment should be now. If that is the case may I ask if it is agreed

now that the motion earlier moved by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) will carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Duclos for an address to His Excellency the Administrator of the Government of Canada in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, the amendment thereto of Mr. Stanfield (p. 42), and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Broadbent (p. 53).
Mr. Roy (Laval):: Mr. Speaker, first I wish to congratulate you on having been elected Speaker of the House. Your integrity, your sense of duty and your vast knowledge of legal matters led you to fill this high position which is the key one in the House, the basis of our activity. I also offer my congratulations to the Deputy Speaker and to the chairmen and deputy chairmen of the committees.
I am also pleased to praise the mover and seconder of the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. The people in each of their electoral districts were wise in choosing men of such calibre to represent them in the Canadian Parliament. While listening to the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Lee), I was moved when he said that he represented Canadians who came from Italy, Germany, Yugoslavia, the Netherlands, other countries of Europe and Asia and, of course, Great Britain. He is the first Liberal member of parliament of Chinese origin and he is proud to be in Parliament the spokesman for Canadians coming from so many places. Those people chose Canada as their land and we are proud that they did so.
Canada is a prosperous country, a country of great and varied natural resources. We enjoy an enviable prosperity and one of the highest standard of living. Canada is a country where it is good to live, where a most sophisticated social security system has been developed. Considering that more than one third of the total budget has been invested in the area of health and social welfare, and that during the last decade we have quadrupled the budget in this field, I believe that this social security system can be envied by several countries.
We have also an increasingly sophisticated education system and a climate of freedom of speech which keeps all politicians alert. We are lucky, because our country represents a great potential in all kinds of resources, because Canada is one of the rare countries which produce more foodstuffs than it needs. Because of all these considerations, we also have great responsibilities toward less favoured countries, especially since God has granted us privileges which were not due to us when two thirds of the world demand a more just society.
I was listening this afternoon to the hon. members for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche) and for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan), and I think that we all agree
October 3, 1974

that we must be more concerned about the help that we can give these countries. When I use the expression "just society", several opposition members cannot help smiling but the fact remains that the objective of implementing a just society is a continuing concern of the Liberal government. This may be the difference between the Liberal philosophy and the philosophy of the Conservative Party. To govern a country founded by two ethnic groups, a people including various races and cultures, made up of ten provinces with unequal resources and economic disparities, to strengthen an unbalanced unity and to put in spite of all this a country of 22 million inhabitants at the first rank on the world scene, is that not a difficult task?
The Canadians are well aware of it and that is why they chose to elect the team of the Liberal party, led by Mr. Pierre Elliott Trudeau, to guide that very fragile bark through ocean climates that are not always temperate. That is why the Canadian electorate expressed the wish to entrust to the Liberal party the destiny of our young country.
One needs but read the newspapers and reflect briefly on the problems other countries must face, some of which are the most highly industrialized, to realize to what extent we are privileged. I have no intention of dwelling further on this subject but on behalf of my electors, they who have elected me for a third term with the Liberal party, it is only fair that I should express those feelings and pay homage to our right hon. Prime Minister, to whom especially we owe the recent Liberal victory in Canada.
During the debate on the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, we can put before the House generalities concerning the ridings we represent. When we study specific bills, we are bound to stick to the question before the House.
I therefore take the liberty of explaining a few of the accomplishments of the riding I have the honour to represent. One of them, which I feel is responsible for the development of Ville-de-Laval, is the construction within a short distance of the city of the new international airport. The economic consequences are in fact quite extensive in respect of the postal service, considering that five new postal stations are under construction at the present time, including one which is situated within an industrial complex.
We could also talk about the full transformation of the highway system through grants.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m. this day.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Marcel-Claude Roy: Mr. Speaker, when we adjourned at six o'clock, I was pointing out just how Ville-de-Laval stands
The Address-Mr. M. Roy
to benefit from the construction of the international airport in Sainte-Scholastique, now known as the Mirable International Airport. The establishment of that airport near the second largest city in Quebec has contributed to improve considerably the road system in Laval. Thanks to a federal grant of $15 million under an investment fund program, the residents of Ville-de-Laval will not see their municipal property taxes earmarked for the construction of service roads and for a lighting system on autoroute 440 from the intersection of autoroutes 15 and 440 nor for the construction of an overpass at the crossroads of the Laval autoroute and the Laurentides Boulevard nor for the expressways and the overpasses on it. With this capital fund available from December 6, 1972 to June 30, 1975, Laval taxpayers will not have to pay $15 million. This might not bring a reduction in property taxes in Laval, but it will help prevent any further increase in years to come, because I do not think those funds were a foreseeable item in the municipal budget.
I would also like to talk about the considerable increase in federal services in Laval: a Manpower Centre has been built, an unemployment insurance office has been established, and in a near future there should be a Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation office to serve the people of Laval.
After talking of the considerable help of the federal government in the construction of the road system, I do not want to forget its help in the construction of highway 13 between Dorval airport and Mirabel. This grant is about $30 million, not to mention $70 million loan from the Bank of Canada at a preferential interest rate. Therefore, we see the importance the federal government attaches to the development of a road system that will link, as I have said, the two airports. But the great disappointment about this project, as I pointed out to the Laval residents, is the decision taken by the province to install toll stations on this highway which has already greatly benefitted from the federal government financial assistance. I strongly opposed such toll stations and I suggested the construction of an access and exit lane in order that the residents do not have to pay an additional tax for the use of this highway which is the only solution to the road traffic problem in the western part of Ville-de-Laval.
This being said, I now come to the content of the Speech from the Throne, in particular to the transport chapter where it says that a program will be developed in cooperation with the railways which will lead to the eventual creation of new government machinery to ensure the effective management of all ground transport. Moreover, immediate implementation of experimental programs designed to upgrade progressively a number of intercity passenger train services will be undertaken.
Other measures, compatible with regional and provincial plans for urban development will be taken in order to strengthen the effectiveness of urban transportation systems and improve commuting services.
That part of the Speech from the Throne and the speech delivered today by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mar-chand) were of particular interest to me as a member of one of the two federal constituencies representing in this House the second largest city in the province of Quebec. Indeed, Ville-de-Laval has more than 240,000 people and is situated on Jesus Island, north of the metropolis.
28305 -8Va

October 3, 1974
The Address-Mr. M. Roy
I think I should avail myself of this opportunity to state the main problem of my constituency, a problem that restricts the development of our city which is nevertheless experiencing rather remarkable development and, as I said, that is in part due to the economic results of building Mirabel, the international airport. That problem is common to all Canadian cities. I believe that from Vancouver to Halifax, in all cities in the process of development, there exists a common problem, that of public transport. This problem being a common one, I believe it can be solved only with the cooperation of higher governments, because it is impossible, considering the municipal tax basis, to finance public transports and provide for their maintenance. I believe that in the light of present experiences, and whatever may be the municipality, having read all those statements and reports, we find a 50 per cent deficit in the operation of a public transport system.
To the north of Montreal, we have already laid down the basic elements of a solution, namely the TRRAMM report, the object of which is to study the means of transportation between Montreal and Mirabel. The cost of that study was shared by the Federal government and the province of Quebec and the report was tabled last February.
The report mentioned two ways of establishing such a service between Montreal and Mirabel, namely the use of the CP railroad through Laval-des-Rapides and Sainte-Therese, through the industrial centre of Laval and Sainte-Therese, thence Mirabel. The other alternative was to use the CNR line via Cote Vertu, Roxboro and Laval Ouest, without serving at all the western part of Ville-de-Laval, to head finally towards Saint-Eustache and Mirabel.
In view of the importance of economic and industrial development, while encouraging housing construction, we must decide to go ahead with this project which provides for the use of the CPR line through Laval-des-Rapides.
I have already made the regional authorities aware of this on March 28 last. This application reflects the opinion of the Ville-de-Laval authorities as well as those of my colleagues in the nearby riding of Duvernay, and those in Laval North.
Moreover, last Wednesday, during a weekly dinner, I explained these alternatives to the Laval Board of Trade, that is, the possibility of using either the CNR or the CPR line. The CNR line was the unanimous choice. Therefore, we shall follow very closely the progress of this project, which is an important stage in the development of Ville-de-Laval.
Still on the subject of public transportation, which is the main problem of the constituency I represent, and also one of the main problems of our expanding municipalities, may I suggest to the Minister of Transport that he study the possibility of extending the CNR's electric train line to the Cartierville Station in the centre of Ville-de-Laval, so as to join the centre of Canada's metropolis to the centre of Ville-de-Laval. During the last metro strike in Montreal, the only public transportation system in the northwest end of Montreal was this CNR electric train which, unfortunately, stops in Cartierville.
This suggestion was made over and over again during the last election campaign and I think that this extension

of the electric train from Cartierville to the centre of Ville-de-Laval, where there is now a vacant parking lot, is the most economical solution to public transportation north of Montreal and for Ville-de-Laval, especially when considering the possibility of extending the metro to Ville-de-Laval. It would seem to me that this "extension outlet" of the electric train on to a piece of property where expropriation costs would be at their minimum would constitute the most economical solution to the transportation problem. This train is now in operation and carries more than 20,000 passengers a day. I was glad to hear the Minister of Transport, the first time, when he mentioned that we have much to do in the public transportation field.
If we consider this train, which is very popular in the west end of Montreal, I believe that improving it has unfortunately been far too often neglected. I think that this is a philosophy which should be subject to further discussions or thinking. We are building expressways every here and there. There is one that goes through the town of Montreal. We have invested huge sums of money to build these expressways. We are even cutting the grass on private properties for esthetic purposes, while we are neglecting to invest in the public transportation field. So, that suggestion seems to me to be the real solution. It would offer the following advantages: it would relieve the congestion on bridges, in the streets and in parking lots in downtown Montreal, allow gas savings and especially savings in parking costs, reduce pollution and nervous tension for those who use public transports to get to work and come back home. As for Ville-de-Laval, that project would encourage the construction of residential buildings near the planned station.
I therefore make that humble suggestion: why not look into the possibilities of such an extension. Without claiming to be an expert in the matter, I feel that it should be looked into.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words about our housing policy. To my mind, it is a comprehensive program for the development of municipalities. There is no doubt that it encourages home ownership, that it strive to help low- and average-income families with one or more dependents to buy and live in their own homes. So the help supplied is based on the cost of houses and the current payments within the region; it must not exceed 22 per cent of the income.
In my opinion, this policy is quite popular but the prospective buyers are not sufficiently aware of it. In the last three years we have noted a surplus of 100,000 housing units. I happen to have the figures in hand and I notice that we have built over 236,000 last year, that is 100,000 over the normal demand. These units certainly represent a great step toward solving the housing problem and helping low-income families.
To conclude, I am happy that the right hon. Prime Minister intends to reform House procedures during the current session. Looking over the list of the 70 pieces of legislation mentioned in our already lengthy file, I think that in a modern country it is quite natural to have more modern laws in the Canadian Parliament.
October 3, 1974

In my opinion, when the federal government will have to consider customs, transportation or canals, we will have a heavy load of work and legislation to pass in Parliament.
I think that a complete review of the parliamentary procedure will certainly be welcomed.


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to begin my address by congratulating you on your appointment. I have sensed in you, Sir, an amiable spirit and a genuine desire to be impartial in the regulation of the affairs of this House.
As the newly elected member for Surrey-White Rock I cannot help but compare the issues that face the people of Surrey-White Rock with those that face the people of Canada as a whole. Surrey-White Rock is a cosmopolitan riding and, in many ways, a cross-section of all Canada. We in my riding face the difficult consequences of urban sprawl.
Immigration policies and people moving out of metropolitan Vancouver have created a housing problem in Surrey-White Rock that is not acute-it is desperate! With a 1 per cent vacancy rate in spite of astronomical housing costs, the local governments have inherited a problem which is not their creation.
It gives me small comfort to see that the Speech from the Throne states there will be government help. I remember all too well the campaign promise describing the help as $32,000 for a minimum priced home. In Surrey-White Rock that would only pay for the lot.
There is also the concomitant transportation problem. There is a crying need for a public rapid transit system to move people, together with greater development of rail and highway facilities to move goods. There are farmers in my riding whose production is vital to the metropolitan area of Vancouver. Each year when these farmers are ready to harvest their crops they are inundated with an oversupply of goods from California. If the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) really wants to help the income level of the farmers, that is one area where he might help.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Benno Friesen: Surrey also contains very modern port facilities, built by the National Harbours Board. These will provide tax revenue for the area but as yet they provide no direct tax base in themselves-the only revenue is that derived from the wage-earners working on these port installations. White Rock and South Surrey each have beautiful recreational beaches, but these face the threat of oil spills and other forms of pollution. The Fraser River borders the northern part of the riding and is the source of the salmon fishing industry. All these resources have attracted many kinds of heavy and light industry to Surrey-White Rock, and we welcome them.
Finally, Surrey-White Rock is the home of many senior citizens. They have found the area a desirable place in which to live but now they are desperately trying to cling to their savings, their security and their self-respect. All these problems will find a solution if we have a govern-
The Address-Mr. Friesen
ment which sees itself as the government of all the people of Canada.
I must confess that my heart skipped a beat yesterday when I heard the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) say the government could not afford to "pay mock heed to the opposition". As is quite evident, the people of my riding have for the past 12 years not chosen to elect a representative of the party opposite. Thus, I am not a little encouraged to believe that the government will view the needs of my riding with the same degree of sensitivity as it does those represented by government members.
The Prime Minister then went on to speak of reform, emphasizing the need for greater efficiency in government. I would say to the Prime Minister and to other members of the government that the ultimate goal of parliamentary democracy is not efficiency-we have just experienced five months of that kind of efficiency. The ultimate goal of parliamentary democracy is representation and service. This representation is based upon human relationships, and when we work with human relationships we had better be careful about how much efficiency we introduce. I might add that if the Prime Minister is really anxious to bring greater efficiency to the House he might instruct his ministers to answer opposition questions in the most concrete terms rather than by making those terribly inefficient statements such as "My department is well aware of the problem and is looking into it."
Certainly, I am not at all worried that the government will, as the Prime Minister suggested, go fishing after it has crossed the Rubicon. It is not even interested in protecting the fishermen of the west coast or of the east coast, as a matter of fact. What worries me is that after government members have crossed the Rubicon and got to Rome they will not know what to do. It seems to me that disarray, the social, economic and political problems, which faced the people of Rome in those days find a striking parallel in our own country today. I might add there are other parallels in that metaphor which one had better leave alone.
The Prime Minister made several references to the mother of parliaments. It was that parliament, 100 years ago, which had in its ranks an outstanding Liberal member in the person of John Stuart Mill. Mill was a practising non-conformist in the best sense of the word. All his life he fought a personal battle to preserve the dignity of his individuality. All his life he saw himself perpetually in a minority situation, threatened, as he said, by the "despotism of custom".
In the context of the pressures to conform placed on him by the majority, Mr. Mill coined a phrase which is highly relevant to this House today. He spoke of "the tyranny of the majority"-not the kind of tyranny which issues from rule by dictatorship but rather the kind of tyranny which has confused the will of the majority with an acquiescent acceptance of the rightness of majority opinion. It is for this reason that I take comfort, as I said, in the Prime Minister's assurance yesterday that the government cannot afford to take lightly the views of minorities.
When I speak of minorities I realize that we immediately relate the term either to minority political groups or to minority ethnic groups. And, Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out that I have had some experience in both, especially the

October 3, 1974
The Address-Mr. Friesen
latter. Having grown up in a minority ethnic group I have come to appreciate the richness of the cultural, moral and spiritual heritage that is mine as a member of that group. Nevertheless, I recognize the fact that these groups are easily overlooked by the masses. I am sure members of other groups can give similar testimony. However, it is not to the needs of these minority groups that I wish to address myself. It is, rather, to the needs of minority groups which cut across political and ethnic boundaries and which are all too easily the victims of the indifference and tyranny of the majority.
I speak on behalf of the senior citizens of our country, those who have contributed so much to the greatness of Canada, and who now all too often have to depend upon the capricious gratuity of big government. What kind of bargaining rights do they enjoy? There is no Perry Report guaranteeing them a 60 per cent or even a 40 per cent increase. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that today it does not pay to be a member of that minority group.
There is another minority group with no bargaining rights. I speak of the thousands of Canadians who are victims of incurable and crippling disease. Thousands of dollars have been spent each year on Canada Council grants to fund the most inconceivably esoteric projects possible. And all the while medical research projects go begging. When was the last time there was a demonstration on the steps of parliament by people suffering from MS, or muscular dystrophy or diabetes or who were on dialysis machines? These people, Mr. Speaker, are not the kind who demonstrate; they just suffer. They form a group, made up in every sense of the word, from victims of the "tyranny of the majority".
And there are the hundreds of small groups of workers, non-unionized, who work for a minimum wage, who have no bargaining rights and whose minimum wages are also being eaten up by inflation.
It is easy enough for any party having a majority to confuse power with greatness, but the greatness of which I speak is not simply the power to overcome the opposition and the ability to flex political muscle.
The greatness of which I speak is the kind which is strong enough to allow one not to be afraid to display his own humanity. It is the kind of greatness which allows one to realize and accept his own limitations. It is that kind of greatness which, realizing his strength, allows one to accept the risk of admitting mistakes once in a while. It is the kind of greatness that allows one to see that the admission of a mistake is not necessarily the sign of weakness but, in the truest sense of humility, a display of one of the qualities of strength.
I recognize that the Minister of Agriculture admitted this afternoon that perhaps he made a mistake; I suggest to you that he was not admitting a mistake but rather admitting to a peccadillo, a little error. If he admitted to a mistake that would lead to openness and an opportunity for everyone to examine the situation. As yet there has been no evidence that this kind of openness is going to exist.
As I flip through the pages of history I see two kinds of great leaders who are remembered to this day. There are

the Alexanders, the Caesars and the Napoleons. Then there is Abraham Lincoln, Mr. Ghandi and Sir Wilfrid Laurier. The former inflame the mind and the latter inspire the heart. The former had super efficiency while the latter had heart and humanity. There is the centre of that great biblical paradox, "for when I am weak, then I am strong".
If it is the goal of the government simply to cling to power only because it feels a majority is right, I am sure it can summon from a large store of political dexterity enough gimmicks to satisfy even its least disciplined backbenchers and remain in office a full term. But if its goal is to aspire to greatness then its motives must transcend the goals of immediate expediencies. Rather, it must begin by admitting to its own limitations. It must touch base with its own humanity. It must do more than sympathize, it must empathize. It must learn to feel. It is still a fact that you should not get so worked up over your own cause that you forget your humanity and consequent imperfection.
Yesterday the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), in commending the two freshmen government members who moved and seconded the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, said of them that they:
-certainly represent that new generation of Canadians who expect of Canada and its government actions that are truly worthy of the people.
I agree with the Prime Minister. Together with many other Canadians I just hope they do not have to wait too long.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for letting me take part at this time in the debate on the Address in reply to the Speech fron the Throne.
First I wish to congratulate you, on behalf of my colleagues of the Social Credit Party of Canada, for your nomination, as you have been chosen to chair the very important business taking place in the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker, our congratulations are heart-felt and we assure you of our co-operation so that our business reflects the opinions of our fellow citizens and that it be effective. For these reasons, we had a warm welcome for your promises. We hope that yours will be more than promises, unlike those of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) when he stated his intention to modernize procedure in the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker, for many years our party has been calling for a speeding-up of the dispatch of business, for a reform of the antiquated and obsolete British procedure, through common agreement, without any partisanship, so that the Canadian Parliament would evolve into a true reflection of our society of 1974 and of the society of the future, providing for better planning and greater effectiveness.
Mr. Speaker, without prejudice to the excellent work performed by the former President of the Privy Council, the present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen), I gladly note that the new incumbent seems to work in close co-operation with other House leaders, not on a daily but on a planned basis. Thus he allowed us, for example, this afternoon, to pass a measure which will
October 3, 1974

only be enforced when the supplementary estimates will be under consideration at the end of October.
Mr. Speaker, this allows us to get ready and be more efficient in the House and perhaps say fewer platitudes and make more serious comments which are right to the point. Consequently, the public who hear us or read Hansard will not be under the impression that our proceedings are long, tedious and fruitless.
My colleagues and myself of the Social Credit Party of Canada who have been elected here have adopted a realistic attitude. We are sitting here to do some inquiries and solve problems. We will work in a spirit of cooperation, but we will not necessarily bless everything the government will do nor everything the opposition will say. Mr. Speaker, as you know by your experience in the Chair, Whigs and Tories have been returning the ball to one another for a century. But the Social Crediters have in this House the reputation of fighting for particular problems of a social or economic nature, and of making suggestions often termed as idiotic but which are adopted afterwards. It sometimes takes several elections before traditional parties promise what we have been asking for. What is important, though, is not that we should be the ones carrying out our suggestions, or the Whigs, or the Tories, but that they should be implemented at last.
My colleague from Abitibi (Mr. Laprise) has proposed repeatedly, ever since he came to this House, as hon. members on this side remember, that the old age security pension be granted to any person whose spouse is 60 years old. This is a motion he presented year in and year out, and he valiantly upheld his cause in each and every session.
At the very start, our colleagues on both sides of the House were not even listening to his proposal. Then, they lent a distant ear, then two, and finally a promise was made to act just before the election, and all of a sudden the Spirit came down from heaven and fell on the seat of the right hon. Prime Minister. There is an announcement in the Speech from the Throne that it will be done in October 1975.
Well, Mr. Speaker, it was in a positive spirit that yesterday during the question period we asked of the right hon. Prime Minister that that promise not be implemented in October 1975 but well before that since the government holds a majority and the power. That is what he wanted since people put their faith in him following the promise he made. In fact, he was already assured of the co-operation of all three opposition parties to support and quickly pass that measure which is absolutely vital if we are to put the economy back on its feet again in certain areas of our society, particularly in the case of those who have reached the critical age of 60.
Mr. Speaker, the papers will say this is a Liberal accomplishment. We do not mind. The Tories will say this is a government accomplishment. We are glad about it because we know for a fact deep inside that had it not been for a little member for Abitibi, had it not been for his perseverance, his honest tenacity, that proposal might never have seen the light in this House.
That is the example, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to give at the very beginning of my speech to show our colleagues,
The Address-Mr. Fortin
particularly the newly arrived-whom we welcome wholeheartedly-that our work, that the meaning of our presence here is precisely that-not to claim the credit for accomplishments beyond our control but at least repeat in this House what our fellow citizens ask of us, to give a different bell ring, and God knows how many different bell rings there are in society, so that in the final analysis the legislation passed here during a session reflects a true picture of us and give results.
Mr. Speaker, we shall work as a team to do something like the hon. member for Abitibi has done in this matter. This is the meaning of our work here. We shall not work with a partisan spirit. The Chair as well as the Cabinet and the other parties of this House can be assured that we shall respect this position.
Mr. Speaker, the federal election of last July 8 marks an unhappy date. We continue to think so because of the unfortunate strategy of the Progressive Conservatives which caused an election and which punished those who had provoked it, since the New Democratic Party has much fewer members then before. This proves that the population wants us to work in the House and not play politics. This is a lesson, maybe the only one, that can be drawn from the last election. Our fellow citizens want us to work and to legislate in the common interest.
For this election, Mr. Speaker, some people wanted again to do away with the Social Credit Party. It was once again predicted that this party would disappear because our opponents knew about our lack of financial and other means. Yet we may be even stronger than before, strenghtened and enriched by a great experience, that of having fought against gigantic machines with makeshift means. And God knows that having elections in Quebec is no holiday. Yet we went through this period.
Since my return to this House, I have heard about the famous problem of official regognition for the Social Credit Party. Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of those who may still be in doubt, I believe that there is a rule which should be present in the mind of everyone, to the effect that the House of Commons must accept the popular verdict without any hesitation. It the population has decided to send 11 members to Parliament under a certain label, it is not up to the House to decide whether or not to accept this verdict, since in our system, an election is the supreme decision. This is why, Mr. Speaker, we shall demand that this principale be respected even though at the present time the whole matter seems to be settled, and for that I wish to thank my colleagues of all parties. I hope that this principle which has now been established will continue to be accepted on both sides of this House, with a friendly attitude.
Mr. Speaker, I would like at this point to come back to the Speech from the Throne-


Mr. Pelletier (Sherbrooke):: It's unique!


André-Gilles Fortin: It is unique, as stated by my colleague from Sherbrooke (Mr. Pelletier), who won brilliantly no doubt because he did a good job in his constituency with his "office work". I know all about it. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the example set by the hon. member for Sherbrooke may influence other Liberal members around me, who do not do any "office work" in their constituencies, so I can

October 3, 1974
The Address-Mr. Fortin
deal with my own rather than caring for the four surrounding constituencies. So I wish a lot of courage to my colleague from Sherbrooke, in order that he may convince his colleagues from surrounding constituencies.
Mr. Speaker, a sentence especially struck me in the Speech from the Throne: "It is necessary both to deal with its (inflation) causes and to mitigate its effects".
That's a sentence we heard here before in 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972 and 1973. And now we hear it again: deal with the causes, mitigate the effects. Liberals are very consistent. That is, they often repeat what they would like to do. But when it comes to inflation, Mr. Speaker, the government is always at a loss to come up with a real remedy.
On the one hand, he tells us, production must be increased. That is obvious. There is a commodity shortage in many areas, and the shortage results in higher prices, and higher prices result in an economic imbalance for the consumer. I will give but one example. I will not try to discover obvious truths, as the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) said this afternoon, that he could not keep a hen from laying eggs when the rooster is well fed. Only he could invent such a theory. But, Mr. Speaker, I would remind this same minister, however brilliant-


Albert Béchard: Roosters were needed.


André-Gilles Fortin: Roosters were needed, particularly in Bona-venture-iles-de-la-Madeleine. Mr. Speaker, I will recall for him something that happened in my riding along the south shore of the St. Lawrence River. I was coming back from my office in Sainte-Croix and I stopped in Saint-Pierre-les-Becquets which is, as everybody knows, a tomato kingdom. There you find little stands along the road, and the garden is in the back. The tomatoes are freshly picked from the garden and put in those little stands. I stopped and asked my fellow citizen to sell me a basket of tomatoes. He was asking $1.25 for the biggest one. There were actually 21 tomatoes in that basket. So that cost me $1.25. He was satisfied, he had found an opportunity to work and profit. He was satisfied and happy with his sale and his work.
Two weeks later, my wife went to the Dominion Store to buy some of those famous tomatoes. The store was asking $1.23 for seven small tomatoes wrapped in a cellophane stamped "Dominion". That was two weeks later, Mr. Speaker. Then we are told that the inflation problem cannot be solved. It was not because that tomato grower had no guts, it was not because he did not have a good product to sell. For that matter, Mr. Speaker, it is not because consumers do not have needs to meet.
If there is a problem of increase in the cost of living, that is in our opinion due for a large part-and I say this though I am an eager defender of private enterprise-to businesses that monopolize increasingly the market, that accumulate stores and then, by creating shortages, increase their prices and thus exploit the consumer to the knowledge of the government. There are many reasons for which I cannot accept this, Mr. Speaker, that those large companies should exploit the situation creating shortages, and exploiting the consumer through exorbitant prices.
Those large companies, which are called private, harm the small businesses. In a few years they will encourage the socialization of private enterprise; this has indeed begun. Yet, the small businesses are not responsible for that abuse; the large ones are which take advantage of their financial power to take over the market in a given sector, such as that of food products.
This also applies to supplies of lumber, building materials, anti-freeze, milk, bread, nearly all commodities, especially perishables, those products which cannot be renewed, which are wasted. Mr. Speaker, a mother of a family in Victoriaville, Sainte-Croix, Dosquet, Deschail-lons or Parisville or in any other constituency-


Mr. Francis:: Or in Ottawa-Carleton.


André-Gilles Fortin: -or in Ottawa-Carleton, who goes to a store with the $100 weekly pay of her husband in order to get some food finds that her husband's money which has been painfully earned brings nearly nothing on the table.
The wage earner and his wife are victims of conditions beyond their control which they are in no position to alter, because this government, as the previous ones, has always encouraged agricultural and commercial measures setting a ceiling on production. For example, in the dairy industry, we have known and are still aware of a ceiling set on production more commonly known under the name of quota policy. The application of such a policy has been so ridiculous that our quotas have been set at low levels which farmers could easily reach by toiling and moiling. They could also often exceed them.
According to our genial Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and his predecessor, not only the farmer's production was not paid nor encouraged, but he was penalized and compelled to pay a fine if he had worked or produced too much. Now our government in the Speech from the Throne suggests that we should fight the causes of inflation and lessen its effects by increasing production.
Mr. Speaker, we are going through a period of inflation, independently of international influences. This inflation was brought on in a great measure by ourselves, through lack of foresight and planning.
I see some of my colleagues shaking their heads. I would invite them to go and visit farms in the province of Quebec, in the eastern part of the country and in some parts of Ontario, they would see entire ranges that have been abandoned while some of them had been productive for two, three or four generations. Today, such a farm is not profitable because the farmer does not reap a fair return proportionate to the amount of work he puts into it.
Mr. Speaker, I recall a meeting held in Drummondville which was attended by the hon. member for Richelieu (Mr. Cote), the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Roy) a former minister, I have lost track of him-because with Mr. Trudeau, things change rather quickly-the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet). During this meeting, the farmers were asking for understanding, demanding a dairy policy that would enable them to survive. My colleagues remember that. What was the minis-

October 3, 1974

ter's position? He said: I promise you I shall faithfully voice your grievances and just claims within the Cabinet.
Mr. Speaker, this will not prevent the prices consumers have to pay for milk to increase either tomorrow or the day after. This will bring hardly anything more to dairy producers, and some people will once more take advantage of the situation.
I say that the government must do more than keep an eye on rising prices. I have with me a report on the prices of dairy products which was tabled by the Food Prices Review Board on March 20, 1974. What happened to this report? It was placed on shelves to collect dust.
We are told to increase production. All of us have received, in both official languages, a report from the Department of Labour, dated October 1, which provides statistics on strikes and lock-outs for the sole month of July 1974. How does it read? If it is thought production should be increased, let us encourage workers to work and follow the same logic as the Minister of Agriculture. In order to do this, we will have to pay them reasonable wages. Why do we have strikes and lock-outs now? Because workers, who have no other choice, demand that their wages be adjusted to the cost of living and break their collective agreement. There are conflicts in my riding, in the Princeville slaughter house, for example; there was a lock-out because employees wanted a cost of living adjustment. In some other place, there were also problems of cost of living adjustment.
There have been such events in Montreal too, much to the prejudice of the common good. Elderly persons had to walk, and the common good has been completely overlooked. And why is this? Because workers demanded that their wages be adjusted to the cost of living.
Some people would put the blame on the workers, others on the government of Quebec. However, Mr. Speaker, the citizens of Montreal and the area have been through this situation, because everyone wants a higher salary to "run after" prices which "run" faster than income, like a dog after his tail. Absolutely nothing comes out of it. It is completely useless.
The Minister of Agriculture spoke of the eggs. Did he have them destroyed, did he call for the destruction of these eggs? Is it because of a glut of eggs on the market or because these eggs were not up to market prices?
They were destroyed, rather than provide a compensated discount to encourage the consumption of this product. This destruction is truly a national shame, similar to such other wartime actions, like throwing butter in the St. Lawrence, and other foods.
Mr. Speaker, I come back to the subject of production. An October 1 release from the Department of Labour says, and I quote:
In July 1974, there were 236 work stoppages affecting 105,213 workers. In June, there was a total of 227 work stoppages involving 218,367 workers and last July, 137 work stoppages concerning 74,509 workers.
In July this year, 39 work stoppages involved 500 workers or more, compared with 31 in June.
Of those 39 work stoppages, 25 occurred in manufacturings-
-as in Victoriaville, where the main industries are furniture and textile manufacturing, two prosperous industries whose high quality products are in demand but where
The Address-Mr. Fortin
wages are not so good compared with the provincial average.
Mr. Speaker, the workers cannot make ends meet and keep up with the cost of living. What is being done? Absolutely nothing except talks about the need to deal with the causes and mitigate its effects.
Mr. Speaker, I sincerely hope that the field of labour in Canada will be studied during this session thanks to the initiative of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro). We should find new ways of negotiating, new ways to see that collective agreements are respected and to ensure more justice and a greater share for the working force in a concern's profits. We should allow labour to participate in the planning and growth of businesses.
Mr. Speaker, we must show imagination if we want to increase our production, if there is really a lack of production on our part. When it is realized that there are 39 work stoppages involving more than 500 workers, they themselves involving more than another 500 workers, that means, Mr. Speaker, that we are facing an extremely serious situation.
In the Speech from the Throne, it is mentioned that the social fabric of some countries is crumbling because of pressure on the part of the workers. Mr. Speaker, Canada's social structure may not be crumbling but its citizens are bending under the burden of the increasing cost of living.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to discuss another extremely important point. But first I would like to summarize my comments on the Speech from the Throne, as I do not want to prolong our work uselessly. It is important to say what must be said and then put an end to it. I think that the problem I have raised is extremely important and I hope that the Minister of Agriculture will stop playing the game of chicken, egg and rooster and that he will really take the situation in hand, tell the truth in this House, clarify his position and give us an intelligent production policy.
I hope the government will realize that production will not be promoted by discouraging workers. I hope the government will realize also that sound consumption and sound distribution of riches cannot be ensured by taxing and overtaxing small taxpayers.
Mr. Speaker, the hazy Social Credit philosophy, as our colleagues opposite would say, reveals itself today as a philosophy that can really meet the needs of our modern society, since Social Credit is essentially a policy for a just distribution of riches to all consumers, without endangering private enterprise in any way. We are the happy medium of a modern solution and I sincerely hope that during the next sittings, we will have the opportunity of convincing more and more our fellow citizens as regards such positive solutions.
Before resuming my seat, I should like to point out to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Drury) something that is related to the constituencies of Lotbiniere, Richelieu, Trois-Rivieres-Metropolitain,	Portneuf, Champlain,
Kamouraska and all constituencies along the St. Lawrence river whether it be the left or the right bank, to the north or to the south. We must all face the same problem, namely erosion on the banks of the St. Lawrence. Under

The Address-Mr. Kaplan
an old law, the federal government cannot do anything if the boats sail at more than 3,000 feet from the bank.
Mr. Speaker, when that legislation was passed, boats were not going as fast as they are now, especially where the river is narrow. Moreover, the tonnage is not the same today as it was 10 or 20 years ago so that in the Lotbiniere area, from Saint-Pierre-les-Becquets to Saint-Antoine-de-Tilly, the damages are tremendous. Petitions were signed in all municipalities without exception, resolutions were passed by all municipal councils calling for some financial aid from the federal government for repairing existing wharfs or retaining walls, in order to build new wharves if necessary after having amended that famous legislation. Mr. Speaker, I know that the member for Richelieu (Mr. Cote) is aware of that problem since he has made some statements to that effect during the election campaign. I am convinced that all the members of the House whose constituency is situated on the shores of the St. Lawrence have the same problem as in the Lotbiniere constituency.
I urge my colleague to set an example for our fellow citizens and stick together whatever is our political allegiance to convince the minister to review completely that part of the legislation and grant financial assistance either to the municipalities, to the riverside companies or the riparian residents themselves, in order to solve that extremely serious problem. The river is a source of wealth and river transportation is an opportunity for us to trade with other countries. The St. Lawrence River is the greatest island sea in the world but it has become the nightmare of our fellow-citizens, for all those who live on its shores. Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to hear the comments of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) on the matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret I have to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired.


Mr. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, first of all 1 would like to congratulate all those who have been elected to preside over our debates. I am confident that the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Jerome) has been appointed to his high position with the unanimous consent of the House because of his personal qualities; I congratulate him and assure him of my support.
I also want to congratulate the hon. members for Beau-harnois-Salaberry (Mr. Laniel), Thunder Bay (Mr. Penner) and Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Morin) and I wish them the best of success in the tasks to which they were elected.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate and to welcome in this House the hon. members for Montmorency (Mr. Duclos) and Vancouver East (Mr. Lee), two hon. members who have already demonstrated that they are formidable speakers.

York Centre constituency, Mr. Speaker, has sent me back to parliament after a two year absence, helping to create a strong Liberal majority.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: As I am on my feet for the first time in this session I want to thank all those who encouraged me to stay in politics, to run in York Centre, and who worked to win this seat for me and for my party. I am following here in the footsteps of Jimmy Walker who retired from this House after 12 years of devoted service to York Centre. I want to thank him for his years of hard work in his riding, work which I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, stood me in good stead when he committed his support to me. Jimmy Walker is a credit to this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: York Centre voted Liberal because York Centre people expect that a Liberal government will serve them. I see it as my job for the next four years to make sure, in so far as I can, that it will.
In the Speech from the Throne the government has made a good start. The world is suffering from inflation and from recession, and although Canada is suffering less than other countries from both these problems, my constituents and I myself would identify them as the most serious problems we face in Canada today. The Speech from the Throne addressed both these problems.
I was relieved to see that the government specifically will not follow the traditional approach to fighting inflation, the traditional approach which includes raising taxes across the board, reducing the money supply and cutting back on government programs. I was afraid that the government would follow the lead of the United States where the conservative government of the former president, Mr. Nixon, a few years ago began cutting back government programs. It reduced government involvement by cutting back things like the Great Lakes cleanup and important social and health schemes. These policies, begun by President Nixon will, it seems, be continued by his successor, President Ford.
Here in Canada there are some taxes which should be increased and I am going to refer to them in a moment, and there are a few programs which should be cut back and I should like to refer to them too. By and large, however, York Centre people want good programs to be expanded, and in the Speech from the Throne we see that this will be done. There will be more help for housing; there will be subsidies and supports for farmers to keep the supply of food improving and increasing; there will be higher pensions, especially for veterans and retired civil servants and there will be-and I particularly welcome this-a new entitlement of spouses of senior citizens at the age of 60 to draw old age pensions.
The means test, as applied to entitlement for Canada Pension Plan payments, for those between the ages of 65 and 70 is to be removed. I hope, although the Speech from the Throne did not say this, that these measures will be made retroactive to the date of the last budget, and that all the pensions I referred to will be increased, effective as of that date. I say this because in the election campaign the Canadian people showed strongly that they wanted the increased benefits which were proposed by the government. So I hope that when these programs are introduced, they will be made retroactive.
October 3, 1974

I have described a number of programs which will cost money. We, in York Centre, will not complain if such programs are expanded. We are willing to pay for them.
Those who attack government spending usually focus on government bureaucracy and government waste. I remind members that it is not only the opposition which is responsible for worrying about government waste. Waste, wherever it occurs in misdirected government planning, is the responsibility of every member of this House. We all represent taxpayers and we all must worry about these things.
But it often happens that those who complain about government waste and alleged government extravagance are really attacking the redistributive function of government. They are against the idea of the government being committed to redistributing a larger part of the Gross National Product to those who need help. That is a responsibility this government recognizes. The amounts spent on bureaucracy are a small proportion of total government spending. Naturally, we must watch waste, but we cannot cut back, particularly not at this time when one of our main worries is the problem of a possible recession.
Government cut-backs never encourage the business community to expand. The government cannot ward off a recession by cutting back on spending. Business is stimulated by valid confidence on the part of the government. A confident government will produce confidence in the business community, which will confidently produce goods knowing they can be bought and provide services, new homes and jobs.
Let me now turn to the problem of inflation. The Speech from the Throne outlines a variety of important programs which will help the needy to catch up with the rest of society. A number of programs are aimed at increasing supply. Hopefully, when the budget is introduced the government will bring back the proposed excess profits tax.
Here I want to focus on an important piece of legislation promised by the government, the bill dealing with unjustified price increases.
Unjustified price increases are not always easy to identify. Statistics can be misleading. One hears of a business or an industry's profits increasing by 300 per cent. Sometimes one may find that the profit in the preceding period, the base year, may have been the equivalent, say, of 1 per cent on invested capital. In that case 300 per cent increase over the base period may be justified. The consumer must face the fact that business faces rising costs, just as he does.
Yet I honestly believe that, although some increases are justified, some increases in our economy are unjustified. They happen in sectors of our economy where the market system is not working properly, where goods are in short supply. Let me refer to the steel industry.
About two years ago the steel industry committed itself to almost doubling production in Ontario alone. That showed great confidence in the future of Canada. It also showed that at the then current price levels the steel industry felt justified in expanding. At present, as steel is in very short supply, great price increases in steel have taken place, and not only at this primary level. I submit
The Address-Mr. Kaplan
that very great profits are being earned, profits which are not justified because the industry had already responded to the incentive to expand. It had already made its decision to expand. So, it has been taking advantage of the situation in which industries, other consumers, are in desperate need of steel. They are in the hands of the steel industry.
I urge the government to bring forward rapidly legislation for dealing with unjustified price increases. After that legislation has been passed I urge that it be enforced vigorously. If it is enforced vigorously it will affect not only the specific prices it is addressed to. Knowing the new power of the government, other businesses and industries will tend to act with restraint, especially in areas of the economy where the market mechanism is not working properly.
Let me turn next to the problem of housing. Housing costs have become the most serious single item facing the people of my constituency and, indeed, of metropolitan Toronto. The retired couple living on a fixed income takes small comfort from a pension which increases by 11 per cent, 12 per cent, or by whatever high figure the cost of living increases, if, in that same period, their rent goes up by 30 or 40 per cent. A pension geared to cost of living increases means little to people in that situation. I welcome the appointment of a new minister responsible in the field of housing. I welcome his vigour and his determination to cope with the problem. I am glad to see important housing programs outlined in the Speech from the Throne. Yet I suggest that the problem of housing is really one to be dealt with by the provinces and municipalities.
Let me ask this question, and suggest an answer to it. Why does a house on our side of the Canadian border cost almost twice as much as a similar sort of house in the United States? Why does a house in Ottawa cost three times as much as a house in a community of about the same size in New York State?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: This is what happens under your version of free enterprise.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: The climate is almost the same; houses in both places need to be built equally well. The mortgage interest rate is about the same. Actually mortgage interest is deductible from income in the United States. From this one would expect the price of houses in the United States to be higher, but it is not.
I have looked at policies pursued by our municipalities regarding the provision of housing and have come to the sad conclusion that those policies are designed largely to serve the interests of those who are already settled, already satisfied with their accommodations, and the communities in which they live. Theirs are the voices which carry most weight with the municipalities and provinces of this country. I suggest there has been a trade-off between accommodation and amenity. In this country, they have worried more about providing amenities, acceding to the wishes of those who are the power behind municipal and provincial governments, than about providing needed accommodation for those who are underhoused and whose housing needs are not well looked after. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the federal government must

October 3, 1974
The Address-Mr. Kaplan
take on the responsibility of protecting the others, those who do not have the kind of housing they want.
When I look at the policies that are outlined in the Speech from the Throne I see there is some hope that, if co-operation can be obtained, the federal government can make a lot of yards and bring a lot of benefit to people who are presently not in the kind of accommodation they want or deserve.
I want to refer back for a moment to the problem of the powers of municipalities. In the municipality of metropolitan Toronto there is now a policy that discourages the city from going up. At the provincial and regional levels there is a policy that discourages the city from going out. When you have a growing city that cannot go up and cannot go out, what happens is that a pressure starts pushing downward. That is exactly what I noticed as I campaigned in York Centre in the last election.
What is taking place in York Centre and other parts of metro Toronto is a doubling up of people in the existing accommodation. In North York and York Centre there is a phantom population in a vast number of single family residences living in basements and on second floors.
At the moment all of this is illegal. People are unsure of their status. They are afraid to move into this kind of accommodation because they do not know if they can put their children into school. They are reluctant to put their names on voters' lists. They live under the eyes of neighbours who have the power at any time to complain and have them driven out.
Although this is not a federal responsibility I did come to a conclusion during my campaign. I urge that the borough of North York and other municipalities recognize as a fact the existence of this population. Thought should be given and policy should be implemented to legalize the status of the second family, the outsider who is sharing a single family home.
This would have a number of benefits. It would automatically increase the stock of housing in Toronto by many, many thousands. It would make family home ownership easier, because the family that wants to buy a house could do so knowing with certainty that it would receive income from the rental part of the house. This would help pay the mortgage. It would be easier for senior citizens to hold on to their homes by taking in another family to share their residences. Most important, it would normalize the status of the phantom population.
I have been talking about policies of the province and the municipality. I want to turn to policies the federal government should look at in addition to those contained in the Speech from the Throne.
It should be observed that rental accommodation is no longer being built in the municipality of metropolitan Toronto. Rents on existing accommodation are rising very high. As high as they are rising, this is still no incentive to builders again to start building rental accommodation. They are holding back.
I urge the government to consider doubling the capital cost allowance which is applicable under the Income Tax Act to rental accommodation such as apartment buildings.
With the interest rate as high as it is today, a doubling of the capital cost allowance would be the equivalent of an interest reduction of 3 or 4 per cent. That is very substantial. That kind of reduction should get building going again on badly needed rental accommodation in the metropolitan Toronto area.
I also urge the government to consider looking at the park property that has been acquired along the waterfront of Toronto and consider building on it or dedicating a part of that for accommodation. This was very expensive land. Park accommodation and recreation are badly needed in the municipality of metropolitan Toronto. However, considering the need for housing, some consideration should be given to using part of that newly acquired land for the development of balanced housing communities.
I am inspired to say a word about the Downsview air base which I now represent. I want to address myself to the problem of housing for veterans. Unless there is a change in the government's plans, the policy of giving a concessionary mortgage to veterans to assist them in establishing themselves on land or in housing will be terminated next March. I urge the government to consider using a part of Downsview air base for housing, particularly housing for veterans.
One factor which may not have been noted is that a person who is still serving in the armed forces is not eligible for the benefits of land acquisition under the Veterans Land Act. This means that unless the person quits his job and leaves the service before next March, he will lose the right to any benefit under that program.
I urge the minister to look at the Downsview air base. A lot of land included in that base is not required for its present purposes. Balanced housing is a need. Balanced housing would be an acceptable solution for the use of part of that property. Keeping in mind the needs of veterans and others, that could be a development of tremendous importance to York Centre.
I wish to conclude by making a few comments about the unemployment insurance situation. At the time of the 1972 election the administrative problems of the Unemployment Insurance Commission were extremely serious. During that election unemployment insurance was the major issue in many parts of Canada. Since then the control of that system has been very greatly improved. In fact it could be argued that in the balance between service to the client and control, we have pretty well done as much as we can do on the side of control.
As a member of parliament I receive many calls from people who have been cut off unemployment insurance, something that did not happen very much in 1972. Some are justified and some are unjustified. This suggests that there may be a good balance between control and service. I would like to see the government turn to the concept of unemployment insurance with the basic fundamentals of the plan. I submit that adjustments can now be made in light of the experience with that plan over the past few years.
I was very pleased to find that in a speech delivered by the responsible minister during the election campaign last May, he described two of the changes that would have been brought about in the legislative program then before

October 3, 1974

the House. I hope those two changes will be brought forward quickly.
One of these changes would have the effect of increasing the amount of service required before there is entitlement to unemployment insurance. It is presently eight weeks. During the election campaign the Conservatives argued this should be increased to 12 weeks. That was their policy. What is needed is a cutback in the amount of benefits that are acquired after a small amount of service. In light of experience there is justification for giving only four or five weeks' entitlement after eight or 12 weeks' service, or whatever it is going to be. I thing it is wrong to give 20 weeks of benefit after only eight weeks of service. That is an undue incentive to people who are only marginally committed to the labour force.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: What does that mean?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: "Marginally committed to the labour force" refers to an individual who works from choice and not from necessity.


An hon. Member:: Sounds like a Liberal Member of Parliament.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I was glad also to see that the minister intends to do something about the regulations which apply to people who quit their jobs or who are dismissed for cause. Right now some weeks of benefit are lost, so there is a measure of disincentive if a person quits or is dismissed for cause. However, the minister has noted that the disincentive is not sufficient-there ought to be stronger provisions.
Back in 1972, people who criticized thjs aspect of the Unemployment Insurance Act were often accused of being against the working man. Some of us suffered unfairly under that label at the time. But today I do not believe it appears reactionary to be critical of the way in which unemployment insurance is working. I believe the working man, too, is critical of a system which allows someone beside him to quit, or be dismissed for cause, and then proceed, virtually on the same basis as the person who has been laid off, to claim unemployment benefits.


An hon. Member:: Five weeks.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Well, two weeks goes for everyone. So the penalty is only three weeks, and that is not enough. I was glad to hear the minister say before the election he was prepared to do something about this situation. I can assure the minister that changes of this kind will be supported, not only by the business community but by the population at large who are disappointed that a small but important number of people have been abusing the unemployment insurance plan.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is now 9.35 p.m. and I recognize that at 9.45 I shall have to call a division on this matter. For this reason I am reluctant to recognize an hon. member who has obviously prepared remarks of a duration longer than the eight or nine minutes remaining to us. It was my intention to recognize the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) as the next speaker, but
Division
rather than have him begin his speech and see it abruptly terminated I wonder whether the House would not be prepared to proceed with the division at this time, recognizing that the hon. member would technically be the first speaker on the amendment tomorrow, once we had disposed of the sub-amendment.
Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Lefebvre:: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, might I say that the vote has already been announced-that the bells are to start ringing at 9.45-


An hon. Member:: Let them ring that much longer.


Mr. Speaker:: It would be the idea that the bells would ring somewhat longer so that no hon. member would be inconvenienced. The question is on the amendment to the amendment in the name of Mr. Broadbent. All those in favour of the amendment to the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed 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.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment to the amendment lost. It being after ten o'clock, this House stands adjourned until eleven o'clock a.m. tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order 2(2).
At 10.14 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Friday, October 4, 1974