1974-11-20

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
First and second reports of Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development-Mr. Cyr.

[Stage Direction]
Second report of Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works-Mr. Blais.
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs, I wish to table, in both official languages, the text of a note from the Government of Canada to the Government of the United States dated and delivered yesterday, November 19. The subject of the note is the proclamation by the President of the United States of November 16 imposing a temporary quantitative limitation on imports into the United States of certain cattle, beef, swine and pork from Canada.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate have passed Bill S-6, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What was the exact amount of money granted by the government in each of the past three years to the festival known as Acadian Frolic?
2.	(a) Is the responsible Minister aware of an incident occurring on July 27, 1974 at Memramcook, New Brunswick in which the British flag was burned in front of the stage (b) is the responsible Minister aware of reports that a reader on the stage made remarks detrimental to Her Majesty the Queen as the flag was burned?
3.	(a) Is the responsible Minister aware of a statement made by Social Services Minister Brenda Robertson, of the Province of New Brunswick, to the effect that she wanted an investigation of this incident (b) has the responsible Minister also requested an investigation of the incident and, if so, on what date did he request it, on what date will it be completed and what are the findings?
4.	Is it the policy of the government to grant public funds to organizations that burn the British flag and make remarks detrimental to Her Majesty the Queen?
5.	Is it the intention of the government to make any further grants to the festival known as Acadian Frolic?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: 1
1972, Nil; 1973, $10,000; 1974, $6,000.
2.	(a) Yes. (b) No.
3.	(a) Yes; (b) No. The investigation requested by the Minister of Social Services of New Brunswick revealed that the incident was in no way planned as part of the festival's activities, that it was the work of a small group of young people who had no connection with the organization of the festival and that it happened at a time when there was almost no one on the grounds, namely 4 o'clock in the morning.
4.	No.
5.	Future requests for grants will be studied in the light of the criteria of the government programs under which the requests are submitted; replies will be made accordingly.


Mr. Schumacher: 1.	Did the governemnt call for an investigation of an incident which occurred July 27, 1974 at Memramcook, New Brunswick, involving the burning of a Union Jack and (a) if so, what were the nature and results of any such investigation (b) if not, for what reason?
2.	Was any individual or group of individuals (a) charged (b) tried (c) fined (d) incarcerated as a result of this incident and (i) if so, how many individuals and to what extent (ii) if not, for what reason?

November 20, 1974
Order Paper Questions
3.	Did the government make any contribution, financial or otherwise, to assist the promotion of the Acadian festival in progress at the time of this incident and, if so (a) in what amounts (b) of what nature was such assistance given?


James Hugh Faulkner: 1. (a)
No. (b) Because the investigation requested by the Minister of Social Services of New Brunswick revealed that the incident was in no way planned as part of the festival's activities, that it was the work of a small group of young people who had no connection with the organization of the festival and that it happened at a time when there was almost no one on the grounds, namely 4 o'clock in the morning.
2.	(a), (b), (c), (d) No; (i) Not applicable; (ii) Because no official complaint was lodged with the courts.
3.	Yes. (a) $6,000; (b) Financial assistance only.


Mr. Macquarrie: Has the Department of National Health and Welfare conducted any investigations into reports of serious effects on the health of humans resultant from using can openers which had also been used to open contaminated pet food being sold in Canada and, if so, what has been the result of such investigations?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: A very thorough investigation was made by the Microbial Hazards Bureau, Food Directorate, Health Protection Branch of Health and Welfare. There was no evidence of food poisoning from can openers used for pet food. Additionally, manufacturers of pet food have indicated that canned pet food products are sufficiently heated to destroy any spores or organisms of Clostridium botulinum, the causative agent of botulism poisoning.


Mr. Herbert: How many public servants in the Department of National Health and Welfare received T4 slips for 1973 showing gross remuneration in excess of (a) $20,000 (b) $30,000 (c) $40,000?


Marc Lalonde: (a)	(b)	(c)Over	Over	OverDepartment	$20,000	$30,000	$40,000Department of National Health and Welfare	386	153	3


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many parole staff (positions) were there in New Brunswick for the year 1972-73?
2.	How much did it cost to maintain each position on the average?
3.	How much was the total annual budget of the two National Parole Service Offices in New Brunswick (including staffing) for 1972-73?
4.	How many cases did the parole staff have under their supervision in New Brunswick for 1972-73?
5.	How many cases did the John Howard Society of New Brunswick have under its supervision in 1972-73?
6.	What was the parole grant to the John Howard Society of New Brunswick for 1972-73?
Hon. Warren A 11mand (Solicitor General): 1. Eight.
2.	$12,593.00.
3.	Budgeting for Parole Board offices is centralized and therefore figures on a provincial basis are not available.
4.	1319.
5.	622.
6.	John Howard Society of New Brunswick, $17,295.
Notes: 1. (a) Parts 4 and 5, System in the process of amendment and past records give figures on a calendar year basis. 1. (b) Parts 4 and 5, Figures shown represent man-months of supervision, not individual cases. 1. (c) Parts 4 and 5, Figures shown represent combined total for both New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island since the New Brunswick office handles both provinces. 2. Part 6, The National Parole Board does not make grants to aftercare agencies. The amount shown was paid on a fee for services rendered basis.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What was the average cost of maintaining one inmate during the year 1973 in (a) federal institutions of all types (b) maximum security institutions (c) medium security institutions (d) minimum security institutions (e) farm and work camps?
2.	What was the average cost of parole supervision per parolee for the year 1973?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: 1.	(a)
$10,422; (b) $12,256; (c) $9,953; (d) $8,421; (e) $4,795.
2.	$1,410.
Note: (Part 2)-The total cost of all parole services including costs of the Parole Board case preparation (including those not granted parole), case supervision, administration, travelling, capital costs and training, was $1,410 per case under supervision during 1973-74 fiscal year.


Mb-. Howie: What were the numbers in Camp Gagetown, New Brunswick of (a) Armed Forces personnel (b) civilian personnel on January 1 in each year, 1972,1973,1974 and on September 30, 1974?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: (a) The number of military personnel located at CFB Gagetown, for the years in question, was as follows: January 1, 1972, 3,349; January 1, 1973, 3,250; January 1, 1974, 3,115; September 30, 1974, 2,764; (b) The number of



November 20, 1974

civilian personnel employed at CFB Gagetown, for the years in question, was as follows: January 1, 1972, 739 (Includes Federal Labour Intensive Program); January 1, 1973, 815 (Includes Federal Labour Intensive Program); January 1, 1974, 870 (Includes Federal Labour Intensive Program); September 30, 1974, 794 (Includes Federal Labour Intensive Program.
CONSTRUCTION OF EXTENSION TO COMBAT AftMS TRAINING SCHOOL, CFB GAGETOWN


Mr. Howie: 1.	On what date is construction of the extension to the Combat Arms Training School facilities at CFB Gagetown, New Brunswick, planned for commencement?
2.	On what date is the tender expected to be called and what is the estimated value of the project?


James Armstrong Richardson: 1. No date has been set for the commencement of construction on the extension to the Combat Arms Training School facilities at CFB Gagetown as the department is presently awaiting completion of a base development plan.
2.	In view of the above, the date when tenders will be called and the value of the project cannot be stated at this time.


Mr. Brisco: 1.	What form of identification is given to landed immigrants from the US who move back and forth through ports of entry at the Canada-US border?
2.	Does the identification paper or card contain or have affixed to it a recent photograph of the landed immigrant?


Mr. William Rompkey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. At the
present time all landed immigrants, including those from the United States, are given a copy of their official record of landing (form IMM. 1000) as proof of their immigration status in Canada.
2. No. Studies now in progress are examining ways and means for developing a permanent, wallet sized, plasticized, tamperproof Immigrant Identification Card to which a photograph would be attached.


Mr. Herbert: By province, how many persons have been enrolled on the basic Job Readiness Training Program and what is the average length of the courses taken?


Bill Rompkey: Province	Places Purchased	Average Course Duration (Days)
Newfoundland				
Prince Edward Island	30	93Nova Scotia	20	85New Brunswick	33	85Quebec	140	67
Order Paper Questions
Average Course
Province	Places Purchased Duration (Days)
Ontario	101	69Manitoba	397	57Saskatchewan	244	75Alberta	103	65Northwest Territories	-	-British Columbia	277	51Yukon	90	96
These figures apply to fiscal year 1973-74, the first full year in which this program operated. Figures for the current fiscal year are not available.
There are no figures for Newfoundland because that province opted for Basic Training for Skill Development, in order to address its crucial training needs.


Mr. Herbert: Are there any recorded claims outstanding as of June 30, 1974 against Defence Construction (1951) Limited that have not been approved and, if so, what is the approximate total value of these claims?


James Armstrong Richardson: Yes. $92,000.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	On what date was the letter from the Chairman of the National Harbours Board to the Minister of Transport, shown on page one of the 1973 NHB Annual Report, sent to the Minister?
2.	On what date was the Chairman's Message, shown on pages 4 and 5 of the Report, sent to the Minister of Transport?
3.	On what date was the 1973 Annual report of the National Harbours Board returned to the Board from the printers?
4.	On what date was the Report released to the public?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: 1 and 2. The letter and message from the Chairman of the National Harbours Board to the Minister of Transport are integral parts of the report itself and therefore were not dated. A copy of the report was made available to the Minister of Transport towards the end of June 1974.
3.	May 15, 1974.
4.	July 3, 1974.
TRAIN ACCIDENTS Question no. 462-Mr. Forrestall:
1.	For each of the past five years, what has been (a) the number of train accidents involving Canadian track (b) the number of such accidents that involved fatal injuries (c) the number of fatalities?
2.	What is the source of this information?


Jean Marchand: The
Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: 1. (a) Number of train accidents involving Canadian track: 1969, 289; 1970, 374; 1971, 367; 1972, 439; 1973, 411; 1974, January to end October, 453; (b) the number of such accidents that involved fatal injuries is 42; (c) the number of fatalities is 59.

November 20, 1974
Order Paper Questions
2. The source of the above information is the accidents reported by the railways to the Railway Transport Committee of the Canadian Transport Commission.


Mr. Forrestall: By region in Canada, what was the strontium 90 level at the end of September of 1974, 1973,1972 and 1971?


Marc Lalonde: Strontium 90 levels in milk are determined each quarter on a composite of samples taken during the quarter. Levels, expressed in picocuries per litre, are given below for the 3rd quarters of 1971, 1972 and 1973, and for the 2nd quarter of 1974.
September	September	September	June30	30	30	301971	1972	1973	1974British Columbia	10.4	8.7	5.1	6.8Prairie Provinces	7.9	6.0	4.2	4.6Ontario	8.2	6.4	3.9	4.9Quebec	9.4	7.8	5.8	5.4Maritime Provinces	11.6	8.5	7.3	6.2Newfoundland	31.2	28.1	21.2	9.0


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	With respect to the rescue of the Motor Vessel Shell, trapped in ice in Hudson Bay in September, October and November of 1972 (a) of what registry was the Shell (b) was it certified for ice operations and, if not, for what reason (c) were any non-Canadian tugs involved in the rescue and, if so, for what reason (d) what assistance and by what ships, if any, was given by the government to this ship (e) what was the cost of this assistance (f) was any damage done to Canadian ships in this operation and, if so, what was the amount of such damage (g) what was the nationality of the crew of this vessel (h) what damage was incurred by the Shell (i) what was the cargo carried by the Shell, what was its destination and what was its point of origin?
2.	What winds and other weather factors were present when decisions were taken to the effect that no emergency existed?
3.	What was the amount of user charges laid against the shipper or ship owner by Canadian authorities?
4.	What is government policy with respect to such user charges?
5.	What is the policy of other governments, such as that of the USSR, with Arctic coasts in terms of user charges?
6.	Who would have paid for damages resulting from any oil spills that such entrapment might have caused?
7.	Under what type of permit did this vessel enter Canadian waters?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the Departments of Transport and National Revenue as follows: 1. There is no ship by the name of Shell in our records, but we assume that the question refers to the Northern Shell; (a) British (At present the ship is registered at Hamilton, Bermuda); (b) No. At the time the vessel sustained damage there was no regulatory requirement in force calling for mandatory ice-strengthening; (c) Yes, they were engaged by Shell Oil Canadian Tankers (1964) Ltd. We are informed that Canadian tugs were not available at that time; (d) The Northern Shell was assisted by the CCGS Norman McLeod Rogers, Labrador

and the John A. Macdonald; (e) $25,000; (f) No; (g) Officers were Canadian; crew was Spanish; (h) She had suffered damage to her rudder; (i) Heating fuel and gasoline for Deception Bay from Montreal.
2.	The Northern Shell was alongside the wharf at Deception Bay and weather conditions were not so severe as to constitute an emergency or rescue situation. However, temperatures were below freezing and the ice cover was such that it was urgent to tow the vessel out to open water to prevent her being trapped in ice all winter.
3.	$25,000.
4.	The policy is to charge for services which are beyond the normal services rendered by icebreakers to ships in ice. In this instance, the services included towing a vessel which was not in any danger at the time and this task was undertaken only because the tugs present were either not capable or willing to tow a vessel of that size in the ice conditions that existed at that place and time.
5.	The current policy of other governments on user charges is not known. However, it is understood that some governments including that of the USSR charge for icebreaker assistance to commercial vessels.
6.	The owners of Northern Shell.
7.	A permit was not required at that time. The M/V Northern Shell, being a British built, British registry vessel, was entitled to engage in the coasting trade of Canada. This voyage was properly reported outwards at customs from Montreal for Deception Bay, on August 7, 1972.


Mr. Howie: What plans, if any, exist for the development of television studio production facilities in Fredericton, New Brunswick to enable that capital city of the Province of New Brunswick to better disseminate provincial and local news and share its cultural and educational facilities with viewers in other parts of the Province and Canada?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation does not have, at present, any plans for further development of television studio production facilities in Fredericton, New Brunswick. In 1969 the CBC planned applications for an English language television system which would have involved, initially, a "mother" station to serve Saint-John-Fredericton, a rebroadcaster at Moncton, and eventual extension to the rest of New Brunswick, but the plan was turned down by the CRTC. An alternative for the CBC is to purchase one of the two privately-owned television operations in New Brunswick. There is no indication however that either of these operations is available for purchase.


Mr. Cossitt: What are the names, the present and previous positions in the Public Service along with dates of same, of all persons who were considered
November 20, 1974

for the position of Senior Assistant Deputy Minister of Transport prior to the announcement of the appointment of Mr. James Davey and, in each case, for what reason was the individual found unacceptable?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am
informed by the Public Service Commission as follows: In order to protect the privacy of individuals and to ensure that there is no contravention of the Bill of Rights, the Public Service Commission in its regulations under the Public Service Employment Act, holds in confidence information concerning candidates for positions for which the Commission has appointment authority, except that a candidate's own standing and results will be discussed with the candidate. In keeping with this long standing practice, and having regard for the right of privacy of candidates and the possibility that the release of such information could prove not only embarrassing but prejudicial to them, the Commission regrets that it is unable to provide the names of other candidates who were actively considered for the post of Senior Assistant Deputy Minister of Transport.


Mr. Schellenberger: Is the Minister of National Health and Welfare aware that $75,000 is being paid by the government to a German professional horse trainer, Mr. W. Schultheis, to train three Canadian horses for dressage competition during the next three years in his native country and, if so, is such a payment compatible with Canadian amateur sport policy?


Marc Lalonde: While Mr. W. Schultheis is working with the Canadian dressage team, he is not being paid by the Canadian government.


Mr. Schellenberger: Is consideration being given to revising the Canada Elections Act, Section 46(1) so that Canadian students who are studying in foreign countries might be allowed to vote by proxy?


Mitchell William Sharp: Representations of this nature are normally considered by the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. Both during the 1972 and 1974 elections, the Chief Electoral Officer has received correspondence from Canadian students who were studying at universities outside Canada in which they requested that they be given the privilege of voting by proxy and has informed correspondents that he would be pleased to lay their representations before that committee when it next sits, on the instructions of the House, to consider amendments to the Canada Elections Act if they would write him to that effect.


Mr. Fairweather: 1.	Has Mr. Gordon Spence been dismissed by the Canadian Penitentiary Service and, if so, for what reason?
2.	Was Mr. Spence the victim of a physical attack by inmates of Dorchester Penitentiary on February 25, 1974?
Order Paper Questions
3.	How long has Mr. Spence been an employee of the Penitentiary Service?
4.	On what date was Mr. Spence's pay stopped?
5.	Has the Penitentiary Service in its possession medical evidence that Mr. Spence cannot return to his present position because of the February 25 beating?
6.	What plans has the Penitentiary Service in hand to ensure that Mr. Spence obtains other employment in the Penitentiary Service or the Public Service generally?


William Warren Allmand: The answer to the question is as follows: 1. Mr. Gordon Spence was released under section 31 of the Public Service Employment Act for incapacity by the Public Service Commission on recommendation of the director, Dorchester penitentiary.
2.	Yes.
3.	Mr. Spence commenced employment with the Canadian Penitentiary Service on October 12, 1965.
4.	Mr. Spence's sick leave credits were exhausted as of May 11, 1974, and on that date, he ceased to receive salary from the Canadian Penitentiary Service.
5.	The Canadian Penitentiary Service has in its possession medical evidence, signed by Mr. Spence's personal physician and dated May 13, 1974, to the effect that Mr. Spence is unable to continue to work directly with inmates or in any job where he has contact with them.
6.	In view of the medical evidence mentioned in part 5, the Canadian Penitentiary Service could not provide other employment for Mr. Spence. However, Mr. Spence's case was referred to the regional director of the Public Service Commission in Halifax. At this time, a committee composed of representatives from the Public Service Commission, the Department of National Health and Welfare, and the Canada Manpower Centre, is considering two alternatives for Mr. Spence: first, a medical pension; second, employment elsewhere within the public service.


Mr. Reynolds: With reference to the answer to Question No. 232, what were the total salary figures for the numbers of employees listed for those same years (with 1974 estimated)?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Year	Total Salary Figures
	(Millions)
1967-68	$ 5,664
1968-69	10,739
1969-70	13,093
1970-71	15,511
1971-72	18,197
1972-73	21,433
1973-74	24,304
1974-75	30,902 (estimated)
1486

November 20, 1974
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	What are the established general criteria for the construction of terminal facilities which apply at the ports under the jurisdiction of the National Harbours Board, for each general type of port development so entertained?
2.	Is the National Harbours Board the final decision making level in port development such as the Jacques Cartier and Halterm facilities or does the government and the Minister of Transport still retain final responsibility for final decisions in matters such as these?


Jean Marchand: 1. The
general criteria for the construction of terminal facilities at ports are technical feasibility, economic justification, financial viability and environmental acceptability.
2. The total capital budget for the National Harbours Board is approved by the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the Minister of Transport, the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Finance. The individual projects are then separately approved by the Treasury Board and by the Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Transport, before funds are made available.


Mr. Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier): 1.	(a) Are negotiations in progress (b) are agreements anticipated concerning CBC television and radio productions, suitable for use in the field of education, but which, owing to copyrights, permits, retransmission rights and other reasons, are not available at present to provincial school councils?
2.	Are studies being made on (a) the cost of buying back such rights
(b)	the possibility of free access to such productions by school councils
(c)	the means of distribution considered (d) the regulations dealing with such productions and, if so, will the Minister advise of the results?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am
informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. (a) No. (b) yes.
2. (a) Yes, although it will be a matter of acquiring rather than buying back such rights; (b) Various access arrangements for schools and other borrowers are being studied; (c) Yes; (d) Yes, if by regulations is meant conditions of use set out by CBC. I shall advise of the results of these studies when they are available.


DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-CONTRACTS AWARDED TO LAPOINTE TRANSPORT LTD.
Mr. Grafftey: 1.	What transport contracts have been awarded by the Department of External Affairs to Lapointe Transport Ltd., 105 Industriel Blvd., Longueuil, Quebec, since January 1, 1972?
2.	What was the amount of the contract in each case?
3.	Were public tenders called in each case and, if not, for what reason?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. None.

2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.


UNICEF PROGRAM
Mr. Fairweather: Has Canada been asked to contribute to the UNICEF program of aid to children and mothers in the Indochina Peninsula and, if so, what has been Canada's response to this special appeal?


Mr. Herb Breau (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Canada has received a request to contribute to this programme and the matter is still under consideration. However, CIDA has engaged UNICEF to implement on Canada's behalf a $500,000 bilateral health project in the Khmer Republic, one of the countries covered by UNICEF's special programme. The purpose of the bilateral project is similar to that of the UNICEF programme, in that it will provide medical supplies to a network of health clinics. In addition, Canada announced this month at the United Nations that, subject to Parliamentary approval, CIDA will contribute $3.5 million to UNICEF's general budget for fiscal year 1975-76. This is an increase of 40% over the 1974-75 contribution which, in turn, was 30% greater than the contribution made in 1973-74.	.


RCMP-MOTHER TONGUE OF SENIOR EXECUTIVE CATEGORY
Mr. Jelinek: 1.	What is the mother tongue of all officials in the senior executive category (equivalent to the SX category in the Public Service) in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police?
2.	How many of the officials in the senior executive category make over $25,000 per year?


William Warren Allmand: 1. Of those 20 members of the R.C.M.P. equated to the SX categories of the Federal Public Service, there are: 14 whose mother tongue is English; 4 whose mother tongue is French; 1 whose mother tongue is Ukrainian; 1 whose mother tongue is Finnish.
2. All of the above.


QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Mr. Herbert: 1.	For each of the past five years for which statistics are available, from which four countries did the majority of French speaking immigrants come?
2.	How many immigrants came from each such country?
3.	In each case, how many indicated they wished to settle in the Province of Quebec?
Return tabled.
November 20, 1974


LIP-ALLOCATION OF PROJECTS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many LIP projects were allocated to each federal constituency for the 1974-75 programs?
2.	How much money was allocated to each federal constituency for the 1974-75 LIP programs?
Return tabled.


LIP-ALLOCATION OF FUNDS
Mr. Beatty: 1.	By constituency, what is the estimated rate of unemployment used in calculating LIP funds?
2.	By constituency, how many dollars have been allocated under LIP?
Return tabled.


Mr. Reid:: Mr. Speaker, before we proceed I should like to say that I inadvertently listed a question that was being answered today which, in fact, is not. I refer to question No. 67. I would like to withdraw it.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion for the production of papers No. 18 is acceptable to the government subject to the usual reservations concerning confidential documents and to the authorization of the government authorities concerned.
I ask that the other notices of motions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


COPIES OF CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING DEVELOPMENT OF FISHING FACILITIES AT GROS MORNE NATIONAL PARK
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 18-Mr. Marshall:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all correspondence, including letters, telegrams, minutes of meetings and agreements between the government and the Government of Newfoundland concerning the continuing support and present and future development of fishing facilities within the boundaries of the Gros Morne National Park.
Motion agreed to.
Oral Questions


Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In light of reports in the Financial Times of London in October 1973 which stated that Canada and Japan, the largest importers of sugar under the now defunct sugar agreement, formed an alliance at the 1973 conference in an attempt to keep prices at the lowest possible level-prices which would bankrupt smaller, underdeveloped countries which are dependent on their sugar exports-and also the moves by the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R. to dissociate themselves from the stand taken by Canada and Japan, can the minister tell this House whether he is prepared to reconsider his statement in the House yesterday concerning the extent of Canadian involvement in what now appears to be the wrecking of the 1973 sugar agreement?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: No, Mr. Speaker.


Jack Burnett Murta: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Either the minister has been misinformed by his officials or he does not understand the gravity of the questions I am asking as he appears to be holding to his original position. May I now ask the minister, since Canada is one of the world's leading importers of sugar, if he can explain why sugar retails at the present time at some 49 cents per pound in Washington, approximately nine cents in Mexico and 69.8 cents in Ottawa?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated that we have stayed in very close contact with the earlier negotiations and with the present situation. There are two working groups in which Canada will participate which have been established to consider stock policies and prices. As I indicated in my answer yesterday, I am not optimistic that there will be a new international sugar agreement at the present time because the producing countries have indicated it is not in their interests to go to the bargaining table.


Jack Burnett Murta: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In this context, I think if the minister were to look at some of the events of that time he would find that Canada was a party to the breaking of the world sugar agreement. Since it appears that a new sugar agreement is likely by the end of 1974, may I ask the minister what the government's position is in regard to such an agreement and what prices are being considered?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, we have not taken any position on what the price should be. Quite clearly negotiations between consuming nations and producing nations involve a price which will ensure a reasonable return to producers and a stability of supply to consumers.
28543-26%
Oral Questions FINANCE

November 20, 1974


EFFECT OF OIL REVENUES PLACED IN CAPITAL ACCOUNT IN DETERMINING EQUALIZATION PAYMENTS-POSITION OF COMMITMENT TO SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance and arises from his budget statement that 30 per cent of provincial oil revenues will be taken into account when computing equalization payments. In view of the fact that on March 28, 1974 at page 934 of Hansard the Prime Minister said that all such additional oil revenues would not be taken into account in determining equalization payments providing those revenues were placed in a capital fund, I should like to ask the minister a direct question. If a province places all its additional oil revenues in a capital fund for resource development, will 30 per cent of that sum be used in determining the equalization formula for that particular province?


An hon. Member:: Yes or no.


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman who put the question knows full well that a yes or no answer is not sufficient for his purpose.	>


Mr. Nielsen:: Tell Gillespie that.


John Napier Turner: The understanding was that producing provinces in total would be putting about two-thirds of their additional revenues into capital funds-funds that would not thereby be eligible under the equalization formula-and that one-third of those funds in total would enter consolidated revenue funds and thus enter into the equalization. Under the proposal I am putting to the provincial ministers of finance on December 9 and 10, only one-third of additional revenues from oil and gas deriving from the international situation and recent price rises would be taken into the formula. Then, what any particular province does with its own fund would be irrelevant.


Mr. Broadbent:: The answer is yes, then.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As the Prime Minister on March 28 said specifically that Saskatchewan intended to put practically all its additional funds into a capital account which would not be subject to equalization, and as Saskatchewan has set up a fund and put all its additional money into that capital account, does the Minister of Finance, in the budget, now propose to abrogate the commitment which the Prime Minister made to this House and to the producing provinces?


John Napier Turner: Sir, I think the commitment was set forth clearly in the budget speech. The provinces will want to examine the proposal. Undoubtedly, Saskatchewan will bring its own representations to the table on December 9 and 10.


APPLICABILITY OF DEDUCTIBILITY PROVISION FOR OIL AND GAS REVENUES TO NON-RENEWABLE RESOURCES
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Finance a final supplementary question about the deductibility of royalties, taxes and like payments made to provincial governments. Will this deductibility provision apply only to revenues from oil, gas and minerals, or will it also apply to royalties from renewable resources? Will it apply to stumpage dues, for instance, and timber royalties?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I will have to go into the ways and means motion, to see how it is drafted. In principle, we are talking about mineral resources and oil and gas revenues. If, of course, stumpage dues were to be converted from a flat, classical type of royalty payment into a disguised tax, we would need to look at that as well.


Mr. Horner:: And the same would apply to asbestos. [Translation]


SALE OF CANADIAN SHARES ON INTERNATIONAL MARKET-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a question for the Minister of Finance.
Is he aware that a World Bank report published this week and titled Borrowing in International Capital Markets says that out of a total $1,451 million in foreign bonds sold on major international capital markets during the third quarter of this year, $336 million or 37 per cent were sold by Canadian groups and if yes, could he tell us whether he considers the situation as normal and favourable to Canada's economic development?


John Napier Turner: The hon. member might allow me to read the report and answer later.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Could the minister say whether he intends to seek early approval for measures which will allow governments and industries in Canada to find here the financial means for a normal development?


John Napier Turner: 
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. In the past month there have been repeated references to a forthcoming sugar policy. Is the minister prepared to make an announcement now as to the date when the government will announce its sugar policy?

November 20, 1974


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: No, Mr. Speaker.


Stan Darling: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the new sugar policy include the establishment of regulations for a Canadian sugar beet industry? What type of guarantee will the minister give to sugar beet farmers which will protect them from loss, should the commodity price of sugar on the world market drop?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, there have been past programs of aid to the sugar beet producer. I am sure if such a policy were to be adopted by the government we would make sure that it would be adopted again.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. After nine months of trying to evoke some sort of positive response from the minister, I wonder whether he is now in a position to indicate to the House and the people of Ontario whether payments made under the Ontario land speculation tax will be deductible as a business expense under the Income Tax Act and related statutes.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Minister of National Revenue, has a legal opinion to the effect it is not deductible, and I will make clear to the minister of revenue of the province of Ontario and the provincial treasurer that, in policy terms, it is not deductible for the same reason that other provincial taxes are not deductible.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, is it in order for me to ask the Minister of Finance to very briefly explain why?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. In reply to a question yesterday, the minister said that flights to the north had been curtailed. Have the same restrictions been applied to the operations of Maritime Command Pacific? Also, when were the last Tracker training and Argus surveillance flights over the Pacific and when is the next one scheduled?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, as I said to the House yesterday, the flights over the Atlantic have been reduced. They have been reduced to the same degree in the Pacific area, but they are continuing on a regular basis. There are flights to the north from Comox in the Pacific area as well as from
Oral Questions
the Atlantic area. Flights will be continuing to the north, although not the same number.


Donald W. Munro: Has the minister received any representations urging that Canadian naval units stationed on the west coast be assigned surveillance duties in the Pacific to preserve our fisheries resources there against encroachment from foreign fishing vessels?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I have had no recent representations because they are already doing a good job.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact the cabinet is reportedly meeting at the summer palace at Meach Lake to watch the Grey Cup game this weekend, and there is no doubt the Edmonton Eskimos will win-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steve Eugene Paproski: -is the Prime Minister assigning the kick-off duties to his wife and if not, why not?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I should inform the hon. member that he is wrong as usual. The cabinet is meeting on Saturday and the game is on Sunday. Insofar as the kick-off is concerned, I will invite the hon. member to lie down and I'll invite my wife to give him a good kick.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


WHEAT-REASON FOR DELAY IN SENDING CHEQUES TO ONTARIO PRODUCERS
[Stage Direction]
Mir. John Wise (Elgin): Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Why have government cheques in the amount of some $10 million not yet been received by the Ontario Wheat Producers Marketing Board for its 15,000 wheat producers for the 1973 wheat crop?
Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I understand these were held up because of some technicalities; however, they are ready to go soon.


Mr. Wise:: Because of the importance and urgency of this matter, I ask the minister to give a definite commitment to this House that he will immediately investigate this matter in an effort to get these long over-due cheques in the hands of Ontario wheat producers.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, some of the documents I have been reading here are about this. Therefore, I have received a report.

November 20, 1974
Oral Questions MULTICULTURALISM


REPORT RECOMMENDING FEDERAL SUPPORT FOR THIRD LANGUAGE TRAINING IN SCHOOL SYSTEMS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address my question to the minister responsible for mul-ticulturalism. As the minister has now had an opportunity to review the interim report of the Canadian Consultative Council on Multiculturalism, can he inform the House whether he supports the principle of federal government involvement and support for a ihird language education in the school systems and whether he intends to implement this recommendation?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the manner in which the question was asked leads me to reply that this is an area of provincial jurisdiction, as he is no doubt aware. If the hon. member is really asking whether we are prepared to encourage the acquisition of greater linguistic ability by all Canadians in speaking and understanding languages other than the two official languages, the answer is, yes. To this degree we already support that principle through the grant structure.
As to the recommendations of the report the hon. member mentioned, I would point out that to date there has been only one regional meeting and one executive meeting. The council itself will be meeting later to consider the report about the middle of December and I shall be happy to keep the hon. member informed about the progress made.


REPORT RECOMMENDING FEDERAL SUPPORT FOR THIRD LANGUAGE BROADCASTING-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Paul Yewchuk: The recommendations concerning federal government involvement in education are quite specific, but I shall not pursue the matter now; the hon. gentleman will have a chance to read the report himself. I should like to ask him a question with reference to one other recommendation which is considered to be very important by ethnic groups. What is the government's position with regard to third language broadcasting on the CBC radio and television network? Does the minister intend to support this particular recommendation and implement it in the near future?


John Carr Munro: The hon. member may not fully appreciate the way this process is going. I must repeat that the entire council, to which the report is being made, has not yet met to consider the matter. The council will meet to consider it and make recommendations and give advice to me, based on that report, at some time in mid-December. After I have received those recommendations, depending on what the council's advice may be, representations to the CBC may be in order. But I cannot prejudge the matter at this time.
[Mr. Whelan.J


HOUSING
Mr. J.-Roland Comtois (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs.
Can he tell the House whether or not the $500 grant offered first-time purchasers of a new home between November 1, 1974 and November 1, 1975, also applies to those who are building their own homes?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. This applies to those who own their own homes and to those who were in the process of building their own homes before November 1, provided occupancy took place after that.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs.
With regard to the $500 grant, will the owners of mobile homes also be able to benefit from that subsidy?


Barnett Jerome Danson: 
EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question was intended for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Since he is not in the House I should like to put it to the Prime Minister. My colleague, the hon. member for New Westminster, asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs a question in the External Affairs Committee about a meeting held in Paris on October 17 of the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank which discussed a United States aid proposal for providing funds of the order of $50 million to the Saigon government in South Viet Nam. The Secretary of State for External Affairs said that Canada had made no commitment. Yet on the morning of October 19 Le Monde reported that Canada had in fact supported the American proposal. I now ask the Prime Minister whether Canada, either implicity or tacitly, supported the proposal or any variation of it.


Herb Breau: I will take the question as notice and make sure the hon. member gets a response.
November 20, 1974


Francis Andrew Brewin: Would the parliamentary secretary also take this question as notice: is the proposal still under discussion and what is Canada's attitude toward it?


Herb Breau: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Since the Department of Transport is responsible for cleaning up oil spills and since surveys indicate that oil spills could have been avoided in 73 per cent of the accidents and 92 per cent of the groundings if the tankers had double bottoms, is the Department of Transport, together with the Department of External Affairs, carrying on any negotiations with the United States government to ensure that the supertankers coming from Valdez will have double bottoms, thus providing greater safety for the coastal waters of British Columbia?
['TranslationJ


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the problem of pollution, we are working in close co-operation especially with the Department of the Environment. We have signed agreements with the Americans to fight oil pollution on our common boundary. As for the technique which consists in using double-bottomed vessels to better protect the environment, it has not yet been fully developed; we are following its progress very closely, but I believe that Canada is one of the most advanced countries in the world in that field.


Benno Friesen: Recognizing the extreme vulnerability of the waters around British Columbia, will the minister undertake to pursue this matter aggressively and negotiate agreement with the U.S. government that the supertankers be double-bottomed?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, until the technology is perfected and it is economically feasible, it will be difficult to put this as a condition.

What we are doing now with the Americans is to have a formal agreement and help each other each time there is a spill.
Oral Questions INDUSTRY


AUTOMOBILES-MINISTER'S DISCUSSIONS WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF CHRYSLER CONCERNING EFFECT OF CLOSURE OF UNITED STATES PLANTS ON CANADIAN OPERATIONS
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce arising from the recent announcement by Chrysler Corporation in the United States that five of its six car assembly plants are to close, with the consequent lay-off of some 63,000 workers, or about 70 per cent of the company's total U.S. work force. Will the minister tell us whether he has been in consultation with representatives of the Chrysler Corporation and whether the American shut-downs will have any effect on the Corporation's Canadian plant? If he has held such meetings, can he now report to the House?


Alastair William Gillespie: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have had meetings with senior officials of the Chrysler Corporation. There is undoubtedly a very serious situation in the United States automobile market and sooner or later that situation will overlap into Canada. So far, we have been reasonably fortunate. It is still premature to say whether or not there will be any effect on the Chrysler operation in Canada but there is a good chance there may be some change.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I don't know what the minister means by "sooner or later". Can we take it, if there is a possibility that the spill-over will affect Canada, that the minister will discuss this question with the Minister of Manpower to see to it that the impact on Canadian workers in the industry is minimized? In other words, will he see to it that they can be directed to some other industry?


Alastair William Gillespie: There is very close consultation between myself and the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.


EFFORTS OF MINISTER TO GET CANADIAN MANUFACTURERS TO REDUCE PRICES TO UNITED STATES LEVEL
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Considering the fact that approximately 75 per cent of all vehicles produced in Canada are exported to the United States, and considering the related fact that sales in the United States have dropped off now by about 30 per cent, will the minister inform the House what steps he has taken recently, vis-avis the manufacturers in Canada, to get them to bring their prices into line with the United States prices so they might increase their sales within Canada, which could help compensate for the inevitable falloff that will occur *"as a result of the falloff now taking place in the United States that will affect production here?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite right when he says the Canadian market has helped compensate for the drastic reduction in the United States market. Perhaps part of the reason is that the price differ-

November 20, 1974
Oral Questions
ential has been narrowing. I can assure him that I have on a regular basis made it very clear to the presidents of Canadian manufacturing companies that we expect that price level to keep narrowing. I have studied the recent trend and I am satisfied it is continuing.


DATE OF PUBLICATION OF REPORT ON RESERVES
John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources stated last week in this House that he sent a copy of the National Energy Board report to the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta, would he now inform the House whether he has had a reply from those provinces, and is it the intention of the government to make that report public as soon as possible to facilitate members of this House during the budget debate?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have had a reply from the minister of mines and minerals of Alberta asking that the report be made public. The minister for Alberta expressed no opinion with regard to the substance of it, and apparently any level of exports from Canada would be acceptable to him. Taking that into account, I will be making recommendations to my colleagues and I expect the report will be made available in the very near future.


ALLEGED REPUDIATION OF AGREEMENT ON OIL PRICES BY PREMIER OF ALBERTA-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Peter C. Bawden (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the statement made budget night by the premier of Alberta that he is no longer considering the March accord on petroleum to be in effect, will he say whether he has been in touch with the premier of Alberta, and will he be calling a meeting of the first ministers or taking any other steps right away so the new energy uncertainties can be resolved?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I should remind the House that when we met several weeks ago the premiers agreed that we would be meeting in May, presumably to talk about-


An hon. Member:: May! That's too late.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -in May to envisage the accord, which would have to intervene after July 1. As far as we are concerned, the situation has not changed. If the premier of Alberta takes certain steps which make the accord that was reached last March inapplicable, perhaps we will be thinking of some further steps.


Peter Colwell Bawden: Mr. Speaker, in view of the importance of this, and the fact that the indication is that the price of crude may go up prior to the date that was set in March, would the Prime Minister consider taking urgent steps to talk with that premier and arrange some earlier meeting of the first ministers?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: There was an agreement reached between all parties, and as far as I know-


An hon. Member:: You broke it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As far as I know, the premier of Alberta has indicated he might not consider himself bound by that agreement. I understand that later he indicated he might feel himself bound over the winter. I think it would perhaps be incumbent on the premier to contact myself and other premiers if he feels he is not going to be bound by the agreement that was reached.


ALLEGED SALE OF CONTAMINATED CANNED PET FOOD-REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare who is attending the dominion-provincial conference, I would direct my question to his parliamentary secretary, and I would suggest it is perhaps more important if less exciting than the last one I asked. The question is prompted by comments of officers of the Consumers Association of Canada and other responsible people to the effect that contaminated and unfit products are being canned as pet food, and that the health of a number of Canadians has been jeopardized from contact with affected pets, and regretfully in some cases of impoverished Canadians by direct consumption of pet food. Could he advise whether the department is or will undertake an investigation of this very serious health hazard?


Miss Coline Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I will take note of the hon. member's question.


FISHERIES
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister of State (Fisheries) advise the House that on the basis of reports from the ICNAF conference in Florida last week the subject of herring quotas in the George's Bank area was discussed and, if so, would he advise whether any changes were made on the agreed quotas as related to herring and other quotas?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries)):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. member to be patient until tomorrow as I am meeting with officials who return later this afternoon to get a full briefing. I know that this subject matter, which is of urgent concern generally to Canadians, and particularly to Canadian fishermen, will be coming up at the January meeting. There was some discussion in the area of herring and I would not want to
November 20, 1974

mislead the hon. member by answering until I have been fully briefed.


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, would the minister take up at that meeting the fact that last year the Soviet Union over-fished their quotas by several metric tons, and the fact that his predecessor requested them to stop fishing off Georges Bank? At the same time, is the minister able to advise the House as to the results of that request to the Soviet Union, and will he take this up, or will those Soviet fishermen continue to violate the quotas agreed upon by ICNAF?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, the delegation had instructions to be very firm on this very question in respect of ICNAF regulations. I will have to wait for a full briefing from my officials to know what took place.


GOVERNMENT MEASURES TO ENSURE ICNAF QUOTAS ENFORCED
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the announcement by the Minister of National Defence that surveillance flights by national defence aircraft have been reduced considerably, thereby reducing our supervisory or enforcement capability, I should like to ask what alternative steps the minister is taking in order to insure that Canada is in a position to adequately enforce ICNAF regulations in respect of herring and other quotas off our east coast?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, surveillance was not only carried out by plane but also by ships and that part of the operation is still continuing. Surveillance flights have been reduced but have not been curtailed in full. The regional director for the Atlantic area is on his way to Ottawa and I want to have a further meeting with him.


EFFORTS TO ENCOURAGE COUNTRIES TO BECOME MEMBERS OFICNAF
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, would the minister of fisheries indicate if any further steps have been taken recently to encourage nations which are not now members of ICNAF to become members of this association so that over-fishing on our continental shelf can be more fully controlled?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I know of no formal steps that have been taken in this direction, but I will inquire.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the serious heroin problem in Canada,
Oral Questions
particularly in the province of British Columbia, will the Minister of Justice consider bringing in legislation that would, on a temporary basis, not allow bail for those arrested for heroin trafficking?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be unfortunate in respect of any crime to treat someone accused as convicted. There are, of course, important considerations in respect of bail legislation having regard to a series of crimes; the likelihood of a person accused showing at his trial being one, and judges have a good deal of discretion in this regard. I would note in passing that we might be very grateful at the success investigating officers are having at this point in time in breaking up a series of drug trafficking rings, and that certainly will allow us to make a good deal of progress.


John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that trials are taking so long in the province of British Columbia, would the minister consider turning over all prosecutions for heroin trafficking to the government of British Columbia?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I do not see how that would in any way facilitate the speed with which trials are taking place. Certainly, in the most serious cases we have always proceeded by way of direct indictment so as to be sure that in fact the trial can be as expeditious as possible.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Charles Lapointe (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board.
Following the announcement of the abolition of special allowances for federal civil servants posted on the north shore, does the President of the Treasury Board know that, since eight o'clock this morning, certain federal services are completely paralysed in that area and, if he does, could he tell this House what steps he intends to take to correct this situation which has tragic consequences for the whole population of that area?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I know that a number of employees have walked out on their jobs in that area this morning. I must inform the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, that the decision to abolish these allowances had been taken jointly with the union representatives of those employees when we reached an understanding on certain norms during the reevaluation session. With these new standards, this area is no longer qualified for these allowances, as is the case with several other areas which are in the same situation in Canada. It is not a unilateral decision taken by the government, it is rather a decision that was taken jointly with the union representatives and the national union representatives have not approached me on this subject.

November 20, 1974
Oral Questions AGRICULTURE


DATE OF COMPLETION OF REVIEW OF STABILIZATION PRICES
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
Some time ago, answering a question I asked him concerning the support price of farm products, the minister said his officers were reviewing the standards of the Farm Prices Stabilization Board. In view of the producers' concern and in order to reassure them, can the minister tell the House whether that study is over and whether he is now in a position to make a statement to the House on that matter.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, so far as I know the review is not complete so I am not ready to give the hon. member an answer to any other question.


WHEAT-ALLEGED AGREEMENT WITH ONTARIO PRODUCERS CONCERNING ALLOWANCE FOR INCREASED COST OF PRODUCTION
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that the officials of the Ontario Wheat Producers Marketing Board advised a number of members of parliament yesterday that they believed they had had an agreement with the minister as late as February 12,1 believe to the effect that there would be a provision in legislation to make allowances for increased cost of production, in other words an indexing in the legislation of two-price wheat, I should like to ask the minister if that is his view as well that there was an agreement and commitment from the minister. If so, could he explain why such provision is not in the legislation brought forward by the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the statements I made and the letter I sent to the Ontario Wheat Producers Marketing Board on February 11, 1973 do not say that. Nothing at all is said about indexing in the letter I wrote to them at that time.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that those same officials said that as a result of their discussions with the minister they believed and understood the minister was prepared to do this, I should like to ask the minister whether he had discussions with the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board and whether he made any effort to persuade that minister to incorporate an item in the legislation which many members on all sides of this House want to have.


Eugene Whelan: The legislation to which the hon. member refers deals only with the subsidy and not those other topics we are talking about at the present time.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that the B.C. Towboat Owners Association has sent a telegram to all members of parliament from British Columbia wherein they have expressed their concern that the new navigation practices and procedures regulations and other regulations will create an impossible situation in the towboat industry, will the minister give consideration to postponing implementation of these regulations until a full representation has been made by this industry.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, at this moment we are revising the regulations so that there is not only security but so that more tugboats are covered by the regulations.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr.   Sean@: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General because he is the minister who introduced the bill to retain the provision of capital punishment in the case of the murder of police officers. Since the Solicitor General is responsible for the safety of members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, in view of the recent verdict of guilty by a Supreme Court jury of two men who murdered an RCMP officer, will the minister advise what his recommendation will be to cabinet regarding the sentence handed down by this jury which met to consider a recommendation of clemency and refused to recommend such clemency.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, as the Solicitor General does not choose to answer the last question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Solicitor General was not given an opportunity to answer the question because the question was not in order. To ask the Solicitor General to anticipate what his answer will be when a matter comes before him in the future surely is not a proper question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: I apologize to the Solicitor General. I did not hear Your Honour rule the question out of order.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Erik Nielsen: Since he administers a department which is set up for the purpose of eliminating regional and economic disparities in all parts of Canada under federal legislation, I wonder whether he can inform the House when he will make the Canadian legislation applicable to all parts of Canada by implementing programs in the Yukon and Northwest Territories.


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member should recall that we discussed this matter on a number of occasions. The predecessor to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and I had lengthy discussions on this subject. The objective was to have the same kind of assistance rendered in the territories as in the provinces. I have not, however, had such a discussion with the present minister but undertake to do so. Although it may not be under the DREE program we will try to level it out in terms of both parts of the country, if you wish to put it that way.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. It has to do with the incarceration of Valentyn Moroz. Having regard to the latest representations made to this government and to all members of parliament by the committee on defence of Valentyn Moroz together with the assertion that the information communicated by the Soviet Foreign Minister to the Secretary of State for External Affairs is either false or outdated, might 1 ask the Prime Minister if he is now prepared to intervene personally and make representations to the Soviet Union to determine accurately the medical condition of Valentyn Moroz.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member remembers the answer given by the Secretary of State for External Affairs a very short while ago. He is asking that I review representations which I have made at the highest level, the level of Premier Kosygin and the level of the ambassador. Quite frankly I have no reason to believe any new statement by me would bring any different reaction than I received in the past. I would like to know if the hon. member has some reason to expect things would change.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In view of the conflicting statements, I wonder whether the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for External Affairs have considered approaching the Soviet authorities with a view to requesting that Mr. Moroz be examined by an independent and impartial group of physicians to accurately determine the state of Mr. Moroz's condition since the committee in defence of Mr. Moroz suggests that he might not be expected to live beyond the end of this year.
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe this has been envisaged by the government, and I would have some hesitation in endorsing that course of action. It is really tantamount to indicating that we have no confidence in the Soviet government in respect of its word, and if we say that there is no reason to believe they would be any more generous to us if they think we do not have confidence in them.


ALLEGED INTENTION OF WESTERN PROVINCES TO SEND TRADE MISSIONS ABROAD-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: My question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. The minister is aware of the meetings which took place in the past week and up to the last weekend of the industry ministers of the four western provinces. Having regard to the joint communique issued by the industry ministers of the four western provinces following their meeting last week in Winnipeg in which concern and dissatisfaction was expressed with respect to federal policies concerning the west and announcing the intention of the western provinces to embark on a number of joint promotion and development activities, including the dispatching of trade missions outside of Canada, is the minister prepared to take steps with respect to his trade commissioners' service which apparently is failing to meet the needs and aspirations of western Canadians, according to the ministers, so that the unnecessary duplication and additional burden to taxpayers can be avoided?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, on the first point, I want to make it clear that we are trying to assist the western provinces to realize all their aspirations for both trade and industrial development. I have had a number of discussions with them as recently as today on just that point.
The second point I want to make is that in the past some of the provinces have set up trade missions abroad for their own purposes. I am not sure that they proved to be fully satisfactory. However, that is a decision which they alone will want to make.
As to the other kinds of trade missions, that is to say the kind where they would pay a visit to another country, we will do everything we can to assist them in those missions so that they can make the best use of their time.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Supply and Services. Having regard to the concern and dissatisfaction expressed by western industry ministers with respect to western Canada's share of federal purchas-

November 20, 1974
Oral Questions
ing dollars, is the minister prepared to take immediate steps to direct his department to deal with western Canadian suppliers on an equitable basis as opposed to its apparent current discriminatory practices?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, if there is discrimination these days, it is in favour of the west. I spent the weekend in Vancouver, where I met with businessmen and inaugurated a regional supply centre on the Pacific coast. On December 6, I shall go to Manitoba to announce the opening of an exhibition where the federal and provincial governments in close cooperation, will indicate to businessmen how to do business with the federal government and what possibilities are offered them. Therefore, I can say that the west is certainly in a position to do business with the federal government, and increasingly so with the same opportunities as in the rest of the country. That is the government's policy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FINANCE
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the minister's statement that he would not look favourably on provincial governments having provincial Crown corporations exploiting oil and gas to escape federal taxes, could the minister explain in what manner these corporations would differ from provincial hydro corporations and similar utilities?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: The question is still hopefully hypothetical.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Bearing in mind that Canada made a commitment at the world food conference for one million tons of food for three years starting next year, may I ask the minister what is the earliest month in 1975 in which that food will be sent, what countries will receive that food, what transportation plans are being made, and will these plans be in a sufficient state of preparation to be announced at the November 29 meeting of ministers?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the many questions asked by the hon. member, I am sure he and the House are aware of the fact that Canada made a commitment. I will be making a more detailed statement tomorrow, and I hope that some of these questions will be answered at that time in more detail.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: My question is directed to the Prime Minister. In light of the fact that the government's white paper on defence set as a top priority that there will be surveillance of our own territory and coastlines, and this was confirmed by the Minister of National Defence as recently as October 15 in the debate on the Speech from the Throne when he said:
Our first task and our central responsibility are nothing less than to defend Canadian independence and sovereignty.
-can the Prime Minister tell the House whether the priorities in defence have changed in view of the admission by the Minister of National Defence yesterday that all coastal patrols on both the east and the west coasts have been substantially reduced and at that time-meaning yesterday-there were no patrols in the Arctic and none contemplated? Can the Prime Minister answer the question, keeping in mind that the other three priorities set out in the white paper, that is NATO, NORAD and peacekeeping, have had no cutbacks?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, the priorities have not changed. The government is doing the best it can within its budgetary limitations to fulfill these priorities in the order that has been stated by the minister.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put my next question to the Prime Minister but I think I will put it to the Minister of National Defence. In the light of today's report that Soviet and American armed forces are encroaching on and over Canadian territory in the north, would the minister advise the House what action his department is taking to police, patrol and protect Canadian territory in the high Arctic? At the same time, and with your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, would he clarify the answer he gave to the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich when he said that there were flights in the north, having admitted yesterday that there were none and that none were contemplated?


James Armstrong Richardson: I did not say yesterday that no flights were contemplated. I said very clearly that patrols were continuing on a regular basis but at a reduced level. I said yesterday that I did not know the date of the next high Arctic flight. I can report today that there will be flights next month and in the following month. They are continuing on a reduced but regular basis into the high Arctic.
November 20, 1974

On the hon. member's question concerning the report this morning by the CBC, I can confirm to the House that to the best of my knowledge no Soviet aircraft are flying in Canadian air space or have been flying in Canadian air space.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I will make this a very direct supplementary question. In view of the fact that there have been no Arctic flights of the Maritime command either from Comox or any of the Maritime command bases in Canada in September, or October or until this time in November and yet the minister said yesterday, as recorded at page 1443 of Hansard:
... no date has been set for the next flight to the north.
-how can the minister say with such assurance that in effect there is no encroachment either from the sky or from the water?


James Armstrong Richardson: The hon. member should know that it is not reconnaissance flights that identify foreign aircraft, but rather the radar screen and our interceptory aircraft, which are working at full capacity and have not been reduced in any way.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, November 18, consideration of the motion of Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton) that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, on Monday evening I referred to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) as being an over achiever when it comes to inflation. But I want to be fair to him and I want to say that he is not the only over achiever in the government. We must consider the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). He has certainly done his share. In fact he has done so well that he seems to have acquired some delusions of grandeur because he now refers to himself in the third person. The minister keeps saying that we on this side of the House are trying to destroy him because he won the election. I thought he might have given some credit to his leader. But seriously, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether he really believes he could have won that election without my help.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Then there is the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson).


An hon. Member:: The Winnipeg Kid!
The Budget-Mr. Stanfield


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Here we have a pleasant, modest man who has demoralized the armed forces without even trying. The minister has told us that in the course of this debate he will not be able to say just what his forces will be doing in the future. He tells us not to worry about it, however, because he has just opened a canteen for the armed forces in the Near East. There is no question about the minister's proven ability when it comes to opening up a mess.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The problem from time to time with some messes is how to close them down and keep them closed. The Minister of National Defence is still sitting there with his own mess. I hope he can tell us soon just how he plans to manage it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The Minister of Transport (Mr. Mar-chand) is not here now and as we know he is responsible for an important sector of our economy. He is a charming and amusing man but one who simply does not know whether he is going or coming. For a Minister of Transport it is rather disturbing. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) is also absent. He stands as the top travelling salesman of the government and accepts the invitation of a kind and cordial friend and takes off for Israel. He saved the government a substantial expense, but however he may look for all sorts of explanations to hide his action, his guilt remains nevertheless obvious. The minister reminds me of someone caught in the buff holding a trembling leaf the better to hide his honour.

I suggest to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) the other day that he should consider asking the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) for his resignation for those operations. After the exchange that took place between the Prime Minister and myself yesterday I recognize that we have substantial differences of view with regard to conflict of interest and propriety particularly as they relate to the spouses of members of the government. Sir, I have to ask myself, and I say this in all sincerity, if I had the responsibility of being Prime Minister of this country how could I rebuke one of my ministers for borrowing a flight to Israel from a friend in Canada when I did not take any objection at all to my wife accepting a larger travel gift? It is not a question of me, or anybody else, thinking that such a thing would affect any future decisions of my making if I were Prime Minister-


Mr. Boulanger:: You will never be Prime Minister!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -or that it would affect in any way any decision that the present Prime Minister will make. That is not the point.


Mr. Caccia:: Deal with the budget.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I say, Sir, that if it is O.K. for those at the top it will be regarded as O.K. by ministers and all public employees throughout the government service.


An hon. Member:: That's right!

November 20, 1974
The Budget-Mr. Stanfield


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I do not think it is O.K.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The budget paid lip service to public confidence, seeking a consensus, and seeking self-restraint from Canadians. But how do you achieve the consensus? How do you achieve these things if Canadians do not know if they can trust you? Trust is a very fragile thing and it can be wiped out in many ways.
The Minister of Finance is fond of saying that he always comes clean with the House and the people of Canada. I certainly would not accuse him of any deliberate misrepresentation with regard to his revenue forecast. The minister has a short term forecasting capability, about the same as that of the crew on the Titanic.


Erik Nielsen: With the same result.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I hope the results are not as serious. In less than six months he has had an enormous turn around in current revenue expectations and predictions. He is literally swimming in tax revenues because of the effect of two figure inflation on incomes, so that even with his one year lag indexing in effect he is just swimming in additional moneys. The minister repeated the other night that he has always been frank with the House and the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: We all recall, even some of my friends down there who are trying to make their presence known today, how this minister introduced indexing, speaking of coming clean. His words were somewhat muffled inasmuch as he was speaking, in effect, from somewhere in his stomach, having swallowed himself to do it. But even with indexing, this minister who always comes clean-his cup runneth over with tax dollars which have come in at the expense of the erosion of the real net income of the taxpayers of this country.
The inflation rate this year substantially exceeds the rate the minister has adopted for indexing. So the minister decided he had better give back some of the money he had taken, in the urgent hope that this would help ease the pressures for the further large wage and salary increases that people feel they need to keep up with inflation. I do not quarrel with that action. It is the kind of thing we recommended many times. But I do take exception to the minister's representing these things as tax cuts.
How many Canadians has the minister, and his immediate predecessor, taken off the tax rolls of Canada? Is it 25 million? It must be 25 million by this time. And yet he stands up in this House and solemnly intones what this means in forgone revenues to the government. He considers this a significant demonstration of belt tightening by the government. The quality of that argument is about the same as the quality of hamburger acceptable to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
The cut, if it be such, is a cut from what? It is a cut from unjustifiably high tax rates which the government set in

the first place-that's what. And the government is forgoing what? It is forgoing revenue which accrued to it because of the inflation which the government did not have the guts to tackle. That is all this means. How in the world do you tighten your belt unless you trim something off current federal expenditures? How can the Canadian people take this government seriously? How can they think it is serious when it talks about achieving some consensus, or sharing national productivity, or sharing the pie, or exercising discipline in collecting its share of taxes?
How can anyone believe that the government is serious about tackling economic conditions in this country? Sir, aside from the rate of inflation, the job vacancy rate is at a higher level than it has been at any time in the past four years yet the unemployment rate is still unacceptably high and the cost of unemployment insurance is running at over $2 billion per year. But will the government undertake an independent inquiry into the unemployment insurance program? No, not on your life, Sir. How can you take the government seriously when it talks about wanting to achieve consensus but offers nothing on which consensus can be built?
The minister says he always comes clean. I challenge him to reveal the inflation forecast on which he based the budget figures. I am not challenging him to predict the rate of inflation. He says he always comes clean. Well, let him tell the House what the rate of inflation forecast was on which he based the estimates he presented to the House on Monday evening. On what did he base estimates of revenue? He should reveal the basis for his estimates if he wants to appear serious about encouraging discussions which will lead to a voluntary consensus. But he will not disclose those figures.
The minister is asking other segments of society to cooperate, without their knowing on what the government based its forecasts for revenue. That is absurd. Sir, this sounds like something from Alice in Wonderland. The cover on the budget speech ought to read, "John in Blunderland."


John Napier Turner: Oh, boy! Send that back to whoever wrote it.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I do not pretend the minister's task is easy. I sympathize with him in his task. I would show even more sympathy if he would show more determination in facing it, instead of indulging in razzmatazz.


An hon. Member:: George is the expert in that.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: George may be the expert, but the minister knows how to practice it. If he had shown clear determination to fight inflation, we could have accepted his stand. I do not ask him to follow my suggestions. On the other hand if he proposes serious measures which show he intends to fight inflation in this country, I will support him. But he did not do that. There is not the slightest hint in the speech of any determination to face that responsibility.
The minister expressed concern about a recession. I share his concern. Like him, I dread unemployment which may develop in the near future. The minister also mentioned measures designed to induce growth in Canada; on
November 20, 1974

the other hand he said clearly that we cannot expect continued growth unless inflation is brought under control. But the budget is a complete cop-out in the fight against inflation. It is a complete cop-out in terms of effort to reach any consensus. Clearly, the measures referred to in the Speech from the Throne, and hints the Prime Minister has been throwing out since then, are so much guff. In the budget speech there was nothing but mush. There was nothing about consensus in the speech. That idea, clearly, has been abandoned; I doubt if it was ever entertained seriously.
In our country productivity rates are declining and the size of wage and salary settlements is increasing. Canadians are doing this to protect themselves from the rising cost of living. The minister wants to control inflation, avoid a recession and preserve growth. But how can you avoid a recession when you have not done anything to control inflation? And how can you induce growth under those conditions? Perhaps Mr. Clean can tell us.
The trouble in our housing industry has been created mostly by inflation and associated high interest rates. Mortgage interest rates will not decline substantially unless somebody-certainly the minister will not do it- reduces the inflation rate substantially in this country.
Sir, the minister has put the country on a roller coaster. In association with the Bank of Canada he moved interest rates up; now it appears he is to move them down. Next year, to meet the government's cash requirements, very probably he will move interest rates up again, unless the money supply is vastly increased. But that increase in itself would be highly inflationary. The minister has indulged in the sort of erratic manipulation of economic tools which for years the Economic Council has condemned. As I say, he has put the country on a roller coaster.
I would have expected at least a little humility on the minister's part on Monday night. It ought to be apparent to him, for example, that his policy on interest rates and his handling of the public debt in the last few months has cost Canadian taxpayers billions of dollars. He encouraged interest rates to rise, which in itself was inflationary, and because this created a run on Canada Savings Bonds he had to increase substantially the yield on outstanding Canada Savings Bonds.
Furthermore, as recently as last September 30 the minister created a new issue of Canada Savings Bonds and simultaneously moved up yields on all outstanding Canada Savings Bonds, not to protect people against inflation, but to persuade Canadians to hold on to their bonds and buy new ones. This action was not the result of any anti-inflation policy. And, such was the minister's planning and foresight that now, a few weeks after September 30, the minister has reversed his policy on interest rates. Having moved them up sharply and, incidentally, wrecked the housing program in the country, the minister has now decided to lower interest rates.
You know, all this reminds me of an old nursery rhyme with which you must be familiar, Mr. Speaker. It goes something like this;
The King of France went up the hill With twenty thousand men;
The Budget-Mr. Stanfield
The King of France came down the hill And ne'er went up again.
Undoubtedly the last part, as it applies to the minister, is correct, but I am afraid he will go up again.
In any event, the manoeuvre of the Minister of Finance was not merely nonsense, but very costly. The discounted present cost of the minister's nonsense over the life of Canada Savings Bonds would exceed $2 billion. That is quite a sum, even for the successors of the Hon. C. D. Howe. Let us all humbly give thanks for the boundless wisdom of the government and its tremendous skill in short term forecasting.
With regard to housing, which is a great worry to Canadians, what did the minister do besides starting a downward trend in interest rates? Nobody knows what will happen there. He stuck with the gimmicks announced in the May budget and during the election campaign.
This reluctant tax indexer has reluctantly removed part of the sales tax on building materials. There again we have rather muffled tones from the minister, who always comes clean with parliament and the Canadian people. As far as that is concerned, it is another self-swallowing act for the minister and the Prime Minister. A few more budgets and the minister will have as many or probably more swallows than Capistrano.
Let us look more closely at the little game that is being played. Instead of taking off the full 11 per cent sales tax on building materials, as we have advocated for a long time and still advocate, the minister reduced the rate to 5 per cent. And he has set up a new program to pay $500 to first time purchasers of new homes.
The bureaucracy necessary to collect the 5 per cent sales tax is just as large a bureaucracy as was required to collect the 11 per cent sales tax. In addition, the minister is setting up a new bureaucracy which will have to be of some size to administer the new program of a $500 homeowner grant to each purchaser of a new home. I do not know if that is the key to the job creation program for the new year, but it is a great way to fight inflation. It would be far simpler, more effective, more meaningful, and make more sense to do what we and many others have suggested simply remove the whole 11 per cent sales tax on building materials.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The minister, who always comes clean, is rewriting a bit of his own record. Last May he told us that cutting the sales tax was not advisable, but now it is an ingenious method. Of course, we do not have to go as far back as last May to see how things change in this cabinet of chameleons.
During the election campaign the Prime Minister talked about his great housing platform. He said cutting the amount of sales tax on building materials would be inequitable. He would not touch it with a 10-foot pole.


An hon. Member:: Right.

November 20, 1974
The Budget-Mr. Stanfield


Robert Lorne Stanfield: He may be right, but he better explain why it is equitable now.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I did explain.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The admirers of this government may consider it to be a government of infinite flexibility and adaptable pragmatism, but in plain old-fashioned language, I can only term it dishonest.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Several of the attitudes and statements coming from this government are frankly dishonest, and that word does not seem to me to be exaggerated. Too often, several statements reflect a misconception of the facts, and the Prime Minister himself made such mistakes. One has only to take the example of charges and taxation in the field of natural resources.
In Brantford, Ontario, on June 7 last, at a press conference, the Prime Minister dealt with that question on three occasions in relation to the report of the Royal Commission on Taxation presided by the late Kenneth Carter.
The following quotations are from a report of that same press conference which was provided by the Office of the Prime Minister.

At one point during the press conference, the Prime Minister said, and I quote:
And as Carter recognized many years ago in the Carter report, the best and simplest way to do that is to disallow royalties for federal corporation tax purposes.
Later in the news conference he referred again to the Carter report and said:
The position we took in the budget, which I repeat is the one recommended by the Carter commission, is disallowing royalties as an expense from the point of view of federal taxation.
A bit later the Prime Minister said:
-the approach recommended by Carter is a very good one. It is saying the federal government will have its right of taxation, it won t count royalties as an expense deductible for income tax purposes.
In these three references the Prime Minister firmly and unequivocally represented the Carter report as offering on the record support for the action which was proposed in the May budget and again in this budget, action to disallow deductibility of provincial royalty payments for federal income tax purposes. The Carter report did, of course, deal with this subject. It is covered in some detail in Volume 4.1 quote from page 350 of Volume 4:
Whether the provincial governments derive revenues from natural resources through lease payments, royalties, or a tax on income, the charges are nevertheless a cost of acquiring a supply of the mineral or petroleum concerned. Therefore, such charges, regardless of their form, should be deductible in the computation of income in the same way as any other cost of doing business.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In its conclusions and recommendations, at page 375 of Volume 4, it states, and I quote:
Payments to the provinces for natural resources should be deductible. Similarly, the mining taxes paid to the provinces should be allowed as a cost of earning income and not as a tax credit.

The Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and other ministers may have their own reasons for the action proposed in the budget, but for the Prime Minister totally to misrepresent the Carter report to a news conference hardly generates much confidence in the good faith of the government. It hardly indicates that the government has much confidence in its own position, or that it really believes in the merits of that position. Clearly the Prime Minister was attempting to manipulate an issue which goes to the very roots of our confederation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The record of the government's recent dealings in the resource field is marked throughout not only by dishonesty, but by what can only properly be called treachery. We are all familiar with the agreement reached between the government of Canada and all the provinces on March 27 of this year, an agreement on the price of crude oil at $6.50. The Prime Minister reported this in the House on March 28. He indicated it would last for a period of 15 months, from April 1, 1974, to June 30, 1975.
We all remember how relieved we were to get this information-how everybody regarded this as an act of statesmanship on the part of the Government of Canada and of the provinces concerned. But less than six weeks later, less than six weeks after the statement announcing that agreement had been made in this House, the government produced its astonishing proposal on resource taxation, a proposal which it knew would be unacceptable to the provinces involved. The Minister of Finance must have known, the Prime Minister must have known that the provinces concerned would never have entered into that agreement on March 27 if they had entertained the sligh-est suspicion about what the Minister of Finance intended to do on May 6, and what he repeated again on Monday night.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That is what I mean by treachery, Sir. Those Pearl Harbour boys are at it again.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Yes, they laugh. But it is hollow laughter. On March 28 of this year we all saluted what appeared to be a new spirit of good will and seeming good faith, which made this 15-month agreement possible. Less than six weeks later we were sharply disabused of our feeling that the Prime Minister had been conducting himself in a spirit of good faith in his negotiations with the provinces. The bad faith became evident. I say, Mr. Speaker, without hesitation, that I know nothing in the history of federal-provincial relations in this country which involved such bad faith and such treachery.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The presumption of the government is that confrontation is in style and that the central government will eventually prevail. The presumption of the gov-
November 20, 1974

ernment is that anything is fair in dealing with a province or a group of provinces. It is a sad thing that is happening. In pursuing these ill-considered and sneak attacks in its budget proposals the government is playing with fire, and playing with the future of this country.
As to the changes the minister has in mind with regard to equalization, I am prepared to wait until he has met with the provinces-he has indicated he will meet with representatives of the provincial governments before bringing in legislation to change these arrangements. As I say, I am prepared to await these important developments.
What we are seeing is a two-pronged power play by the federal government to centralize power, to control natural resource development and marketing-


Mr. Fairweather:: -and to tear up the constitution.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It is a move designed to make provinces puppets of the federal government.


An hon. Member:: Wait until Davis dances.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Speaking of dancing, I hope none of the Liberal members from Quebec, who always seem to remain silent when questions of importance are being discussed, are not at all surprised that support for the PQ is on the rise in that province.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: They are wide awake, now.


Mr. Wagner:: Now they are listening!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I don't know what stand the federal government could take, or what stand these Liberal members from Quebec would support which would do more to disillusion the people of Quebec or make them feel more that their traditional rights were being abandoned.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: How about your own party?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, when the government had a two-price system for oil in the fall of 1973, Quebec representatives sat back. There was nothing wrong with that. They accepted it. That was not unfair at all. Who was it who spoke up in the House?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Talk to one of your leaders in Quebec.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Never mind about that. Here they are now, the men who are supposed to represent federalism in Canada, the members from Quebec who belong to the great federalist tradition in the Province of Quebec. They sit in silence. Well, if they are going to sit in silence, I wish they would keep silent.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: How many PQ supporters voted for your party?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
The Budget-Mr. Stanfield


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Well, well. The Prime Minister came alive.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I said it in the debate last spring. I quoted them. They are working for your party. You can regret that separatism is making inroads.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I guess I missed those words of wisdom. The question is not what I miss. That does not make much difference. The question is, really, what the government is doing to the country. No longer will there be any need for serious consultation and bargaining. The federal government assumes the right to fix the price and to dictate revenue sharing arrangements by disallowing provincial royalties as deductions from income for federal tax purposes. I do not see how the Minister of Finance could make such a proposal. If I ever understood his ideology at all, I do not understand how he could possibly justify it.
This will probably encourage take-overs of petroleum and mining operations by provincial governments. Whether a province wants to take over petroleum or mining operations on the merits is a question for the province concerned to determine. Clearly this ought not to be the purpose or effect of federal tax policy, to push or encourage provincial governments to take such a position.
The people of Canada ought to be aware of what the federal government is up to, and what will be the effect of a fundamental change in the nature of our country. The government is set on a collision course which may shake the very foundations of our confederation, and at the same time a course that deprives future Canadians of security of resource supply. The present generation of Canadians in their own lifetime will begin to feel the terrible effects of the continuation of this madness, and future generations of Canadians will suffer the full brunt of it, and will lament that those who did not have to pay the price condemned them to reap the whirlwind.
I call it madness; to me the word is hardly strong enough. The course must be altered. The passage of this budget in its present form would be an indelible black mark on the record of this parliament. In the time left to us before the final vote on the relevant bill we must seek other means of persuasion to achieve alternatives, but if the government chooses to remain unbending it will face an official opposition of equal resolve.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: There was an atmosphere of unreality surrounding the minister's speech on Monday night. It was hard to believe, listening to him, that the country was gripped by raging inflation, that our world is threatened by a future energy shortage, or that the world is threatened by the disaster of escalating crises. Can anyone who loves this country, anyone who values civilization, stability and economic progress, accept the government's arrogant cowardice?


Some hon. Members:: No!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: When I think of a simile to describe the conditions and dangers of the world today I think of the

November 20, 1974
The Budget-Mr. Stanfield
mental pictures we all had as boys, of the terror and
catastrophe created on old warships by a wild cannon
careening around the deck as the ship pitches and tosses.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I don't know what is so amusing to the Prime Minister, but perhaps he would let me in on it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The mental picture you are presenting.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I don't think that that's very relevant. The world today is like the deck of one of those ancient ships, with many cannons secured only by a very slender rope, ready to careen if somebody cuts the rope. I suggest, with regret, that no one is offering real leadership in attempting to make these cannons secure.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The Prime Minister laughs.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I sure do at the metaphor.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That is a pretty good metaphor, and if the Prime Minister reflects on it I am sure he will agree.
Our Minister of Finance rattles around the world, and he talks like a cannon, at least in comparison with the rate at which I talk. If he has offered one constructive thought as to how these cannons should be made secure we have yet to hear it, and the budget address on Monday night did not contain any hint of it.
As far as we can tell, the government's international economic policy is like its domestic policy; it is fatuous, cowardly, inconsistent and dishonest.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The government has its mandate to govern and to lead, but what in fact is it offering? Here we have a government picking a fight within our own country; dividing the country, endangering the development of future supplies of energy for Canadians, talking about a consensus but pursuing a confrontation. There was no attempt to come to grips with inflation. Yes, there was some language of warning; but what comes through essentially is complacency. How fortunate we are! If only those in charge of other countries could run their affairs as well as this government runs Canada!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: There is nothing in the budget to summon Canadians to do battle with a mortal enemy that may destroy us. There is nothing here in the budget that encourages Canadians to accept some temporary sacrifice, to accept restraint in order to bring inflation under control. There was certainly no call to arms. There was a battle plan against the provinces, but there was certainly no battle plan against inflation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner):

That all the words after "that" shall be deleted and there be substituted the following:
"This House condemns the budget as failing to mount a concerted
attack on domestic inflation while at the same time proposing measures which contribute to national disunity."


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to begin by commending the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) for what I thought was an excellent speech, and to indicate to you, Sir, and to the House, that we agree with his position on the constitutional issue. He put that issue very well and in very concise terms. I agree that the federal budget presented on Monday is a breech of confidence with the oil producing provinces of this country, and is something the government will dearly pay for in the future.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Let me also say that the same thing holds true when it comes to equalization with respect to the province of Saskatchewan. Our province had a commitment from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), that equalization would not be touched if that province agreed to the oil agreement of last March. That, of course, is not going to be the result of the budget brought down last Monday.
I want to say that to me the budget brought down Monday night seemed like a classical Liberal 19th century type of approach to the economy. We might almost have seen Gladstone rather than the Minister of Finance presenting the budget on the evening of November 18, or we might have seen the ghost of Ben Benson, puffing his pipe and drafting the economic policies of this country. These are the things of which the budget reminded me, as a member of the New Democratic Party.
The budget in my terms is a rich man's budget. It proposes nothing new to improve the lot of the average and low income people of this country. Nearly all the measures in the budget will give more to those who have money. Nearly all the measures are regressive. They follow the old Liberal theory called the trickle down theory. They prime the pump at the top, and pour in money at the top, to the wealthy and the corporations, in the hope that it will trickle down to those at the bottom, those at the bottom who are able to live, who have jobs and who work in this country. That is the theory our party rejects. It is one which our party feels strongly will not work, and has never worked in this country.
If you look at the proposals in the budget you will find that almost everything fits into that type of pattern. There is the registered home ownership plan, and the exemption of the first $1,000 of interest income which has now been expanded to include dividends, or a combination of dividends and interest. There is the first $1,000 for extra pension other than pensions which are universal in this country. There is a new provision to exempt income in respect of building an apartment building. All these proposals assist far more the wealthy and the haves in this country than the ordinary citizen whom we represent. The same is true for corporations.
November 20, 1974

Again the minister has provided all kinds of goodies for the corporations. There is the extension of the fast writeoff which was supposed to have been eliminated at the end of this year. It has been continued indefinitely without the report to us that the minister promised. The provision of the 100 per cent right-off for exploration for petroleum companies, and a 10 per cent corporate surcharge, that excludes almost all the corporations in this country, together with the 5 per cent corporate tax abatement to the petroleum companies, add to the already extensive bonanza this country has provided to the corporations, year in and year out, from the pockets of our taxpayers.
On the other hand, what is there in the budget for the ordinary citizen? There is a tax cut of $50. I suggest the Minister of Finance was a little less than honest in the way he presented the tax cut, as if it were to be a minimum of $150 for the people of this country. In February, 1973, he implemented a tax cut of $100. That tax cut continues in the main budget. Last May another $50 was added. The tax cut that came in the budget on Monday was just a re-introduction of the $50 tax cut of last May. So, all that is gained by the ordinary and low income person in this country is a $50 tax cut, which is 97 cents a week-less than $1 a week. That is the only thing in the budget for the low income persons, of whom there are many in this country from one coast to the other.
The government even failed to mention an increase in the basic old age pension. It failed to offer any assistance to the working person. It failed to raise the exemption or to give any credit to people with children, for child day care. It failed even to mention any assistance to farmers. I think it pointed out in explicit terms the people the government is interested in helping, and the people the government is interested in forgetting about in our society.
This is clearly a budget for the rich, the wealthy, and those who already have. It is a budget for the investor, the stockbroker, the corporate executive, the doctor, the lawyer, and for the very mandarins who drew it up, Mr. Speaker. These are the people who will reap real benefits from this budget, not the middle or low income people in this country.
The proposals in the budget violate the principle and intent of the recommendations made by the Carter Commission when it pointed out that we have one of the most unfair taxation systems in the industrialized world. Because of the budget before us today, more loopholes and exemptions will be created, and we will forget about the theory that a buck is a buck, no matter from where it comes.
Now this government decrees that it is the type of buck which decides what kind of an exemption a person will get for it, and not where that dollar happens to come from, and this, I think, is a very bad theme in which we should not become involved in this country. I think the theme of a budget, in a country as wealthy as this, should be the redistribution of wealth and income in order to provide a more egalitarian society for one and all. I think that should be the theme of any budget.
We are fortunate to possess immense natural and mineral resources, and a manufacturing and processing industry which is growing strong with people who are very highly skilled and highly trained. With all the affluence we have
The Budget-Mr. Nystrom
I see no reason why Canada should have such a high rate of poverty and unemployment, and such substandard housing conditions for many of its people across the country. We have an inflation rate which is one of the highest of any country in the industrialized world. This budget should have started to redistribute some of the wealth, and incomes, from the rich to the less fortunate, and should have taken steps to plan the economy so that all Canadians might share equally in the wealth this country possesses.
We in our party believe in co-operation through a planned economy, rather than in the ad hoc proposition of the so-called corporate free market. I believe the time has come when people, through the various levels of government, and through their various community and work associations, should exercise the power of planning and directing the economy, and should take it out of the hands of those in the corporate boardrooms where it has been for the past 100 years.
I think that the gap between the rich and the poor has widened in recent years since this government took office. Regional disparities have increased, and foreign domination of our economy has intensified. To me this is a natural consequence of an economy dominated by foreign and large corporations. Our party believes that the only way to reverse that trend is to take the decision making away from those in the corporate sector and give it back to the people, where it belonged in the first place.
Our monetary and fiscal policy must be independent. I think the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies) referred to this recently in the House. The aim in this country must be to improve the quality of life and economic well being of the average and less fortunate Canadian.
I suggest that Monday's budget is typical of past budgets in that it fails to give any direction in respect of providing us with new approaches. The government fails to realize that the world economic situation is more dangerous now than at any time since 1929. The United States admits it is in a recession, with a growth rate not much above zero. Britain, Italy, Japan and other industrialized states face very serious problems that will cut down on their ability to purchase goods from us. Coupled with this is the fact that we have inflation, which will almost certainly continue at a very high level around the world for the immediate future.
What does the government provide? It is not going to wrestle with inflation. The minister has provided nothing at all. All he does is repeat the old cliches to the effect that our inflation or unemployment rate may be better than that of country X, that he is concerned, and that the west should have its place in the sun. But the government will not intervene in the so-called free market place, and is afraid to allocate resources and funds to improve the lot of the average Canadian. It relies on incentives to wealthy individuals and corporations in the hope that they will provide the jobs and guide the economy of all Canadians. I believe that that does not work.
Our party believes that the most effective and humane way to create jobs and strengthen the economy is to

November 20, 1974
The Budget-Mr. Nystrom
provide incentives to the lower and middle income people, to give to people at the bottom of the scale the proper type of income so that they can purchase goods and provide food, clothing and shelter for their families. I believe that the government is not taking that approach in this budget. I will go over a few things that are in the budget that our party considers to be gimmicks and to be regressive.
First of all, there is the registered home ownership savings plan from the budget of last May. It is a $1,000 annual tax write off for people who can afford to put $1,000 into a savings plan on an annual basis for the purchase of a home, or to purchase furniture with which to furnish that home. It is obvious that any statistician or economist will tell us that people who take full advantage of that will be the wealthier people in our society, and not the low income people about whom we should be concerned.
Second, there is an exemption for the first $1,000 of interest income, that was also in the budget last May. This has been extended to include dividend income, or a combination of dividends and interest. Who will take advantage of that provision to its fullest extent? Once again it will be people who have substantial investment portfolios, not the little old lady in Toronto, the workman in Winnipeg, or the farmer in the maritimes. This, too, is a regressive step. Funds that are spent on these types of programs would be better spent on programs of tax credits for all Canadians, starting at the bottom level and stimulating the economy where I believe it should be stimulated.
Third, there is the provision for exempting the first $1,000 of pension income other than universal pensions paid for by the government. In some cases we are helping some people who, I believe, have not received a fair deal. But again it is only fair to point out that in the work force today only 30 per cent of the people who are working contribute to private pension plans.
Finally, there is a new provision to exempt from income tax funds used to build apartment blocks or apartment units. Who in my riding, or in any riding, will be investing money in apartment blocks? Again it will not be the ordinary citizen. It will be the doctor, the speculator, the lawyer or the dentist-those who have money to invest in apartment blocks-not the ordinary citizen.
This is the type of direction in which we are going in the budget. There might be more money going into apartment blocks, but who else will write it off in income tax but the wealthy people of this country? So what do you have for the average citizen?
There is the continuation of the 5 per cent tax cut from 1973, with a minimum $100 cut and a maximum $500 ceiling, and an additional $50 cut for 1974. That is the only thing there is in the entire budget for the low income person. Second, there is an additional $50 in 1975 which will raise the minimum tax cut to $200. The rate will go up from 5 per cent to 8 per cent, and the ceiling will also go up from $500 to $750.
Again this is a regressive step. When you lift the ceiling to $750 here you look at families that have incomes in the $30,000, $40,000 and above category, rather than the average low and middle income salary in this country. Almost

all measures in this budget are regressive and will not help the ordinary person.
I want to illustrate what I mean by taking three typical Canadian families and trying to figure out what kind of tax saving they would have as a result of the budget. The families will consist of a man, his wife and two children under the age of 16, in all three cases in three different income brackets.
First there is Bob, a maintenance worker in Winnipeg. He has a salary of $8,000 to support himself, his wife and two children. He has no tax savings at all through various gimmicks such as the registered home ownership savings plan, and the other plans and gimmicks brought down in the budget. The only saving he will have will be the basic $50 tax cut provided by the minister in 1974. In 1975, on a salary of $8,000, he will save another $50, for a tax cut of some $100.
Now we come to the second Canadian, Richard, who might be a sales representative in the city of Halifax or Toronto. Again he has a wife and two children and lives on an income of $14,000, an average middle income person in Canada. He is probably living in an apartment, and with the cost of living as it is today he cannot afford to buy a house. Therefore he cannot save anything under the registered home ownership savings plan. He probably has savings. Let us say he receives $100 a year in interest or dividends on his savings. In 1974 he will save $133, and in 1975 $183 under the budget that was brought down on Monday.
Now we come to the man in whom the Minister of Finance is interested. He is a wealthy Canadian, whom we will call John. He is an executive living in Toronto, a management consultant, and is earning $40,000 a year. John has been very lucky. He has an investment portfolio, and he gets about $2,000 in interest and dividends that he can write off in part because of the budget. John might decide to move out of his swanky apartment and buy a swanky house, so he can take advantage of the registered home ownership savings plan. In the taxation year 1974, because of Monday's budget, John will be saving $1,120 because he has a high income.
As if that were not all, John also heard on Monday night that he can now invest money in apartment blocks and apartment units. So he has a meeting with his investment club and they decide that, for the taxation year 1974-75, they should take advantage of the capital cost allowance provisions and invest in an apartment block. He invests a lot of money in it, and he has an additional tax exemption of $4,242, which he can calculate in his taxation. The other provision that takes effect in 1975 is the 8 per cent tax reduction ceiling. It goes up from $500 to $750. In 1975 the tax saving for John will be $4,492. That is more than the gross income of many people in my riding, and indeed of people in all parts of this country. While the ordinary worker will save $50 or $100, the wealthy person can save $4,000, $5,000 or $6,000 quite easily.
Then what happens when it comes to the pensioner? I do not think we need to say that there is nothing in the budget for pensioners, no increase in the basic amount, and none of those incentives that the Minister of Finance bandies about in the House. All the measures before us will widen the gap between the wealthy and the have nots
November 20, 1974

in this country, a gap which has been increasing in the last decade because of the rule of the Liberal Party.
I want to go over a few statistics which I think should be on the record, and should be of concern to us all. I will take the income figures for families and individuals in 1965 and in 1972. In 1965 the bottom 60 per cent of Canadians earned 34.2 per cent of the income in this country; the top 20 per cent earned 41.4 per cent. In 1972, some seven years later, the bottom 60 per cent saw their income drop; they made only 32.2 per cent of the national net income, while the top 20 per cent earned 42.9 per cent. Again there is a widening of the disparity during the years of the so-called just society.
When you come to the wealthy, the figures are even more startling. The most recent figures we have for wealth are for 1970. The top 50 per cent of people, families or individuals, own 93 per cent of the wealth of this country; the top 10 per cent of people, families or individuals, own 41.8 per cent of the wealth, and the top 1 per cent, many of them friends of the Minister of Finance, own 12 per cent of the wealth of this country. Is that the just society, Mr. Speaker? Is it a step toward equality? I say it is not and, as the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) comments, it is just for the rich, but we see it continued in the budget that is before us today.
When you look at the comparison between the corporate and the individual tax bill you find that over the last ten or 20 years individuals have paid more in taxes, and the corporations have paid less. In 1950 individuals paid 27 per cent of the tax bill of the federal government and corporations 28 per cent; in 1968-69 individuals paid 34 per cent of the taxes and corporations paid 20 per cent; after five years of the just society the individual tax bill went up again, and in 1973-74 they paid 41 per cent of the taxes and corporations paid 18 per cent.
That trend is continued in the budget before us today, which gives even more write-offs and incentives to corporations. The two year write-off has been extended indefinitely, although it was supposed to run only to the end of December, 1974. The minister was supposed to review the effect of that fast write-off for the House, but we have not seen that review. Why has he not been consulting us in this regard? The minister also said the fast write-off would cost $150 million, but I suspect it will cost much more than that.
The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) has talked about an expansion of billions and billions of dollars for manufacturing and processing. If this is so, how can the fast write-off cost only $150 million? The Minister of Finance should come clean about this. In the last year or two, industry has earned very high profits and there is no reason why it should seek to have the write-offs extended beyond the end of this year.
Then there was the phony gimmick of the 10 per cent surtax on corporate incomes. But an examination of the budget information shows that almost all corporations are exempt from that tax. This can be found on page 20 of the supplementary information provided with the budget. The surtax will not apply to manufacturing or processing profits, to petroleum or mining profits, Canadian controlled
The Budget-Mr. Nystrom
private companies eligible for the small business deduction, to investment, mortgage investment, to mutual funds, to non-resident-owned investment corporations, or to the investment income of private corporations. Who in the devil does it apply to, Mr. Speaker? Is it just a gimmick to try to make people believe that the minister is concerned about profiteering in this country?
As a change from the May budget the minister has provided an abatement of five more tax points to the oil companies, beginning in 1975 and 1976. Then the minister offers a write-off for exploration costs of 100 per cent. That was supposed to be reduced to 30 per cent in the May budget. I wonder why that is being done when the profits of at least Imperial Oil and Gulf are so high.
Finally, the minister has gone ahead with the nondeductibility of provincial taxes and royalties. This was done without consultation. An agreement was made with the oil producing provinces earlier this year, but that is now broken and we can expect difficulties as a result. It strikes me as strange that the minister would disallow taxes paid to a provincial government by oil companies. The provincial governments on behalf of the people own and husband the resources. At the same time the minister allows exemptions for depletion, fast write-offs, write-offs for exploration and development, for entertainment, and almost anything else. When it comes to a provincial tax or royalty, however, he does not allow a company to write that off as a legitimate expense.
A company can claim a royalty to the CPR, or a royalty to any nation in the world as a legitimate expense, but when it comes to the people of Saskatchewan or Alberta the minister is concerned that they are getting too much maney. I suggest the minister has broken an agreement and it is not surprising that the premiers of those provinces are unhappy with the budget.
The minister has also broken his word to Saskatchewan regarding equalization. He told the provinces that if the additional oil funds went into capital funds they would not be equalized, but all of a sudden in the budget he proposes to equalize one-third of those funds. That will cost Saskatchewan $36 million to $40 million this year, Mr. Speaker, according to the minister's department and to the provincial department of finance. This just should not happen in a country where there is supposed to be a consensus, where there is federalism. The minister strikes me as one of the new Godfathers of Confederation. He broke an agreement that, after a great deal of bargaining was signed and put into effect.
In this country there are all kinds of handouts. A few years ago the Carter Commission said that gas and oil companies paid taxes on only 7 per cent of book profits, and mining companies paid something the same. Now the government is asking us to give more concessions to gas and oil companies.
The time has come for us to say that exhaustible and depleting resources should be owned by the people and used by them as public utilities. In most provinces the hydro is publicly owned, and the government should be encouraging the moves of Saskatchewan and other provinces toward public ownership and control of non-renewable resources. Instead, the minister has threatened, at a press conference, to impose a tax on provincial Crown

November 20, 1974
The Budget-Mr. Nystrom
corporations if these resources are put under public ownership. That is the heavy handed approach of 1984, Mr. Speaker, and should not be considered. A quicker move toward public ownership and control of exhaustible resources would be better for the people of this country, and the minister should not impede any such action.
A couple of other things in the budget warrant comment, Mr. Speaker. A major part of it dealt with housing. We all know that housing starts are down from 269,000 in 1973 to an adjusted figure of 173,000 in 1974. This is due to excessively high mortgage rates and the inflated cost of land and building materials. A new home is now out of reach of most middle and low income Canadians. The slowdown in the housing industry is causing lay-offs in the lumber and forest industries in parts of the country. Despite those facts, however, what does the budget offer to the person who wants to buy a home?
First of all, the minister says that person can have a $500 home builder's grant. As the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) said the other day, giving a grant of $500 for building a house nowadays is like throwing a peanut to a starving elephant. It means nothing.
Second, there is the registered home ownership savings plan. I have already commented on that.
Next there is the lowering of the sales tax on building materials, but with no mechanism to monitor whether that saving will go to the home builder or the consumer. Often any potential saving is gobbled up by the middle man in the private sector. My party has always supported the removal of the sales tax on building materials, but only if the saving is passed along to the home builder, or if he is given a rebate in the form of a tax grant. The tax saving should not filter back to the private entrepreneur.
We should treat housing as a social right and remove it from the private, speculative market. The minister has not done this. Instead, by allowing private entrepreneurs tax exemptions on certain income, no matter what its source, he hopes to encourage the building of apartment blocks. The owners will probably charge usurious rents, and tenants will be without protection. That being so, I say that housing should be considered as a social right, in the same way as education and medical care are treated as social rights, and should not be left to the vagaries of the private market or in the hands of the private entrepreneur.
We should pump hundreds of millions of dollars into subsidized public housing, to make life tolerable for low income people. Banks, financial institutions and insurance companies should be told that they must allocate a certain part of their investment capital for mortgages, at interest rates as low as, say, 6 per cent. The government has not done this. We must do it if we are to treat housing as a social right equally available to each and every Canadian.
Other members of my party will comment on other aspects of the budget during the budget debate. I am concerned about the cost of living and about the failure of the Minister of Finance and of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) to wrestle inflation to the ground. The budget does not attempt to do that. It contains nothing of benefit for the ordinary citizen although inflation contin-
(Mr. Nystrom.]
ues to run at between 11 per cent and 12 per cent a year in Canada. The minister predicted that inflation would run at about 10 per cent, and the current level of unemployment is probably higher than last year's level.
The time has come for the government to control inflation in this country. We should establish a prices review board, with expanded jurisdiction to review all prices and price inputs, and with power to order the rollback of excessive profits or excessively high prices, which I am sure the board would reveal.
We must also extend the two-price system, which presently applies to wheat, oil and copper, to all basic commodities, including iron ore, steel and lumber. Only by doing such things can we hope to ease the rate of inflation in this country and insulate ourselves from international inflation. This we are not doing at present.
I notice that the budget does not deal with agriculture. The word "farmer" does not even appear in the budget speech. We all know of the difficult time the beef industry is going through.
Mb. Gillies: The difficulties were created by the government.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: And we know of the difficulties that cow-calf operators are going through.


Mr. Gillies:: Again, these are difficulties created by the government.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The Minister of Agriculture gave this House a commitment that the government would soon establish a policy for beef. Where is the policy? What has happened to his commitment? The budget ought to have included a financial commitment to keep the beef industry, including the cow-calf industry, healthy and in operation. Further, the budget does not mention allocations of funds for a farm stabilization program, and does not mention increased aid for countries whose peoples are starving.
It is wrong for the government not to contribute at least 1 per cent of our gross national product in foreign aid and not to contribute food from Canada to the peoples of the world who are starving. There ought to have been such a commitment in the budget; its omission is immoral. We are being immoral if we do not produce as much food as we can to help needy people in this country and the millions who are starving all over the world.
My colleagues will elaborate on my party's position as the budget debate continues. In view of the shortcomings of the budget, a budget which is not of significant benefit to ordinary people, and in view of the continued rise in the cost of living and continued handouts to the wealthy and to the corporations of this country, I wish to move a subamendment to the amendment proposed by the Leader of the Opposition.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent):
That the amendment be amended by changing the period at the end thereof to a semicolon, and by adding immediately thereafter the following words: "and for failing to provide any significant tax benefit for low and middle income Canadians while granting unwarranted tax concessions to upper income Canadians and corporations."
November 20, 1974


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention, in the course of the present debate, of enlarging upon the voluminous contents of the budget for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1975. We will have the opportunity, in the course of coming debates, of analyzing the credits of the various departments. I do not want to waste too much time on that mess of figures, but would like instead to keep to economic considerations which we cannot always deal with during the other debates.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased, during this budget debate, to invite the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) to leave the beaten path, for a change, and set Canada on a financial path other than the one we have known, and especially the one I have known in the last ten years that I have listened to the various budgets brought down before this House.
Mr. Speaker, to my mind, the budget of a nation is its most vital administrative tool, for it represents the eventual economic development of a whole nation. The Canadian Minister of Finance says yes or no to all that can be done economically for the good of the Canadian people. All the departments are dependent on the financial conditions created by the Department of Finance, for they dominate all others. Only dreamers say that finance is not important; the realists know that to accomplish something, finance is required; otherwise, dreams will always remain dreams.
The Minister of Finance is therefore entirely responsible for stagnation in Canada, the progress or financial setback of each department and consequently of Canada as a whole.
Each morning in a business firm, the accountant or general manager opens that vault to take out the accounting books, the invoices, the cash box, the bank books and everything required for the satisfactory administration of the business in order to take the essential decisions. If the accountant, the general manager or the Minister of Finance, instead of taking the necessary decisions in due course, keeps explaining why the business is at a standstill, saying that competitors and other people are to blame, it is because he is incompetent. If he keeps saying that the business is deteriorating, it is because competitors are underselling him and that is yet another indication of incompetence. When the director of a company keeps imitating his competitors, it is because he is incompetent.
It is the same thing for a country. Unemployment is not to be blamed on others, but on ourselves. Inflation is not to be blamed on others, but on ourselves. Epidemics of bankruptcies are not to be blamed on others, but on ourselves.
Economic regression, such as we are now witnessing in Canada, is not to be blamed on others, but on ourselves. When the Minister of Finance of a country keeps throwing the blame for our troubles on others, then he must be incompetent or unable to act in that he is bound by forces which command him to act against his own competence.
Blaming foreign conditions for what is happening in Canada, as the Minister of Finance did in his budget
The Budget-Mr. Rondeau
speech when he referred to inflation, is indeed the easiest thing to do.
Maybe in the next budget we shall blame some unidentified outer space beings for interfering with and disturbing things on our planet as an excuse for our own blunders. Blaming others only enhances our incompetence or inability to act.
The Minister of Finance should exercise 100 per cent control over the country's finance instead of being controlled by the country's financial forces. Why is the Minister of Finance always trying to defend the present government which keeps bringing him everything he does not want? For it is indeed because of the present financial system that the greatest inflationary pressure ever in Canada has been occurring. The present system is indeed the reason for the deficit of our balance each and every year. In 1961-62; $791 million; in 1962-63: $692 million; in 1963-64: $619 million; in 1964-65: $38 million; in 1965-66: $39 million; in 1966-67: $422 million; in 1967-68: $795 million; in 1968-69: $576 million; in 1969-70: $393 million; in 1970-71: $370 million; in 1971-72: $750 million; in 1974-75: $1.5 billion. The present financial system is actually responsible for a taxation system which accounts for the fact that over 50 per cent of all revenue is siphoned off by various levels of government. It is indeed because of our present financial system that the worst unemployment crises always occurs in peacetime. Indeed, because of our present financial system, the wealth can be distributed among the people only under the condition of waging war. Again because of our present financial system, we experience an economic recession; it is only the beginning. And yet Canada has been built with courage, confidence, hope and dreams about the future that are all melting in the pot of the inflationary financial system the Minister of Finance is happy to defend.
In his budget package, on page 1 of the Highlights brochure, the minister refers to a prudent economy policy, instead of a buoyant economy policy. Reference is also made to inflation and a slowdown in growth instead of reduced cost and increased industrial activity.
Further down, the minister says there should be an attempt to sustain demand. So he is not sure. He says there should be an attempt, instead of stating that demand should be increased. Further down, I read that rising expenditures should be kept down, but in the same breath announces a deficit of one billion and a half dollars. He spends one billion and a half more than the amount of revenues. He says one thing and does exactly the opposite. Surely this is the utmost in inconsistency. Special attention should be given to the weak point in the economy, says the minister. But in such an economic chaos, the Minister of Finance should have realized long ago that the weak points in the economy all point to a basically unbalanced monetary system, which entails structural faults and weaknesses.
With his economists, the Minister of Finance is inspec-tive the roof of the present financial structure in an attempt to repair it instead of working at the very foundations of our monetary systems which cause all those faults. He calls them weaknesses in our economic system.

November 20, 1974
The Budget-Mr. Rondeau
Our continuing economic troubles have their direct cause in our monetary system, but the Minister of Finance takes his time before repairing the cracks. His economist advisers will blpme everyone else but the national system, but the Minister of Finance will listen to nobody else. He will go on fooling around, with the same results. Because economists keep on producing the same causes, he will go on repairing the same results of the present financial system, an obsolete one, without ever going to the roots of the evil.
The cause of all the economic unrest lies in our present financial system, but the hon. Minister of Finances has never dared to propose a financial or monetary reform. He accepts the present monetary and financial system as a fait accompli, as if it was a divine creation. He seems to consider that our monetary and financial system should never be changed or improved.
However, everything has changed in terms of techniques, in terms of science, in terms of productivity and this is true in every area. Progress and changes follow one another and are necessary but the hon. Minister of Finance maintains the old and vicious monetary system of the 19th century and does not even dare to make changes as the authority of those who control credit instead of the government is such that one is even not allowed to question the biggest racket in the history of our supposedly free world, this racket by which our credit remains in the hands of a private or banking monopoly which today controls also our monopolized production system. In Canada, our goal is not the free production system anymore. We live in a monopolistic production system. The free enterprise system means in the 1974 context that monopolies control our production. Private enterprise has disappeared because it was stifled by monopolies with the help of governments and today we live in a free enterprise system. If we are to go backwards, toward the best production system in th world, private enterprise, we must first, Mr. Speaker, create a National Credit Board. All kinds of boards have been created up to now, but the more important one in our situation of inflation would be a National Credit Board so that credit would be at the disposal of society and not society at the disposal of credit as it is presently the case.
Once credit is at the disposal of society, monopolies will no longer be able to strangle others through credit, as was so often the case in the past, when many private enterprises went under the control of monopolies which are in turn controlled by the chief of them all, the credit monopoly.
I hope that the Minister of Finance will read again tomorrow this part of my speech to find out how such a National Credit Board could operate. Its main function would be, first of all, to maintain the volume of money and credit in circulation at a level where the whole population could buy at fair prices all goods which are offered on sale and this, without any risk of inflation or deflation.
Mr. Speaker, as long as there is no National Credit Board, people will juggle with prices. The lack of purchasing power in relation to production will become increasingly obvious.
It would provide the Bank of Canada with the necessary credits for its administration, and the credits needed by

municipalities and school boards in general, and by all the developments requiring joint capital, provided there are production possibilities and needs. The loans would have to be paid back to the extent of the depreciation of the corporate capital thus created. Finally, it would allow the reduction and eventually the clearing of the public debt. The Minister of Finance has said nothing in his budget speech, did not have a word about the lowering, the disappearing or eventually the payment of the public debt.
The duties of the Commission would include establishing an accounting system indicating the assets and liabilities of Canada, the appreciation or depreciation of goods and services, using for this purpose the services of the existing numerous statistics offices or those which would be established, in order to measure at regular intervals the increase in real wealth in Canada and the additional amount of buying power which would have to be distributed corresponding to the real increase in the wealth thus generated.
When the economic stability is insured through a balance between productivity and consumption by means of a production-based credit which will enable production to meet consumption at all times, then and only then the present economic defect shall disappear whereby the distribution rate of the purchasing power for a certain product is always less than the total cost of pricing which creates a constant and cumulative lag between total costs, that is prices, and incomes, that is the purchasing power. The economic unbalance is fundamentally caused by pricing and that unbalance is inflation.
Mr. Speaker, this Minister of Finance or his predecessors should have fired a long time ago the economists around them whose job is to protect the present system, because they are at the service of the people's exploiters who have paid for the establishment of the London School of Economics where economists are trained in large numbers in order to make sure that their system is maintained. In this so-called place of high learning, the London School of Economics, they are taught how to mend the holes of the present financial system and they are brainwashed not to look for economic and social wrongs in the monetary "basement" controlled by their bosses who thrive on the perpetual debts of Canadians and others.
Mr. Speaker, given the economic realities of 1974, this budget is the sign of financial incompetence, perhaps not directly on the part of the minister but certainly on the part of his economists.
In this budget, the government shows a great nervousness towards the future, because it already feels that the "basement" of the economic structure of Canada is unsteady, and indication of a government that does not know where it is going and feels that recession already has a stranglehold on the country.
This budget is evidence that the finance minister may have good intentions, because in trying to avoid a worse evil, an economic recession, he proposes measures that are to the people who are writhing under inflation no more than Lazarus' drops of water on the tongue of the bad rich man in hell.
November 20, 1974


Mr. Bussieres:: We are now hearing words of Revelation.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: This budget which is too little too late will not prevent the worse, because it is already too late. The flames of finance and inflation will burn down our economic structures and the feeble stream of water from the small hose with which the finance minister is fighting them will in no way slow the blaze of recession. As a people, we shall pay for our folly and that of imbeciles such as the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Bussieres) who has never, since he has been sitting in the House, been courageous enough to stand up and say out loud what the people in his riding think.


Pierre Bussières: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Portneuf on a point of order.


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, while listening to some imbecilities, 1 should like to recall that I have had the opportunity to rise in the House and speak, but since the member who has the floor was always absent, he could not possibly know that.


Gérard Laprise: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


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


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, each time a member of the opposition is rising either to ask a question or to make a speech in the House, the hon. member for Portneuf is jabbering to himself in his corner. It might be interesting to send him to a psychiatric hospital for examination to know really what is the matter with him.


Pierre Bussières: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that unless-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Unless the hon. member wants to rise on a new question-We can hardly transfer the Chair at the other end of the House to watch closely the interventions. I would invite hon. members to allow the member who has the floor to carry on with his remarks without too much trouble. The hon. member from Shefford.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to mention that if the doctor does not find anything wrong with the hon. member who has just interrupted me, we should have the doctor examined.
Mr. Speaker, we, as a people, will pay the price of our stupidity as all other people have down through history because every action calls for a reaction and that is a natural law. We cannot pay the western farmers to let their land lie fallow without provoking a reaction. There will be a day of reckoning for all human stupidity. We cannot put a limit on the milk quotas for the eastern farmers as we have done for many years without getting a reaction and we will pay for that. We cannot destroy 28 million dozen eggs without getting a reaction and we will pay for that. We cannot destroy potatoes by the millions of
The Budget-Mr. Joyal
bushels for years and, at the same time, pray the Good Lord every Sunday to be so kind as to bless the fruits of the earth. The reaction is coming and we will pay for our own stupidity. We cannot hang calves sky high, with their heads to heaven, to protest against prices without getting a reaction. We will pay for our stupidity. Prices are the result of man's good or bad management. The animals in the forest, in the jungle or in the wilderness live off the fruit of the forest provided by nature. Unfortunately they often have a lesson in logic to teach man. The beavers build their dam across waterways without borrowing, without debt or taxes and they do not pay the price of three of four dams to other financial beavers to finance their project. Men, however, through sheer pride in their talent, also build dams which they must repay three or four times over, if not forever, to other men to whom they are indebted for financing the construction of the dams. Beavers build without debts, without taxes, without loans. Men can only build with debts and taxes. That proves, Mr. Speaker, that beavers work more intelligently with their tails than the Liberals in power with their heads.
The Minister of Finance is trying his best to convince himself and us that the present system is good while at the same time bewaring of the economic discomforts that have already emerged. Inflation cannot be stopped, he says. Recession, we will try to avoid, he says.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, if I had a general manager of my businesses telling me the same thing I would not risk waiting for the worst, even with a smile. I would be forced to change the Minister of Finance.


Mr. Serge Joyal (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, having the honour and the privilege of being the lead off speaker of the government on the budget speech my opening words will be first for the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), first to thank him for having placed his confidence in the people of his country during the election of July last and for having offered the people of this country a choice so representative of men and women among the social groups'that make up this country and a choice so representative of the age groups that make up Canada.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, a remarkable number of young members are now sitting in this House, and I realize that the responsibilities facing them are extremely heavy responsibilities in view of the present economic situation.
I would also like to pay special tribute to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand). As some of my colleagues sitting on the other side of this House, I was fortunate enough to enter politics with ministers who bring credit to the government of this country. Mr. Marchand is well known in Canada for his sense of aggressiveness and his involvement to ensure that all Canadians have equal access to the resources of this country.
Finally, I would like to note that the seat I now occupy was once the seat of Mr. J. Antonio Thomas, who was a member of this House for nine years and left in his constituency a lasting impression of generosity, of tenacity and especially of honesty. In fact, this man gave an example that several among us should follow in that the member of parliament, in today's context, should be a true
1510

November 20, 1974
The Budget-Mr. Joyal
social worker, maybe even before being a representative in Parliament.
Indeed, several among us have to deal daily with a population that requests services, and needs easy channels to communicate with the government whose administration, as we all know, is getting ever more complex.
On the other hand, I would like to comment on certain remarks of the previous speaker who severely criticized today those who studied at the London School of Economics.
Like the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) and the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), I am a graduate of the London School of Economics, and I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the teachings of this school are not such as described by the previous speaker. On the contrary, if he had asked more questions of the groups who have already taken part-


Gilbert F. Rondeau: On a point of order-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Shefford rises on a point of order.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Will the hon. member allow a question?


Serge Joyal: Mr. Speaker, I shall certainly be glad to reply to all the questions that the hon. member wishes to ask once I have finished my comments.
I would however like to note also certain comments of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Stanfield) who said this afternoon that members from Quebec were particularly silent and did not really defend the interests of their province.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, the present economic situation in Quebec shows disquieting signs generally and in some areas, they are really disappointing. The population in Quebec has not grown satisfactorily compared to neighbouring provinces. The birth rate has dropped by half and for the first time since the end of World War II, there was a net immigration in 1970 and 1971. In 1970-71, there was a net immigration of 382,000 people in Ontario compared to
75,000	people in Quebec. For the first six months of 1974, 29 per cent only of immigrants are French speaking.
The second sign I am concerned about, Mr. Speaker, is the difference between the individual incomes in Quebec and those of other Canadians. In fact, far from decreasing, it has even increased.
The increase in the Quebec labour force in the last ten years is below the Canadian average. Indeed, Quebec's share in Canadian employment is slightly below its share of the population, which accounts for a higher unemployment rate than in Canada as a whole. Further, the quantity and quality of available capital has been below the national average.
Investments grow faster in Quebec than in Canada only in the primary industries, the institutions and the public sector. Despite recent improvements, the growth in the manufacturing industry, trade and utilities is still too low compared to the country as a whole. Productivity per employed person is still lower in Quebec than in the rest

of Canada. The main reason for a slower growth in production lies in the very structure of Quebec's economy. Two-thirds of the Quebec labour force are employed in the production of non durable goods. All these meet essential needs, but they represent a rather stable market and especially a slow growth one. Sectors like the textile and the leather industry, which are important in Quebec, face stiff competition.
Demand from countries which have been traditional clients for Canada in this segment tends to stabilize, while nations that export these goods bring tremendous pressure to bear on the Canadian market in order to increase their exports. It should be difficult, Mr. Speaker, to balance such losses since the share of industrial labour in fastgrowing industries, such as smelting and metal processing, transportation equipment, electrical equipment and machinery, is slightly more than half the percentage in Ontario. But the markets for Quebec goods are only half the size of those in Ontario, where the proximity of the American interline has considerable influence on the supply of goods produced in Ontario.
Because of lower production and revenues in Quebec, and differences in the production structure, the ability to pay tax per capita is lower than in Canada as a whole. Because of this, the tax burden is higher in Quebec and consequently heavier.
Quebec still produces only 61 per cent of its food needs. The Quebec farm production represents only about 13 per cent of the total Canadian production. In addition, some industries that are important to the economic structure of Quebec are in a very difficult situation. The lumber industry, for instance, has been heavily hit by lay-offs, in spite of a potential that could support twice its current production. Employment in the fishing industry is stationary. The mining industry is holding its own even though the depletion of resources is being felt in some areas. The manufacturing industry is also having problems.
The relocation of employees from hardstruck industries to expanding industries is slower in Quebec than elsewhere. Indeed, only the services sector has shown real signs of dynamic growth, both in employment and in production. Now, Mr. Speaker, if the economic forces at work in Quebec remain the same, we cannot hope to see any improvement in the situation in the near future. If present trends in the Quebec economy do not change, clearly Quebec will not be able to improve the quality of its participation to the national economic progress, nor will its resources achieve the degree of development to be wished for if the living conditions of its citizens are to improve.
Despite concerted efforts since the establishment of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion in 1969, it is essential for the federal government to give priority to the definition of measures designed to correct that structural shortcoming at the roots.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, taking into consideration the report tabled by Messrs. Mountain, Higgins and Reno in 1969 on the growth poles of the Quebec economy, we realize that the Montreal region is experiencing a serious setback. Indeed, in most fields, the amazing progress of
November 20, 1974

Toronto leaves us pensive. I do not say so, Mr. Speaker, to point out that there is competition among Canadian cities, but to emphasize the fact that balance in a country is based on an economic growth which takes into account a degree of weakness at each pole.
As far as human resources are concerned, for example, employment in 1966 was 1 per cent in Montreal and 2.9 per cent in Toronto. As for financial institutions, the number of headquarters in Toronto has been increasing as follows: In 1952, for each Toronto head office, there were 1.2 per cent in Montreal. In 1972, this ratio increased to 1.67. Transport, an important economic factor in the Montreal area, is deteriorating. Toronto has become the leader in air transport, is first in trucking, has further shot ahead in railway and water transport. Montreal has now only 6 per cent of the Canadian shipping of general goods, as compared with 12 per cent in 1961 and 40 per cent at the turn of the century.
The Montreal manufacturing industry also dropped off. New investment in Montreal grew from $180 million to $371 million between 1961 and 1971. In Toronto, in the same period, they jumped from $168 million to $438 million. In the communications area, the rise of Toronto has been staggering. Computers number 772 while in Montreal there are only 549. The sales situation is clearer at the provincial level, with assets of 1,873 units in Ontario against 764 in the province of Quebec. Advertising agencies are established mostly in Toronto and are the ones who feed Montreal with contracts.
The growth in the field of telephone, telex and telecomputers bears evidence to the leading part that Toronto is playing over Montreal. In the material resources and building fields, there again a sharp decline. During that period, industrial building increased by 32 per cent in Toronto and declined by 15 per cent in Montreal. The rate of use of hotel rooms is now 55 per cent in Montreal and 66 per cent in Toronto. Mr. Speaker, I deliberately leave aside a number of factors that would only better illustrate my first remarks.
Therefore, I completely agree with the Minister of Finance when he mentions in his budget that we should constrain governmental capital projects in those parts of the country where conditions continue to be tight. This selective approach, said he, as well as our regional development policies, is especially important when the economic situation is so mixed with shortages continuing in many sectors and regions and surpluses developing in others.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the budget as presented also affects a vital segment of the Canadian economy.
My colleagues who spoke before me this afternoon pointed out the importance of housing. My colleague from Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) even said it was a social right. Mr. Speaker, I am completely in agreement with that assertion. It is nothing new. As a matter of fact, in the report of the Board of inquiry on Health and Social Welfare, better known as the Castonguay-Neveu Commission, published in 1971, one can see on page 184 the statement on the following right:
To recognize home ownership as a universal right therefore implies a direct action of the state on the whole housing industry, that today still depends almost entirely upon private entreprise.
The Budget-Mr. Joyal
As universal access to education and medical care required governments to assume their responsability in those areas, in lieu of private enterprise, so to acknowledge entitlement to housing as a universal right implies a similar need for direct intervention in housing services.
Obviously, Mr. Speaker, because of changes in our political philosophy, we have come to consider housing today as a government priority. Such a priority was reasserted in a report published in July 1974 by the Economic Council of Canada under the following title: "Toward a more stable growth in construction". Recommendation No. 7, reads as follows:
... we recommend that future low-income housing efforts be organized and funded so as to ensure a smooth growth path over a period of years, on a regional basis, independent of any swings in other residential or nonresidential construction.
There is no doubt in my mind, Mr. Speaker, that we have to separate housing, public housing, from the whole business of economic activities relating to housing in general.
The federal government has had various experiences in dealing with public housing since 1964. In 1970, a $200 million program was to be introduced to provide for the building of low cost housing units. That program taught us meaningful lessons. In fact, it was bitterly criticized, and most of the projects developed under that program experienced operating difficulties and the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation had to take over in several instances.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to quickly go over the facts presently underlying the building industry. We know that in 1974, the number of starts has decreased alarmingly. In fact, it dropped from 266,900 units in August 1973 to 206,100 in August 1974. There are several causes to that slowing down. The first one is the rising cost of manpower, which rose by 9.9 per cent within 12 months. Another reason is the rising cost of building materials which rose during the same period by 10.7 per cent. Besides, the regulations which were introduced to control rent increases in some classes of rental housing also had the effect of slowing down the market. Moreover, the mortgage market also experienced hard times. Interest rates have gone up and the shortage of funds has been clearly felt.
Over that same period, business investments and investments in office buildings have grown considerably. In fact, Mr. Speaker, looking at it, that increase in investments is positively colossal. In the sole Montreal area, while investments in office building construction neared $2 billion, only 100 million were invested in public housing.
Mr. Speaker, I believe those figures speak for themselves, and we can realize the significance of housing at this time for the government.
A well balanced housing policy should have two objects in view. First, it should be aimed at preserving currently available units, the best way to do it is to pass, as soon as possible, certain regulations that would allow the Department of Urban Affairs to put a fund at the disposal of municipalities to encourage owners to renovate their dwellings in accordance with the National Building Code. This is the passive aspect of the policy, Mr. Speaker, in that it is aimed at protecting dwellings now available without increasing their number.
28543-27>/2

November 20, 1974
The Budget-Mr. Joyal
In Montreal, at least 15,000 units should be started to meet present needs. If this objective is to be reached, we shall bring basic changes to our housing concept. It is essential to establish a ceiling for land prices. In fact, in the budget speech, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) mentioned a policy that would allow land owners to put back in the economic system their enormous stocks of land instead of waiting the effects of inflation before releasing them.
On the other hand, when it comes to skilled labour, the figures given by manpower reveal a surprising shortage. In fact, even with a relatively high unemployment rate, there is a shortage of skilled labour in housing.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, all the regulations concerning the proficiency certificate should be reviewed. When a young man gets laid off, the months of training he has accumulated are lost and he must start all over again when he goes back to work. He therefore loses his apprenticeship days and this has for immediate effect that young workers, which should normally constitute one of the main strengths of our economy, lose interest in the building industry.
On the other hand, as concerns building materials, I was very happy of the annoucement made by the hon. Minister of Finance concerning the reduction of the 11 per cent sales tax. Like my opposition colleagues, Mr. Speaker, I have for several years emphasized the effects of such a tax on the building market. I whole heartedly support the Minister of Finance when he states that the present situation allows this reduction. However, I wonder what effect it will have. In fact, like all my colleagues, I sincerely hope that the reduction will be passed on to the consumer and will not be pocketed by the contractor.
However, Mr. Speaker, Canada has a free-trade policy for building materials. I believe that it is time that this policy be reviewed and access to materials regulated. There again, Mr. Speaker, we are completed by today's situation to make an in depth review of positions that we have always believed to be immovable.
The economic effects of regulations aimed at controlling rent increases should also be reviewed. It is now impossible to judge if the tendency towards higher interest rates is caused precisely by this factor. Our sub-contracting system should also be reviewed. There is considerable outbidding by sub-contractors on the financial market. This outbidding has nothing to do with the cost of materials and manpower. It is caused simply by an increase in demand and there is no reason, Mr. Speaker, why the required regulations in this area should not be implemented.
I also want to deal with the cost of money for apartment buildings starts. This aspect is a most important one, Mr. Speaker. Tax concessions which might be granted to investors in joint housing should be re-examined in the near future. There could be loans, tax cuts, measures to stimulate investments primarily into that sector, forgeting for a while commercial and office space investments.
I would also like, Mr. Speaker, to draw the attention of the municipalities to a certain form of municipal by-laws. In today's context, the contractors are quite often responsible for sewering the land. The city supervises and

approves. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, a contractor making profits with such services should no longer be allowed to do so. The municipalities should be the sole contractor responsible for the installation of such services in new developments.
It would also be important that the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation review its standards. I feel that the standard of 22 per cent of gross income is no longer in line with reality. The increase in salaries and household costs are such that the standards now applied by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation no longer reflect market constraints.
I would also like to point out, Mr. Speaker, the need to provide the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation with a committee on the economic situation. Such a committee would allow the Corporation to adjust its policies and programs in line with market developments.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to stress the effects on the housing market in Quebec of an agreement passed in the month of July last between the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the Quebec Housing Corporation. Under that agreement the Quebec Housing Corporation becomes the only implementer of housing policies in Quebec with the funds of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. That agreement will have two effects.
In the first place, public housing is no longer owned by municipalities but by the provincial government. On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that the results will be achieved directly through the centralization of a bureaucracy that should remain at the citizens' level. I am perfectly aware that the provinces should be implementers of housing policy in certain areas, but I personally feel deep concern that in the present context we should no longer leave to other levels of government a responsibility that lies squarely and mainly within federal jurisdiction.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would mention one of the main features of the budget speech, and by that I mean the statement by the Minister of Finance that in the current inflation period, no group will use any measure of restriction unless they know other groups will do the same. Each group has a tendancy to protect itself against the highest rates of inflation it anticipates. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the minister of Finance is referring here to the inflationary escalation. In this context, groups in short are forced to protect themselves against whatever the economy can offer them. I recall that during these last few months we paid visits to food stores where the management had deliberately changed their prices even though they had been supplied with products at prices lower than what is now being asked for the same products on the market. I am anxious to see the hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) get the approval of this House on the bill which will limit excessive profits and impose drastic controls upon these double prices.
I would like in concluding to emphasize one of the most significant elements in today's political situation. It concerns all the social groups, the community organizations which are working out plans to protect themselves and to make the public aware of the needs of their membership. In recent years, we have witnessed the coming on the Canadian political scene of a variety of Canadian committees and community groups banding together to oppose
November 20, 1974

rent increases, to fight against price rises or even to fight against the nefarious effects of credit that some of my colleagues have discussed earlier.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that each and every member of this House should be very much concerned about the fact that leadership in social policy reforms may not be provided only by the members themselves but also by these groups. I know, Mr. Speaker, that all kinds of abuses are being committed but I do believe that their aim is, in short, to improve the economic and social conditions of people with the same needs as their own. Personally, I am glad that the hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner), the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro), and the hon. Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) have come up with policies which allow these groups to participate more in the preparation of government reforms.
Mr. Speaker, during the forthcoming debate, I will gladly receive any proposal which the hon. members opposite may care to submit on various aspects of the budget. However, I am very anxious to have it adopted as expeditiously as possible, so that people most in need may benefit as soon as possible from the tax reductions provided in their case.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: May I ask the hon. member who has just taken his seat a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: The hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) is seeking the floor for the purpose of asking a question. Is it agreed that he be granted this permission?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: In view of the fact that the hon. member said in his early remarks that he attended the London School of Economics, could he tell us who launched the financing of the foundation of this school?


Serge Joyal: Mr. Speaker, I have a great respect for those who presided over the foundation of the London School of Economics. When they contributed to collecting the funds which were necessary for the establishment of the school, they clearly indicated in the constitutive charter that one of the priorities of the school should be to promote the interest of the less favoured in England, particularly coal miners and textile workers.
I do not think, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Shefford is taking into account the direction this school took when referring to the funds which enabled its establishment. In fact, had he himself sat on the benches of this school, he would have realized that it actually formed the most progressive men in England.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I did not expect this afternoon to be participating in a debate on the rights and wrongs of the foundation of
The Budget-Mr. D. W. Munro
the London School of Economics. Nevertheless it was very interesting and elevating.
From present indications, with one notable exception, it appears to me as though this budget debate consists of a litany of shortcomings, broken commitments and Liberal failures to face their responsibilities. Would that it were otherwise, but I will add mine to the list, speaking from some experience. Let us take consultations, for example. Liberal consultations, as we have seen them in this budget speech and in the budget of May 6, were a sham. I speak of consultations-and we might cite them by the hundreds- about Pickering, Ste. Scholastique, Vancouver airport, and Victoria airport. The gesture of consultation is there, but the decision is made before the consultations are undertaken, and the steamroller goes on, Mr. Speaker.
My concern this afternoon, however, is less with the sham of Liberal consultations than with the lethargy, apathy or straightforward inactivity of the government in the face of problems pressing on the Canadian people: inflation, housing, excessive government expenditure- and that comes into a number of categories-or even such mundane matters as the tanker route.
Since as long ago as the time when I made my maiden speech, almost two years ago, I have been urging the government to take action on the West Coast tanker route. I kept up the pressure by well placed and pertinent questions. I tried to be constructive, but all to no avail. I consider the matter sufficiently important, Mr. Speaker, that I feel compelled to go over the ground once more and bring together in one place the dangers, needs, proposals, advantages, and the means of attainment.
When I first addressed this House in my maiden speech of February, 1973, I spoke about marine services in all aspects.


John Napier Turner: We will never forget it.


Donald W. Munro: I am afraid the government has forgotten many things. The fact that I spoke of it at that time should not be a surprise, given my background with coastal command during the Second World War, my service abroad, the location of my riding and my home.
When I am at home I look out my front windows on a part of that inland sea which embraces Puget Sound, the HARO Strait and the Gulf of Georgia. If I were not to live in the Saanich part of my riding, as I do, but in the Esquimalt part, I should look out on a body of equally well known water, the Strait of Juan de Fuca. One way or another I am surrounded by a very important body of water, jurisdiction over which we have still to determine according to replies to some of my questions lately. I think this is open to discussion, however.
My concern with these matters is therefore quite natural, and furthermore is sufficiently broad to include fisheries, pollution, delimitation of inland waters as well as the means of enforcing regulations affecting those vital areas, that is, a realistic coastguard, in other words, a maritime protective service.

November 20, 1974
The Budget-Mr. D. W. Munro
My experience in parliament, a matter of not quite two years, has shown me that to deal with a subject once in debate is not really sufficient. However reasonable and sensible one's ideas may be, they have to be repeated time and time again, particularly with this government, before there is the slightest indication they have begun to sink in at all.
I have always thought it unfortunate that parliamentary delegations on assignments abroad are not provided with an automatic opportunity, under the rules of the House, to report on the outcome of their assignments or, better still, to open up debate on the outcome of their visits. I tried to do this on July 25, 1973, the day following a visit to Washington by a small all-party delegation from this House, of which I was a member, to let people in the United States Congress know how deeply concerned we were about the dangers of the proposed west coast tanker route from Valdez, Alaska, south through the Pacific into the Puget Sound, through the Strait of Juan de Fuca, and then via the Rosario Strait to Cherry Point for offloading. My interest was prompted because of the location of my riding, and also because of the notion I put forward at that meeting which, in my view, has not only regional but national impact. Since I still feel that the proposal I made in Washington is worth recording I propose to repeat it now.
First, I think one or two things about the Alaska-Cherry Point tanker route that prompt my worry and concern are worth mentioning, considering the inactivity of the government to do anything about the matter. One is that ships carrying Prudoe Bay crude from Valdez to Cherry Point can travel the entire route over a combination of U.S. waters and the high seas. That is to say that passage through the Strait of Juan de Fuca can be negotiated without entering Canadian waters. Canada's ability to block, or even to regulate or control ships plying these waters is, in other words, nil. Our negotiating position on the question would appear to be negligible. We can exhort, plead or urge, but we seem to be in no position to bargain. As I shall indicate later, we have a bargaining position and have failed to use it.
The second thing about the route we are looking at is that the Strait of Juan de Fuca, though reasonably wide, is subject to high winds, strong tides, and fogs at all seasons. The daily weather reports that I hear when I am home indicate a small craft warning nearly every day. That means that winds are blowing up to 30 miles per hour, with riptides. This strait, and the Rosario Strait, through which the tankers also have to pass, are treacherous, subject to strong winds, strong tides, and the currents seem to run, in the main, from south to north, for example, toward the Canadian shore.
Another thing about this route relates to fisheries because, through these narrow binational waters without regard to boundaries, passes one of the last surviving large salmon migrations, out to sea as fingerlings or grilse, and later at spawning, as full grown fish, heading inland to lay their eggs, perpetuate their kind, and die.
A large oil spill in these waters would endanger this migration, threaten the livelihood of many commercial fishermen, both Canadian and from the United States, and cast a lasting blemish on a marine playground enjoyed by

thousands, nay, perhaps millions. Is it any wonder then that I feel obliged to raise my voice in defence of these waters?
When we went to Washington on that visit in July, 1973,
I put before the assembled group a proposal that the United States authorities concerned should consider an oil route that would eliminate the need to use that inland sea altogether. The tankers, I suggested, should proceed further down the coast to the nearest feasible offloading site.
I mentioned Gray's Harbour, just 100 miles or so down the Washington coast, where deep sea facilities are already available-in depths which, admittedly, would not accommodate the deepest of deep draft tankers, but in waters that are dredgible. And if dredging produced insuperable engineering problems then possibly offloading could be assured, with less danger, in a basin. This motion was well received. I have since given it wide circulation among interested congressmen, state officials and oilmen, and I have publicized it in Canada.
The then secretary of state for external affairs said it was not really his business to propose alternative offloading sites. What is to be lost by so doing, I ask?
The great shortcoming of this proposal-and I recognized it as well as anyone-was that Canada did not appear to have any leverage or persuasive argument to make the United States listen. We did not seem to have a negotiating position. As soon as we start to talk about keeping the tankers out of the inland sea, we get back the arguments of (a) what about the tankers taking oil out of Vancouver harbour through these waters-this was done, regrettably, at the height of the Middle East oil panic last spring-or (b) what about the tankers in United States waters on the east coast, offloading Venezuelan and/or Middle East oil for eastern Canada through Portland, Maine? These are tough arguments to counter. The first of these counter-arguments has disappeared, I hope forever. What about the other one?
Can we not negotiate? Can we not trade off safety in east coast United States waters in return for real safety in west coast binational waters? Why not, I suggest now, off-load east coast oil at present terminals in Nova Scotia, say, and use a pipeline to carry the crude, or refined product, to consumers in Quebec? Is it the cost of a pipeline that is stopping us?
We talk, with some abandon, of a pipeline or a railway across the Canadian Arctic to the United States border. Why not the much shorter pipeline on the east coast from Port Hawkesbury, say, to Quebec City? The approaches to Port Hawkesbury are not nearly so devious as the approaches to Portland, in Maine, are said to be, Mr. Speaker.
If we were to give serious consideration to this notion, we should have a negotiating position-we keep their backyard tidy, and they undertake not to throw their dirty oil barrels in our backyard, or in my front yard. I suggest, therefore, that we do have a negotiating point. I put it forward merely as one possible way out-we avoid Portland, Maine; they avoid the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Thus we save our west coast fisheries from the threat of an oil spill; and we save the shipping channels in and around Portland, Maine, from the risk of frightful pollution.
November 20, 1974

Gray's Harbour, at the mouth of the Chehalis River, the entry from the sea to Aberdeen, Washington, is the port which I suggest should be used. I made this suggestion in Washington more than a year ago. I said, "Either dredge the channel that is already there for deeper draft ships, or create an off-shore offloading rig, as is done in the Persian Gulf; or construct a fully protected basin." The swell, I am told, off this part of the coast of Washington is something to experience. Overcoming it involves engineering. Mr. Speaker, engineering problems are there to be solved; they are not there to beat us down.
And what of the cost? We should have a cost to bear in transporting our offloaded oil from our east coast port to the large consumer centres east of the Ottawa Valley; they would incur the expense of improving facilities at Gray's Harbour and transporting the crude oil only a few hundred miles to refineries at Cherry Point or Eugene, Oregon.
I submit that the sort of pipeline I am suggesting will bring advantages over and above those which are readily apparent. It would provide a transport vehicle for Canadian oil to flow east when the right moment comes, if we can ever get back into production. Considering the provisions of the present budget, I wonder if we shall ever be able to do this. Nevertheless, if the pipeline were in place we should have in our hands a real bargaining weapon and not be subject to OPEC's whims and arm twisting.
In light of this budget and its depressing effect on production, my proposal may be out of step with the times. On the other hand, if we can recover from the deductibility features of this budget, we may be able to consider the ideas I have put forward and put these notions to work.
I wish to deal with other matters relating to the proposed tanker route, such as navigational aids which will be needed for regular merchantmen using our inland sea off Vancouver Island. Because of the time limitation, I must put these concerns to one side and talk of a matter which is equally important in maritime terms. I am referring to the enforcement machinery at Canada's disposal. This relates to the claims the government made at the Law of the Sea Conference which was held last summer in Caracas.
As I said at the beginning of my remarks, this debate is very likely to turn into a litany of complaints about problems. At this point, however, I wish to pay tribute to the Canadian delegation which carried Canada's case at the conference in Caracas.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald W. Munro: Do not applaud too quickly. While I was there I saw that the operation was wholly in the hands of public officials. Of these I cannot speak too highly. They were professionals to their fingertips and they worked tirelessly for causes of deepest concern to Canadians-reduction of the risk of pollution on and off our shores-this ties in with my present remarks and with those immediately foregoing-fisheries, appropriate jurisdiction for mining and petroleum development off our shores, marine research and so on.
As an observer at the conference rather than as a delegate, I naturally made no public allusion during my short
The Budget-Mr. D. W. Munro
stay in Caracas to the reservations I had about the position the government was taking, or, rather, to the doubts I harboured as to the government's ability to present a credible case on its claims to jurisdiction over an economic zone extending 200 miles off-shore.
It is important to look at this 200-mile zone and see what it actually means. Of course, we are talking about 200 miles to seaward from a headland to headland baseline drawn around our deeply indented coasts. In short, we are talking of 200 nautical miles, which equal 230 land miles that you, Mr. Speaker, and I travel in our cars. To give this distance some real meaning, I suggest that we get in a car and travel for four hours without let-up at 60 miles an hour. At the end of four hours, if you were at sea, you would reach the edge of the 200-mile zone. That is a long way.
In terms of area, the proportions of this economic zone to seaward are even more staggering. Extending our jurisdiction seaward by 200 miles from our east coast and west coast is like adding a few more provinces. I do not think the government understands this. Have you any idea, Mr. Speaker, how much extra acreage is involved? Extending this zone 200 miles out to sea of our east and west coasts alone would mean adding another 660,000 square miles to the area over which we claim jurisdiction. That would be like adding another Quebec plus another set of maritime provinces, or another Ontario plus a second Manitoba.
What bothers me is that we must enforce our writ over all that extra territory. I do not believe, as matters now stand, that we have that enforcement capability. Nothing in the budget suggests that we shall acquire that capability. This afternoon the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson), in reply to a question, said that his department is carrying out patrols every once in a while. The next one will be carried out next month, and the next one the month after that. This I find frightening.
I have long contended that Canada's coastguard is inadequate even for patrolling and enforcing jurisdiction over our existing territorial waters, which at present extend only 12 miles offshore. Complaints have been heard from both coasts, and incidents recorded regularly in the press and queried in this House during question period, testifying to the validity of my contention.
As a consequence the question I must ask myself, and which I now put to the ministers concerned, is this: given that we do not have a seaborne protective service on a scale sufficient to keep poachers out of our present 12-mile waters, what measures are being taken to remedy that situation, in view of the possibility that we might shortly be expected to keep poachers out of a 200-mile zone; or, if we are not to keep poachers out, how are we to keep track of licensed vessels within the area to ensure that what they are doing meets with our approval?
My second question relates to the first one. It is the question which I refrained from asking during the conference, but it is one which must now be faced honestly. It is this: how forcefully does the government believe it can press its claim to a 200-mile economic zone at an international conference-the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) might ponder this question- when it is clear for all to see that we are completely

November 20, 1974
The Budget-Mr. D. W. Munro
unprepared to enforce any mandate we might secure over such an area.
And if, as I believe, our case is weakened precisely by the absence of enforcement machinery, what plans is the government able to announce, in the way of shipbuilding programs, for example, command structure reorganization-not to mention improvements in our airborne surveillance posture-which will make Canada's claim more credible? The recent replies of the Minister of National Defence have given cause for even greater worry than I felt when I was in Caracas.
This is like the question which was asked many years ago in another context, and it is the question which our friends were asking us in Caracas: how many divisions has the Pope? How many divisions has Canada? I have asked this question four or five times in the last year or 18 months in the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry, but was pooh-poohed for my pains. Speaking in plain credibility terms, who is going to believe that we are serious in advancing our argument in favour of a 200-mile economic zone off-shore, let alone a good claim out to the margin, unless we can show that we are either prepared or are seriously preparing to carry out appropriate enforcement measures in that extended territory?
By enforcement I do not necessarily mean total exclusion of all comers, but rather enforcement of rules of our making as to the size of catch, kinds of fish caught, open and closed season and so on; management decisions over that extended territory. That is what we have to make. That is what we have to enforce. That is what we cannot now enforce.
Extending our coastline out 200 miles on the Pacific and Atlantic means, as I said, adding another Ontario and another Manitoba over which we should be able to exercise some control. To carry our claim out to the edge of the margin, as would be required if we wanted to protect the breeding grounds where our inshore species begin their life cycle, to carry our claim out that additional distance into the Atlantic as far as the Flemish Cap, the only area affected, would mean we would be taking in another British Columbia. Is the government aware of the scale of these extensions of territory? I think it is completely oblivious to these dimensions.
The magnitude of these claims takes on some meaning when stated in these terms. To satisfy the wishes, and possibly the needs of all Canadians in terms of fishing and spawning grounds, we might have to acquire control over seaward areas as great as Ontario, Manitoba and British Columbia combined. How are we going to exercise any sort of control over such areas with our present seaborne and airborne equipment?
All we have is some 86 vessels of all types operated by the Department of Transport, not one of which is designed to travel much more than 12 to 15 miles offshore at the best of times, and not one of which has the speed required, let alone being built for offshore service, to intercept and inspect poachers in distant waters. Can you imagine what patrolling the whole of Ontario and Manitoba would be like with patrol cars, not one of which is capable of travelling at more than 25 miles per hour, and none of

them fitted with snow tires? That is the sort of comparison I am making here. It is ludicrous.
The navy could do this work if we could man the vessels now stored in polyethylene. I am sure it would rise to that challenge, but before the navy can take on, or even share properly in such a task, some decisions are needed from government so that those in command of our naval units have the power to search and, at need, to arrest. I might point out that a commander of a Canadian naval vessel does not have the power in peace time to carry out an arrest unless it is expressly accorded to him by the Minister of Fisheries on a case to case basis.
Are our naval forces enough to handle these extended territories? What plans does the government have to strengthen our hand at sea? The Minister of State (Fisheries) (Mr. LeBlanc) mentioned in committee the other day plans to lay down six new keels. That is good, but will those additions to the coastguard and naval strength prove sufficient to meet our future needs in that vastly extended area of the sea? Somehow I doubt it. I fear the decisions have not been taken long enough in advance of the need.
To be absolutely convincing, both at home and at the international conference table, we have to show that we mean business inside our newly acquired economic zone, be it 200 miles or out to the edge of the margin. Command structures must be redesigned, and new tasks for our maritime and airborne services have to be clearly established so that effective surveillance can be carried out, and so that offenders will know they will be brought to task speedily.
Let it be added here that it would be a mistake to think of the remodelled force charged with guarding our coasts, which I like to call our maritime protection service, and let us not think of it solely in terms of our fisheries. A capable and competent protective service is needed for pollution patrol as well.
This was written before hearing the comments today and yesterday of the Minister of National Defence. I know I will be told that our long-range patrol aircraft, our Argus and their replacements, if they are ever acquired, can effectively carry out the surveillance necessary in terms of pollution control. We are told they can. To observe maybe, but not to prevent.
You cannot serve summonses from aircraft. Those of us who have flown in aircraft on patrol know it is an impossibility. The very idea that a surface vessel on patrol could pop up over the horizon at any moment, with a warrant to arrest nailed to its masthead, is enough to deter any skipper from sluicing out his bilges as soon as he loses sight of land and discharging filthy oil sludge into the sea just off our beaches, a sludge which produces a film to cut off the oxygen necessary for the healthy development, the very life, of our fish.
The fact that in Canadian waters today-and tomorrow too, unless the government stirs its stumps-no skipper need fear the appearance of any such vessel is like a ticket of leave to do whatever the skipper wants to do once he can no longer be seen from the shore.
The government has been severely criticized for its inaction in the face of inflation, its failure to deal effectively with unemployment insurance abuses, its inability
November 20, 1974

to treat the veterans properly, its reckless spending of public funds, and its refusal to reduce taxes for the needy. Now we see it inviting a perilous situation, for example, the creation of wide expanses of ocean that it is going to have to control and with which it is going to be totally incapable of dealing. I see but little sign of increased capacity in our waterborne strength, certainly none to
The Budget-Mr. D. W. Munro
match that which is involved in our extended responsibility.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order, please. It being six o'clock this House stands adjourned until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon.
At 6 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, November 21, 1974