1974-03-07

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to seek consent of the House to move a motion under Standing Order 43 in a case of urgent and pressing necessity, namely, the continued inactivity on the part of the government, making ineffectual the administration of the Combines Investigation Branch in one way by keeping the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission without a chairman since May, 1970, and with only one member since the end of December last year. Therefore, I would like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
This House instructs the government forthwith to make the necessary appointments to the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission so that its membership will be at the full complement of three, pursuant to the Combines Investigation Act, and thus put the commission in a position to carry out its responsibilities on behalf of the consumers of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's motion requires the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity. The hon. member's motion cannot be put.


FOREIGN INVESTMENT REVIEW ACT
Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2) I should like to lay on the table of the House, in both official languages, copies of regulations pursuant to the Foreign Investment Review Act.


SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (B), 1973-74
[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting Supplementary Estimates (B) for the financial year ending March 31, 1974, was presented by Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board) and read by Mr. Speaker to the House.
Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table copies of Supplementary Estimates (B) for the financial year ending March 31, 1974.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That the Supplementary Estimates (B), 1973-74, tabled this day, be referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to present a motion under the terms of Standing Order 43 for the purpose of giving the House the chance to let the Minister of Labour know that we are waiting anxiously for him to implement his commitment to appoint a commissioner to go into the whole broad question of railway pensions. I hope, therefore, the House will agree to this motion so that the minister will have that approval. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard):
That this House requests the Minister of Labour to appoint forthwith a commissioner to inquire into all aspects of railway pensions, including a full inquiry into ways and means of improving substantially the pensions of Canadian railway employees already retired.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not, and therefore the motion cannot be put.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS PENSION PLAN-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the prejudicial

March 7, 1974
Oral Questions
manner in which CNR widows are treated with respect to their pensions, in view of the fact the CNR is a government-owned and operated railway, and in view of the statement by the Minister of Labour that discrimination will be eliminated from the Canada Pension Plan, the Immigration Act, the Canada Elections Act and those acts respecting veterans' pensions, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave):
That this House instruct the government to bring in legislation which would correct the appalling discriminatory practices in the CNR pension plan.


An hon. Member:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. What is the position of his government now with regard to the receipts of the oil producing provinces, the proportion of the export tax that may be paid to oil producing provinces? Is the position of the government today that this is subject to equalization, or not?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, this question is part of a whole series of questions that I am in the process of discussing with the premiers of the oil producing provinces and of the oil consuming provinces. We have a position on this point and I have put it to the premiers. I would hesitate to state it now because it is part of a package, I repeat, which we are negotiating with the provinces which have opposing interests. I would be reluctant, indeed, to have to indicate at this stage of the negotiations what the government's position is.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister and I am not really asking him for a legal opinion. In view of the position taken prior to the recess of the House that the share of the export tax received by the oil producing provinces was subject to equalization, and specific sums were actually mentioned as to what would have to be paid with respect to equalization for the months of September, October, November and December, and in view of the indication by the Minister of Finance since then that, technically speaking at least, a proportion of the export tax received by the oil producing provinces was not subject to equalization, I should like to ask the Prime Minister not what his package is-I am not inquiring about his package for discussion-but whether it is his position that his government is bound under the existing law to regard those moneys received by these oil producing provinces to date as subject to equalization?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. Leader of the Opposition is talking about the past, the opinion expressed by the Minister of Finance is one we stand by, that is, to the effect that these amounts are not subject to equalization.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: If that is the present position of the government, that these payments are not subject to equalization, can the Prime Minister explain why the government told the House, when the export tax matter was before the House for legislative purposes prior to the recess, that these payments were subject to equalization?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, my recollection of what we told the House is that the receiving provinces under the equalization system had benefited largely in the past year, notably by the increases announced by the Minister of Finance last spring, and that the provinces therefore were in a better position with regard to equalization than they had been in previous years. It is true that I remember indicating that they probably would benefit from the increased returns to the oil producing provinces, and that still remains the case. Whether these increased returns would come from their share of the export tax or from general revenues is something which I think was left undetermined.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Would the Prime Minister examine Hansard of January 4, which clearly indicates that the share of the export tax received by the provinces would be subject to equalization and that this was one of the pleas of the Minister of Finance for adoption of the measure? Will he examine the record and at an early opportunity explain to the House why the government made this representation to the House at that time and why, since then, it has taken a different position?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will certainly look up the Hansard record and discuss the matter with the Minister of Finance.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs arising out of the announcement by Dofasco that the company is increasing the price of rolled steel by about 8 per cent, that increase following almost exactly the same increase by the other two big producers, Stelco and Algoma and following a number of other increases which have taken place in the last few months. As steel enters into the production of homes, cars and a host of other products that the Canadian people need and consume, may I ask the minister whether his department is monitoring these price increases and whether he will refer the apparent cartel arrangement among the large steel corporations of this country to the appropriate officers working under the unfair practices legislation for study and research?
March 7, 1974


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to have this matter brought to the attention of the officers to whom the hon. member refers. He has raised a very important question and I will be pleased to provide further information when it is possible for me to do so.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question which was part of the question I have already put to the minister. Is the minister's department monitoring these steel price increases and has it had any conversations with the companies to ascertain whether these increases are at all justified in view of the very large profits recorded by all the companies I mentioned?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, my department has not had such conversations. With respect to monitoring, this matter is being followed by a number of government departments but has not been specifically followed by my own up to this point.


RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES COMMISSION
David Lewis: I have a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, arising out of the motion the hon. member for Skeena tried to move earlier. Would the minister explain to the House why the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission now consists of only one member when it is, by law, to have three members, and how the commission carries on its hearings with only one member? Has it in fact carried on any hearings within the last year?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the commission is carrying on its work of supervising certain investigatory activities of the combines branch as well as considering certain matters referred to it by the branch. It is the intention of the government to fill the remaining vacancies certainly before the stage one competition policy bill is decided by the House, at which time the commission will have additional very important duties to review certain trade practices.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I direct one last, brief question to the minister?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is the hon. member's fourth question. He will be recognized for a short supplementary, followed by the hon. member for Charlevoix.


David Lewis: I think members of the House as well as the people of Canada would be interested in knowing why there has been such a long delay in appointing the chairman of the commission and why the other vacancy has been left so long?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that there is a chairman, Mr. Couture. With respect to filling the
Oral Questions
other vacancies, it is the government's intention to fill them in light of the possible decisions of the House with regard to the stage one competition policy bill.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Gilles Caouette (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Communications.
In view of the new statements-and we discussed them a few days ago-made by his Quebec counterpart, Mr. L'Allier, can the minister tell us how far the negotiations have gone between Quebec and Ottawa about the control of cablevision?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, the last developments are as follows: There were meetings between officials and we are waiting for the provinces to propose a convenient date for the second part of the federal-provincial conference started at the end of last November.


Gilles Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Can the minister tell us if representations were directly made either by himself or by his officials about the fact that the province of Quebec is now claiming from cable-vision operators the amount of approximately $800 for a supposed provincial permit?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, we are trying to ascertain the facts in this field, after which we will be able to establish our policy. The facts are still little known.


NUMBER OF FRENCH AND ENGLISH RADIO STATIONS IN MONTREAL
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary to the Minister of Communications.
Does he intend taking specific action to improve the situation revealed by Mr. L'Allier as concerns the imbalance between the number of French radio and television stations and the percentage of francophones in Montreal, in view of the fact that there are ten English radio stations against only eight French stations, while the number of television stations is the same for both languages?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, this question does not come under the jurisdiction of the minister, as the hon. member is well aware, but under the authority of the CRTC, which has heard very recently the representations of three contractors for a third French television station in Montreal and which should announce its decision on this matter in a relatively short time. For the past two years at least, the CRTC has also been studying the general situation as concerns both the French and English radio stations in the Montreal area.

March 7, 1974
Oral Questions


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: I should like to ask the
Minister of Communications whether the proposals put by his Quebec counterpart in the brief submitted to the federal government are acceptable by the latter?


Gérard Pelletier: No, Mr. Speaker.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister pursuant to the statement made in the House by the right hon. member on December 18 in which he set out guidelines for public servants and order in council appointees. Can the Prime Minister say whether as a matter of policy public servants under investigation will be permitted to continue in that course of action which prompted the investigation in the first place while their cases are being adjudicated?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I missed part of the question because of noise and from that part I heard it appears to be purely theoretical. I am afraid I do not have an answer. If the hon. member will repeat the question, hopefully by being more specific as to cases, I will attempt to answer it.


ALLEGATION THAT CERTAIN CAPTAINS IN MARINE SERVICES BRANCH STILL CARRYING ON SAME ACTIVITY WHILE CASES UNDER ADJUDICATION
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I direct my supplementary to the Minister of Transport. Is the minister aware that four federal employees, captains in the Marine Services Branch of his department in the Toronto area, who have been the subject of an adjudication hearing pursuant to the type of situation about which I asked the Prime Minister, are apparently still carrying on the same type of activity that prompted the investigation in the first place and that no report has yet been released concerning the results of the adjudication? This involves a firm called Meridian Marine Limited and another called Mercator Marine Limited. Can the minister assure the House that he will check into the situation in due course and undertake that the matter will be looked after diligently?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: I do not
know how the hon. member can say they have continued this type of activity when it was decided that they should resign from the company many months ago-three of them. One kept on until he decided to resign. As the hon. member knows, this question is before an adjudicator, and I think the situation has been handled very properly by the department.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: For the minister's information, the company is still listed in the current directory in the Toronto area and the wife of one of the people involved is still

doing business in the basement of a house owned by one of these captains-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Jean Marchand: Perhaps they have not printed a new directory.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration; I am glad to see him back. I do not know where he was, but I suppose he was trying to determine how he should bring in the new amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act. In a recent speech to the Canadian Construction Association the minister, while expressing alarm at the tendency of some people to cheat or rip off the Unemployment Insurance Commission, indicated he had no knowledge of how widespread such tendency was. In order that the Canadian people might be aware of the facts involved, would the minister be prepared to table any statistics he has available which were used as the basis of his speech so we can determine for ourselves the extent of his alarm?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: If the hon. member had referred to the full context of my speech he would have noted that I also expressed concern about the possibility of Canadians or others beating the tax system or the expense account system in submitting expense accounts to their employers. There is a whole range of these matters which I think should be of concern to all of us. As far as statistics are concerned, I think some have been used publicly and I shall be very glad to answer questions of that kind when my estimates are before the committee.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Would the minister be prepared, when the amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Commission Act are introduced, to place before the House the findings of the comprehensive review that was mentioned in the Speech from the Throne in order that we who are concerned about this matter may formulate an opinion as to the validity, form and effectiveness of the proposed amendments?


Robert Knight Andras: I think the Speech from the Throne made it clear that the proposed amendments will be part of an ongoing process in the course of a comprehensive review which, in my opinion at least, will necessarily take some time since it should be carried out very carefully and thoroughly. For this reason the findings in their totality will not be available at the point in time at which the hon. member suggests they should be placed before the House.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Surely the minister must be aware of some findings upon which he has based the proposed
March 7, 1974

amendments. My question is restricted to the amendments only. Surely the minister will allow us an opportunity to look at the statistics and findings with respect to the amendments only so that we may formulate an opinion as to the form and effectiveness of those amendments? Surely we are entitled to that.


Robert Knight Andras: I have no argument with the hon. member as to the wisdom of making the facts available to all hon. members and to the public. We intend to do that. We look forward to the opportunity to do that. The hon. member will be in a position to judge the amendments when they are presented to the House in the light of some of that information that we will be making available.


SHORTAGE OF RAILWAY CARS TO MOVE GRAIN-COMMITMENT BY RAILWAYS TO MEET TARGETS-ABILITY TO MEET EXPORT CONTRACTS
Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the minister who reports for the Canadian Wheat Board. It is based on the statement by the chairman of the Wheat Board that the grain transportation picture is in such bad shape due to failure to provide sufficient rolling stock to move grain that there is a real risk that our dependability as an exporter will be called into question. Has the minister received any commitments from the railroads that they will make up the 17,000 cars by which they are short of their target since the beginning of January?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: We have received no commitment as specific as that, but the railways certainly hope to achieve their targets as quickly as possible. They have been under severe disabilities because of the much greater amount of snow than usual in the prairie region this year, as well as cold weather. I know hon. members appreciate that it snows every year, but this year it has snowed three times as much as it snows on the average and this has made a difference. Perhaps hon. members might at least begin to appreciate the problem when they note that the CPR, for instance, at this point in time last year had ploughed a total of 1,500 miles of track while this year they have ploughed 19,600 miles of track-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Otto Emil Lang: -a ratio of about 13 to one.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, the minister may be surprised that it snows in Saskatchewan, but it is a fairly common phenomenon. Since the minister a few days ago said, when he was asked whether he had had any commitments from the railroads, that he was not satisfied with the commitments he has had, would the minister give the House the firm assurance that the situation to which the Chief Commissioner of the Wheat Board refers, namely, that we are in danger of losing our reputation for dependability and as
Oral Questions
people who are able to deliver what we produce, will not in fact happen and that we will be able to deliver right up to our export targets?


Otto Emil Lang: Again, Mr. Speaker, we are taking every possible step to ensure that this will be the case. We have created an emergency grain transportation committee to consider additional steps that can be taken to move grain more rapidly. The figures that the railways set as targets depended on a certain amount of cars and motive power being available and assumed a certain turnaround of those cars. We think that, by using the cars more effectively in the way they are loaded and in the way the grain is placed, we may be able to get a quicker turnaround and thereby exceed the original commitments of the railways allowing them to catch up on the backlog that exists. That is our purpose and objective and, as usual, this government stands ready to take any step it can to make sure that these targets are met.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There are four or five hon. members seeking to ask supplementaries on this subject and we might go on for a long time and I wonder whether that is what hon. members want. The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond rises on a question of privilege.


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege respecting the last statement of the Minister of Justice about the way the government intends to do things. I ask him this question once again. I have been pursuing the same matter for six years and I am asking for nothing that has not been approved by way of legislation. Would he take another look at section 18(a)(1) and (a)(2) of Bill C-135 and read the last sentence-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member rose on an alleged question of privilege and referred to a statement made by the Minister of Justice in answer to another question. I very much doubt whether that is in order. Now that the hon. member has made his point, I would appeal to him to allow the Chair to return to the question period.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, my point of privilege is based on the statement made by the Minister of Justice which is not factual. I again ask him to compare section 18 (a)(1), section 18(a)(2), section 28(1)(e), and the summary put before the government by the Cape Breton Development Corporation, the last sentence of the second paragraph, and compare that-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre.


SHORTAGE OF RAILWAY CARS TO MOVE GRAIN-ACTION TO ACQUIRE MORE LOCOMOTIVES AND ROLLING STOCK
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport relating to the question asked earlier by my colleague from Saskatoon-Biggar. In view of the fact that both our national railroads, every year for the last number of years, have reported that their inability to meet grain
254

March 7, 1974
Oral Questions
movement is due to a shortage of locomotive power as well as a shortage of boxcars, would the minister tell the House what action he is taking to have both railroads place a higher priority on acquiring additional locomotive power, and would he give consideration to having the next CNR financing bill make provision for additional funds to enable the Canadian National Railways system to acquire locomotives and rolling stock to meet the transportation needs of the country?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I am trying at this moment to exercise all the pressure I can on the railways in order to get rail cars and locomotives. I have been partly successful, though I do not receive the co-operation I should receive. I shall be speaking this afternoon on this question and perhaps the hon. member will be satisfied with my answer.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Vegreville on a supplementary and the hon. member for Skeena on a supplementary and then we will go on to the next question.


SHORTAGE OF RAILWAY CARS TO MOVE GRAIN-ACTION TO ACHIEVE BETTER UTILIZATION OF EXISTING ROLLING STOCK
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. May I ask the minister whether he has looked into the very large number of boxcars that have been sitting idle on various sidings recently throughout western Canada, which results in very inefficient utilization of rolling stock, and what action has the minister or the government taken to provide for better utilization of the rolling stock the railways now have?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we have naturally looked into this question, but this is a human operation and occasionally it does appear that something better could have been done to make more efficient use of cars. But the fact remains that, while hon. members may not see the consequences, when there is as much power being used to plough snow from the tracks as is being used this year compared with other years, this power is not available to collect cars, bring them to the main lines and assemble them into trains. This is the real problem, and lack of power has caused the problem. In addition, the high levels of snow have resulted in more than the usual amount of power being put out of action through snow getting into the motors; this has been a problem as well. I am not trying to defend the railways and I am not saying that they have operated in a perfect manner-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Skeena, following which the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Lotbiniere.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, that was a snow job if ever I heard one. May I direct a supplementary question relating to the shortage of railway cars to the Minister of Transport. Intrigued though we are by the minister's forthcoming declaration, inasmuch as this problem of national rail transportation has been with us for

many months and the government has been unable to cope with it, would the minister seek out among his colleagues the prospect of establishing a national rail transportation system to cope with the situation that exists all across Canada, instead of trying this patchwork approach of pleading with bodies like the CNR and CPR to do something about it?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I will surely fight for this purpose.


URBAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs.
In view of the importance of the railway relocation project of the City of Victoriaville, can the minister say when he intends to introduce the announced legislation concerning this project?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I was just discussing this matter with the President of the Treasury Board so that the Minister of Transport and I can table it at the earliest possible convenience.


SHORTAGE OF RAILWAY CARS TO MOVE GRAIN-REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF BOXCAR CONTROLLER TO DIRECT ASSIGNMENT
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact the railway companies make far more profit from shipping products other than grain and therefore, regardless of snow, lack of power or other excuses, they invariably place grain shipments in a secondary position, will the minister, in order to assure that we can keep up our contracts properly, give consideration to bringing in legislation to provide for a boxcar controller having power to direct the railway companies to provide cars to areas of the economy requiring cars, with failure to do so subject to a heavy penalty? If you do not do that you will never get anything.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I already have in my notes for a speech this afternoon reference to a concept along those lines in order to have some way of monitoring rail and hopper cars. I will be happy to discuss this concept further because I think we will have to do more and a better job in that field in the future.
March 7, 1974


FISHERIES
Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries having to do with marine resources. Bearing in mind that Hamilton Banks is the main spawning ground for the inshore fishery off the northeast coast of the eastern part of Canada and that the months of January, February and March make up the spawning season for this great marine resource, would the minister indicate whether it is a fact, or perhaps I should ask whether he can confirm, that there has been a substantial increase in fishing activity involving that marine resource, especially by the Soviet Union, during the present spawning season, and can he indicate whether his department has increased surveillance of this resource during this period?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that the department is devoting more resources to this matter, but I cannot confirm that the Soviet Union is increasing its fishing pressure in that area.


John Howard Lundrigan: It seems contradictory if there is more surveillance that the minister cannot confirm that there has been an increase in fishing activity. May I ask whether he has taken the position that all nations of the world, including Canada, should refrain from fishing the marine resources on Hamilton Banks during the spawning season as this happens to be the main resource body for the northeast coast fishery and, more importantly, has he communicated that kind of governmental policy decision to the various countries, including the Soviet Union?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, information on this subject is being collected and it will be supplied to other member countries at the next meeting of the International Commission of the North Atlantic Fisheries.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Duncan M. Beattie (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Recently an official of the Department of Immigration was arrested for forging immigration permits, and today it is reported from Newfoundland that immigration authorities there suspect an underground immigration ring based in Munich, Germany. Will the minister now order a public inquiry to clarify these serious charges?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, in respect of the immigration officer who was charged with an offence, I think it is obvious that this resulted from certain allegations which caused the department to request the proper police authorities to investigate them. The matter is before the
Oral Questions
police authorities and will be before the courts, so it would be improper for me to make further comment. This is an indication, however, that where we do have evidence of wrongdoing we are prepared to act. With regard to the other matter the hon. member raised, at any given time there may be plans afoot in foreign countries to propose illegal immigration into Canada. Whenever this comes to our attention we do investigate and take the necessary action, but I do not think this calls for a full public inquiry.


Duncan M. Beattie: Has the minister issued guidelines to his department that would tighten up immigration security and, if so, what is the general content of those guidelines? Has the minister undertaken specific measures to stop further issuance of false work permits to illegal and unqualified immigrants by officials of his department?


Robert Knight Andras: That is an ongoing process at all times.


POSSIBILITY OF LEGISLATION TO PREVENT WORLD FOOTBALL LEAGUE ENTRY INTO CANADA
Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. While supporting the attempt by the Minister of National Health and Welfare to protect the economic viability of the Canadian Football League and his fight against the proposed World Football League expansion into Canada, I should like to ask whether the government intends to introduce legislation at an early date to provide a legal basis rather than merely a persuasive one in respect of future attempts of this kind?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, at this stage the decision has not been taken to use legislation, but I repeat that the minister's stand is one which the government supports and we will take whatever means are necessary.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, it may be difficult for the Prime Minister to answer my supplementary question, but it will get into Hansard and perhaps the Minister of National Health and Welfare can take it as notice. If legislation is anticipated I should like to ask whether the minister or the government contemplates an amendment to some existing act or a brand new bill to handle this particular situation in commercial sport?


THE MINISTRY
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of hundreds of my constituents I should like to put a question through you to the right hon. Prime Minister. It involves his next cabinet shuffle. I should like
27398-17J

March 7, 1974
Oral Questions
to ask the right hon. gentleman whether he has consulted recently with members of the New Democratic Party, and will he be soon naming them to the federal cabinet?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt that a question asked in those terms is in order. I am sure the hon. member will appreciate that.


William Heward Grafftey: Let me reword my question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that during the last 16 months Canada has been governed by a majority Liberal-Socialist coalition government, is the Prime Minister soon going to name NDP members to the federal cabinet? I ask this question on behalf of many serious Canadians.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not plan a shuffle for the immediate future, but I would gladly entertain suggestions from the hon. member as to possible candidates for various posts in my cabinet. Perhaps there are even some good Liberals in his party who would support good federal legislation. He might want to include his own name in any shuffle that I would make.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct an urgent question to the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the fact Nova Scotia fishermen operating out of the port of Lockeport are presently throwing back into the sea anything in excess of 5,000 pounds of prime haddock per trip and are still being fined by the federal government for exceeding the haddock quota as set under ICNAF regulations, will the minister re-examine and amend his order in council of January 15, 1974, in the hope of preventing this excessive waste of high quality food and at the same time enable our fishermen to earn a living in the fishing industry?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, this is a difficult problem. Haddock have been badly overfished by foreign nations. We have an international agreement as to quotas and Canadians cannot take more than their quota if we are to live up to enforce quotas on other nations. We are concerned about this problem but we do not intend to revoke the order alluded to.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: In view of the plight presently faced by Canadian fishermen and their inability to go to sea and make a living, will the minister inform the House what these fishermen are to do with their haddock catch in order to avoid paying fines to the federal government when the incidental catch exceeds 5,000 pounds per trip?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, haddock have been badly overfished so Canadians, among others, must take other fish in order to earn an income. Over-all fishing income on the east coast is up a third from last year, so the hon. member is misinforming the House when-


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Would the minister please answer my question? Fishermen in Nova Scotia are urgently awaiting an answer right now.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but on a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member wishes to rise on a question of privilege. I will recognize the hon. member in a moment, but I remind hon. members that we are now reaching the end of the question period and I would hope that we would try to have a few more questions before calling orders of the day.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, the fishermen in Nova Scotia at the present time are facing a very urgent problem. They are unable to go to sea and keep their catches within the quota set by the order in council passed by the government on January 15. Unfortunately the haddock cannot read even though they travel in schools, so the fishermen are catching in excess of the quota. If they dump them back into the sea, they are polluting the water under the Environment Act and if they dump them on the land they are polluting the air. I asked a simple question and I hope the minister will give me an answer. What are the fishermen to do with these extra fish?
[DOT] (U50)


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has restated the question. He is not satisfied with the reply given by the minister. I respectfully suggest to the hon. member for South Shore and all hon. members that the device of a question of privilege cannot be used to restate a question a second time. If the minister wishes to reply to the restated question I have no objection.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board. As the cost of outside consultants to the government is in excess of $750 million a year and has increased by more than $400 million during the last five years, is it the intention of the government to issue guidelines in the near future in an effort to control this excessive and very heavy expenditure paid for by the taxpayers of Canada?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, we already have guidelines seeking to achieve just this. The guidelines in effect provide that outside advice should be sought in preference to constructing permanent staff to provide inside advice. I hope the hon. gentleman is not suggesting that the government should not seek advice but should proceed without it.
March 7, 1974


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, would the minister not agree that with the number of new top level public servants this government has taken on in the past few years there should be enough people to give the government the type of advice it needs without these excessively high expenditures?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that is obviously argument. The hon. member for Trinity.


INDUSTRY
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the substantial lay-offs in the auto industry, especially in the Windsor area, can the minister say whether the government has any plans to relieve the situation?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member mentioned, there is no question but that the automobile industry is in for a difficult year primarily because of the reduction in purchases and sales in the United States. I can say, however, that the Canadian operation is still optimistic. Indeed, sales of Canadian-made North American vehicles in Canada are up this year over last year.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Has the department undertaken any studies to determine whether or not it would be advantageous to convert additional Canadian capacity to the manufacture of small cars and engines for small cars and, if so, have there been discussions with the industry in this regard?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations with the industry on a fairly continuous basis. Quite clearly, one of the advantages that Canadian auto production has today is that it is more heavily weighted toward small and middle-size vehicles than is the case in the United States.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Will the minister undertake to visit Washington within a few days in order to brief Senator Long and others concerning the facts of the auto pact so that congressmen and senators will not, on the basis of false information, exert undue influence on the U.S. auto industry that would be detrimental to Canadian interests?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, we will take whatever steps we can to ensure that the members of that committee understand Canada's position.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Although I did not hear the words because of the noise on the other side of the House, I am informed by my colleagues that the Minister of Fisheries when I put my
Oral Questions
question to him a moment ago, stated that I was misleading the House. If the minister said that I must ask for a retraction because the facts I stated are as they stand at the present time in Nova Scotia with relation to the regulations imposed upon Canadian fishermen by the Canadian government. I am not misleading the House and I therefore ask the minister to retract that allegation.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member knows the rules very well. We have heard this hundreds of times over the years. The hon. member has heard it. We all know it is not unparliamentary to suggest that another member has made misrepresentations or has misled the House. What is unparliamentary and has been ruled on very often is to suggest that it was intentional, wilful-that kind of concept. When a minister or a member tells another member he has misled the House, I am sure there is no suggestion that the statement should be withdrawn. According to the rules, at that point it becomes a matter of debate between the two members concerning who is right and who is wrong. A matter of debate cannot be the basis for a question of privilege, as has been ruled quite often in the past.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Fisheries is a gentleman, I feel certain he will withdraw that allegation.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day. Is the hon. member for Skeena rising on a point of order?


Frank Howard: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I apologize to the hon. member for Skeena. I believe the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate wishes to rise on a question of privilege and perhaps he should be given precedence. I will come to the hon. member for Skeena and all the other points of order in due course.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, first of all, every time I rise on a question of privilege involving anything to do with fisheries I know it lacks the sex appeal of matters like energy, boxcars and grain. Perhaps this is one of the reasons I am rising on a question of privilege. It must be obvious to Your Honour and all members of the House that there is something really rotten in Denmark when reasonable members-even if hon. members might point a finger at me as once in a while being unreasonable-have to stand in their places and almost abuse the rules of the House in order to elicit information and represent our people in the marine parts of this nation.
Approximately a year ago a number of members rose in the House and presented to Your Honour two points of view. One was in respect of the question period generally speaking, that is, the length of the question period. There were many representations made concerning amendments. The second was the responsibility we felt we had as members to ensure that the frontbench members of the government were answerable each day to legitimate questions asked by members of the House of Commons in view of the fact that this is the only procedure available to us in an attempt to hold the government responsible to the Canadian people.
Today we have had a representation by the hon. member for South Shore in respect of fisheries that was totally

March 7, 1974
Oral Questions
ignored. It received no response. Earlier today I made a representation to the minister concerning the Hamilton Banks. There is not a member of the House of Commons who knows about the Hamilton Banks. It is a billion dollar resource but it does not have sex appeal. The minister knows that today the Soviet Union is out there in abundance raping this resource.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is making a speech on fisheries. We will be engaged in the throne speech debate in a few moments and I would suggest that would be the time to make the kind of speech the hon. member is making now. I cannot for the life of me see how there is a question of privilege which should be ruled on by the Chair at this time.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, we do not have a throne speech every day and members do not have the right to participate every day, but we do have the right to raise questions. I raised the question whether the minister was aware of the fact that there was an increase in activity by the Soviet Union and he indicated he was not aware. I asked him whether there was any increase in the surveillance on Hamilton Banks and he indicated there was an increase. The information I have is there has been a decrease in surveillance in 1974 on the Hamilton Banks.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member resume his seat. I respectfully suggest to the hon. member that he should give the Chair an opportunity to rule on the question of privilege. This is a basic to the debates of this House. The hon. member has a right to rise on a question of privilege, indicate what his point of privilege is, and give the Chair an opportunity to make a ruling, but not to go on at length into the substance of the matter which gives rise to the alleged question of privilege. I would urge the hon. member to let the matter rest. He has made a point which, to my way of thinking, relates more to debate than to privilege. I have taken note of this point, particularly with reference to the question period. Perhaps the hon. member would like to leave it at that and give the Chair an opportunity to reflect on the matter further.


John Howard Lundrigan: To summarize my remarks, Mr. Speaker, the point I was trying to make is that the question period we had today-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


John Howard Lundrigan: -because of the time limit, because of the numerous rules we have to adhere to, and because of the types of responses we are getting from the government front benches, has been such a totally inflexible, totally rigid question period that members have had no chance to elicit the kind of responses for which they are looking. I think too much emphasis is placed on the rigidity of the rules rather than on the rights of the Canadian public.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think I should be required to make a ruling, but if I may make one brief comment it is that I certainly do not think, from my humble experience in the House, that the rules are rigidly enforced during the question period. As a matter of fact, I would think it is just the opposite case.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I want to raise a question of privilege in a similar way, and I appreciate the difficulty Your Honour is in when dealing with matters of this nature. What the rules do provide is an opportunity, as was exhibited today on two occasions, for cabinet ministers if they so desire, without any opportunity for a countervailing or counterbalancing position to be put forward, to give false and misleading information to the House and to the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Frank Howard: I specify two instances. They relate to the Minister of Corporate Affairs in responding to questions which were posed earlier. On one occasion he made reference to somebody called the chairman of the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission. That is an inaccurate statement. There is no chairman. There has been no chairman since May, 1970. For the minister to try to substitute the title "chairman" for somebody who is an acting chairman is false information given to this House and the country.
The second bit of false information he gave the House was that the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission is in a supervisory capacity with respect to the Combines Investigation Branch operating under the Combines Investigation Act. That is simply not true and is not an accurate statement.
Whether such information is given because of a lack of understanding of the situation, which I can fully appreciate with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, or whether it is given in an attempt to sort of fob off a serious question, somehow an opportunity should be provided to present a contrary opinion or position. But no such opportunity is provided under our rules no matter how generously they are enforced by Your Honour.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, my point of order has been adequately covered by the questions of privilege and points of order raised previously, but it deals with the question period and the responsibility of the ministry, and only of the ministry, to answer questions.
If for some reason a minister finds himself doing government business outside Ottawa I have no objection to that, but it is the responsibility of the government to have an acting minister and to do away with the practice of having non-cabinet ministers, in other words, parliamentary secretaries, answer for the government. This is certainly not their responsibility and it is not covered in the rules. Further, I realize that when I put a question to any member of the cabinet he is not required to answer that question. But when he does answer he is expected to answer the question accurately and honourably, and that has not been the case.


Mr. Reynolds:: Mr. Speaker, you recognized me before all these points of order were raised, and I wonder if I could still ask my question.


Mr. Speaker:: That was a long time ago, and as the question period expired some 10 or 12 minutes ago I think we ought to go to orders of the day.
March 7, 1974


SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, March 6, consideration of the motion of Mr. Stollery for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session.
Mr. Hugh Poulin (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, before the adjournment yesterday I had made some remarks with respect to matters of a local nature that are of concern to the government and matters of concern to the government nationally. I would now like to comment briefly on some of the remarks made by the hon. member for Saint-Hya-cinthe (Mr. Wagner), whose speech I listened to yesterday with great interest. He referred to a story during his speech. My recollection of that story is that it had its origin with an Irish Boston politician who said, "These are my principles and policies and if you don't like them- well, I have others."
The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe entered the House with a reputation, unexcelled by any other member, for his commitment to law and order as a prosecutor, as a judge, and as a minister of justice for the province of Quebec. However, it was not long before he, like the Irish Boston politician, reverted to other policies and principles.
Both in the House and in committee he supported the 90-day notice provision inserted in the Protection of Privacy Act which provision, I fear, will greatly restrict the investigative powers of the police in their efforts to control criminal activity. In his speech the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe also made reference to what he termed "the Liberal-NDP charade." May I point out that the NDP support has been for good Liberal policies which have resulted in good laws for Canada-some 50 pieces of good legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Of equal significance is the fact that when the Conservative opposition joined with the New Democratic party, for whatever reasons, the product of that union was the 90-day notice provision which in fact places a fire alarm bell in the offices of organized crime, warning them that law enforcement agencies are investigating their criminal activities. The result of that union produced an illegitimate section in what is otherwise a worth-while piece of legislation.
However, Mr. Speaker, I must agree with the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe when he says that politics, if they are to have any meaning today, must be synonymous with integrity, honesty and responsive government. The word "politics" has gained many unsavoury connotations in recent months. The events surrounding Watergate in the United States have had a deep effect on the faith of the American people in their government, on the integrity of politics, and on the credibility of politicians in general. These effects have spilled over into Canada.
We all have a responsibility to restore politics to its place as a respectable and respected profession in the eyes of the public. Politicians themselves must ensure that they
The Address-Mr. Poulin
are honest, not only in fact but in every facet of the appearance of their actions. The fact that the authority of the government is no longer automatically accepted, especially by younger people, is not in itself an unhealthy attitude if it results in people taking a more active interest in their government.
There is another area of concern to me on which the throne speech was silent. I had hoped that included in it would be an announcement of forthcoming changes in the Narcotic Control Act regarding commercial trafficking in heroin and other similar hard drugs. This is an area which is becoming more and more of a concern to Canadians. The illicit commercial trafficking in hard drugs is becoming more and more of a threat to the health and well-being of Canadians. This problem continues to grow and is one of the major social concerns facing our nation.
My research indicates that the domestic illicit heroin problem is the most serious of our multi-drug problems. The number of persons addicted to heroin in Canada has continued to increase. It is now estimated that there are between 16,000 and 19,000 persons using this drug in our country. If we go back in the chain of supply, inevitably we must find that those who are using heroin, and who are the unfortunate captives of this addictive habit, have been supplied with their drug, and in many cases induced to become users of it, by those whom I would term commercial traffickers in heroin.
For purposes only of my remarks at this time, Mr. Speaker, I would define a commercial trafficker in heroin as one who sells a quantity of heroin, for example, 250 grams, which is equal to eight ounces or half a pound and has a current street value of $100,000. Such traffickers are clearly and without doubt in this most reprehensible criminal activity for the sole motive of profit, greed and avarice. Such traffickers stand to double or triple their investment and we can easily see that the profits are indeed high. I believe that we must impose the most severe and stringent sanctions on such criminal activity so that those who seek to gain such high profits will, if convicted, be assured that the Canadian people, as represented by parliament, will also extract a high price by way of a minimum penalty of imprisonment without parole. I strongly recommend that, in order to deter this criminal activity and to protect society against this most reprehensible crime, the government should amend the Narcotic Control Act to provide a minimum term of imprisonment of seven years without parole for anyone convicted of trafficking in heroin or possession for the purpose of trafficking in the amount I have mentioned. It may be that parliament, upon examination of my proposal, would see fit to define a commercial trafficker as one who would traffic in, for example, two ounces of heroin which now has a current street value of $25,000. I point out, Mr. Speaker, that one ounce of heroin has a street value of $12,500 while the current value of one ounce of gold is $160.
On September 1, 1973, new drug measures went into effect in the state of New York, just 60 miles from our seat of parliament. There, for example, a person trafficking in one ounce or more of heroin is liable to be sentenced to a minimum term of imprisonment of 15 years, with a maximum of life. While a minimum term of imprisonment is

March 7, 1974
The Address-Mr. Poulin
repugnant to me generally, and there are very few such penalties remaining in our system of criminal justice, commercial trafficking in heroin is such a heinous crime that I feel it is the duty of parliament to take all the steps it can to deter commercial traffickers and thereby protect society. Those persons who would dare traffic could not do so while in prison.
Commercial trafficking in heroin might better be compared to those criminals responsible for the Lode airport massacre in Israel, the Munich massacre at the 1972 Olympic games or, indeed, if sabotage was involved, the tragic deaths of 344 people in the recent Paris air crash than to a single murder or multiple murder committed in the course of a robbery or a murder committed by an individual under any imaginable circumstances, for the trafficker in heroin leaves his many victims as unfortunate pitiful slaves to a habit that destroys them mentally, morally and physically.
I will quote now from a transcript of the evidence given at a trial by an eminent pharmacologist who holds a Ph.D. and many other high degrees. In addition, at the time of giving this evidence he had 12 years of practical experience in the drug field. His comments on the long-term and immediate effects on an individual of the use of heroin are as follows:
So far as immediate effects in terms of depression of respiration, and depression of heart action; constriction of the pupil of the eye; depression of intestinal movement. Those effects are less apparent in some ways than the behavioural effects, which relate to a lassitude, a languor, almost a stupor; a feeling of well-being, a feeling of comfort and loss of anxiety. That pleasurable feeling is, in fact, one of the reasons that the heroin user returns to the use of the drug.
In the long range, there are additional kinds of effects because heroin use is characterized by two phenomena; the development of tolerance and the development of dependence. The tolerance means that the user has to increase the dose to get the same kind of effect. So that an habitual heroin user will take many time the dose of heroin which would be toxic or perhaps fatal to someone who was not used to taking it. The dependence on the drug is of two kinds: one is a profound craving for the drug, a psychological dependence, which comes to the point of actually mastering the total lifestyle of the user, such that he lives for the drug-taking experience. His whole life experience revolves around the drug-taking and all that he does centres upon an attempt to make certain that he always has the drug in his presence or available to him for his use.
There is, however, a physical dependence which develops for the drug as well. That we know because if you take heroin away from an addict, within a few hours' time he will begin to show the symptoms of withdrawal. In effect, his body cries out against the removal of it-the drug. The withdrawal symptoms include such things as an appearance, almost, of a heavy cold, with running eyes, running nose, the person aches all over; his joints ache, his belly aches; he has stomach cramps, intestinal cramps and sometimes he has unavoidable defecation; he feels absolutely miserable. This lasts for a couple of days in its most acute form. By seven or eight days it is nearly over with, but during that time he feels acutely uncomfortable. Most people who have been involved with heroin and when the drug is taken away, they all go through this withdrawal, but most of them, if left to their own devices, so profound is their psychological dependence on the drug that they will go back and seek the drug again. So the recidivist rate, the percentage of people who voluntarily go back to the use of heroin, when they have been taken off the drug is, even in the best of treatment institutions, 70 or 80 per cent.
All in all the life expectancy of a heroin user is considerably less than that of normal people.
With respect to the usefulness of a heroin user to himself or to society and the possibility of his returning to a

productive life in society, the following evidence was given by the same man:
There is no doubt that the social productivity of heroin users is markedly decreased. Their total lifestyle revolves around the drug. When they are on the drug, they do not want to work; they have a lassitude and a languor about them, almost a stupor; they are not really interested in productive employment; they become a great strain on themselves and their family and society. The number who are able to break away from that is relatively small, even under the best treatment or circumstances most return voluntarily to that kind of a lifestyle.
I have here some interesting statistics involving heroin and its abuse in Canada. In 1969 there were a total of 310 convictions in Canada involving all offences with respect to heroin. In 1972 there were 923 convictions registered with respect to heroin offences in Canada. This is a most alarming comparison. Another most significant statistics with respect to heroin is that in the entire year of 1972 there were 52.94 kilograms-116.56 pounds-seized, whereas in the first nine months of 1973, that is, from January 1, 1973 to September 30, 1973, there were 63.72 kilograms- 140.18 pounds. That is an increase of approximately 20 per cent in the first nine months of 1973 over the amount seized in the previous 12 months. Comparing the same period, the number of persons charged with trafficking in heroin in the entire year 1972 was 958, whereas in the first nine months of 1973 the total number of persons charged with trafficking in heroin was 645.
As I stated earlier, the number of people addicted to this drug has been estimated to be between 16,000 and 19,000. The number of convictions for offences involving heroin shows a tremendous increase between the years 1969- 310-and the year 1972-923. The amount of this illicit substance seized, comparing 1972 and 1973, shows a remarkable increase and the number of individuals charged with trafficking has also been on the increase.
By virtue of the present penalty provision of the Narcotic Control Act a person convicted of trafficking in a narcotic, whether it be cannabis or heroin, is subject to the same penalty, that is, a maximum of life imprisonment. There is, however, no minimum penalty provided presently in the Narcotic Control Act, whether the offence be in relation to trafficking in cannabis or to trafficking in heroin. The minimum penalty in either case, for either substance, is a suspended sentence.
I have the greatest respect for the judges in our country who have in most instances been imposing severe sentences, justifiably so, in the case of those who are found guilty of trafficking in heroin. My recommendation for a minimum sentence of seven years for anyone trafficking commercially in heroin is designed not to take from the judge that discretion, although it would have the effect of doing so, but more to impress upon those who would dare to traffic in this substance the determination of this government and this Parliament to deal with them in the most severe manner in order to deter this trafficking and to protect society. I would also propose, if a person is convicted, for example, of trafficking in four ounces of heroin as I mentioned previously, that the judge, having regard to all the circumstances including the previous criminal record of the person convicted, if any, continue to have the discretion to sentence the person to life imprison-
March 7, 1974

ment. The greatest weapon we have to interrupt and suppress the illicit traffic in this most reprehensible drug is the diligence and honesty of domestic law enforcement, coupled with the most severe penalty for those who would trade in human life in this way for the sole motive of greed, profit and avarice.
A little more than a year ago, Mr. Speaker, we had a throne speech that marked the beginning of some 50 pieces of legislation. This is to be noted because all the pundits at that time were predicting that the government would last for only a matter of weeks, if not days. That session ended, having lasted 203 sitting days. Last week we had another throne speech. In the coming months we will be able to look back on this debate as the beginning of more progressive legislation as long as the majority of members continue to support good Liberal policies such as we have seen defined in the recent throne speech.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in the remarks of the hon. member who just sat down because for the last two or three years I have been asking the government of Canada to appoint a royal commission to look into international crime, which includes to a large extent the importation into Canada of those dangerous drugs to which the hon. member referred. I hope that he will now become an ally. Up to now the government has paid little attention to a problem that is serious beyond words. At the same time, I want to say a word about the CBC commentator, Mrs. Trudel, who has dealt with this matter at length on her program. On one occasion last fall I heard her mention how widespread and open trafficking was in this immediate area. Apparently, as a consequence of what she said, the RCMP within the last two weeks picked up a large number of alleged wrongdoers.
At a time like this it is always difficult for one to find subjects on which to speak. The House is waiting for the final vote which will come at the end of this debate but which is of little consequence because, once the amendment of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition-not the official opposition but the opposition-has been turned down, we pass into an area of little or no interest.
I commend the government for its decision to endeavour to make Parliament more effective and representation more equal, for bringing about changes in redistribution so as to assure that large areas of our country with small populations will continue to enjoy a reasonable representation in the House of Commons. I brought this matter up originally, and all parts of the House responded with that degree of desirable co-operation which I have always found to be worthy of notice.
That brings me to this point, Mr. Speaker. Parliament, as operated today under the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), is not effective. It is a caricature of what it ought to be. The opposition should place before the people of Canada this fact: we will reform Parliament. We did that in 1956 and 1957. We brought about changes and the people of Canada understood what was happening, because before then the previous administration had been totally disregardful of any views expressed by members in other parts of the House.
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker
Today two members, by way of privilege, raised the issue of questions asked in the House. 1 have been here for some time. You, Sir, are simply tied up by the rules, many of which were forced through under closure by the majority sitting opposite.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: One dare not challenge anything ministers say when they give their truncated answers because, as several hon. members have mentioned, by doing so one would introduce controversial matters. How do you answer controversial matters which may have arisen in a minister's statement except by following up with a supplementary question which may be controversial? What I am leading to is this: There must be a reform of our rules which, today, have placed Parliament in the position of being an adjunct, a necessary adjunct.
As for the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), the hon. member noted in the House of Commons for his wisdom and warmhearted personality, I have noticed lately that even his warmhearted personality has shown some signs of flagging. He is not in the position of being able to move amendments any more. He cannot do it. He is the authority in the NDP on amendments and on Parliament, but he dare not do anything. Why? Because, if he moved an amendment with the accustomed wisdom that he used in the past, the government would be defeated. It is difficult to express how much Parliament has lost in consequence of the present situation.
Does this House, as presently constituted, discharge its responsibilities? Have we any examination today of expenditures? There is virtually no examination. The No. 1 responsibility of Parliament is to look after supply. What has happened? I knew, when I was Prime Minister that ministers would be concerned about the fact that certain programs would be brought up in the House. You will always have that concern on the part of ministers. Today, you cannot bring those matters up, no matter how wasteful the expenditure or how unjust and improper. There can be no vote in the House of Commons on such items. Two years ago we were placed in the position of having to vote expenditures of $19 billion between eight o'clock and one a.m. Those were fabulous expenditures. Do you mean to tell me that if we could deal with individual items the spendthrift proclivities of the Prime Minister would not receive attention?
If anybody wants any information on the subject of those expenditures, I will render the fullest answer. Not even King Farouk expended to the extent the Prime Minister is doing today on 24 Sussex Drive, his offices and his country place at Harrington Lake. Waste, waste, in the hundreds of thousands of dollars! What can you do? You complain, but nothing happens. Amazing waste! Amazing spendthrift expenditures are being made. They have been revealed by two hon. members, the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North (Mr. Coates) and the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt), but you might just as well spit at the moon to do anything effective regarding those expenditures. We have the highest taxation in Canada's history, the highest interest rates-
262

March 7, 1974
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker


Jean Marchand: The highest income.


John George Diefenbaker: -and the highest cost of living. The government says: Look us over, we have something else to take the eyes of the people off these things. We have an oil crisis. What the Arab sheikhs did was a godsend to the Trudeau government.
Have hon. members noticed the attitude of the Prime Minister in the past few days? Everything indicates that he has an election in mind. What will it be on? Those awful pirates in Saskatchewan and Alberta. He is going to wrap himself in the garb of being the preserver of Canadian unity, something which has suffered more detrimental effects under him than under any other Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Taxation is going up. How many have complained about the fact that every employer and every employee in Canada are paying 40 per cent more in unemployment insurance premiums since January 1 this year? That was when the pockets really got picked in the tens of hundreds of millions. How many have spoken? Silence. Can you challenge it? Not as an individual item. I could go on setting out something of what is happening today.
The hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) asked a question today. Some rather ridiculed it. I thought his first question was one that indicated he did not realize what was happening, but the second one was most effective and searching. The Prime Minister tried to brush aside a very, very unusual observation on the part of the hon. member.
The hon. member apparently found in his constituency that this wonderful alliance between the New Democratic Party and the government indicates what the NDP claims it is, the one that forces the government to act. They have become the paragons of political perfection. No matter what legislation the government brings in, who did it? "We did it", say the NDP with that becoming modesty that is being evidenced. Two minds but with a single thought! How do we survive together?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: As a member from Saskatchewan I want to pay tribute to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang). He is not here, but I am sure this will be brought to his attention. I would like to have been at that meeting when the two philosophical and intellectual minds got together just after the election, the leader of the NDP and the Minister of Justice. Mind you, they did not discuss anything about unity. They did not discuss any relationship between them. Well, from now on the minister will be known as the cupid of political development, the first of a kind. He brought them together and it has been effective. However, and I am sorry to say this to the NDP, the Prime Minister has been disparaging of their contribution. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre would be able to quote the Scripture-whom the Lord loveth He chasteneth.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: That is what is happening today because the Prime Minister is trying to get rid of the NDP.
Prime Ministers must have holidays. This Prime Minister has had more holidays than all Prime Ministers since 1867.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: Shame!


John George Diefenbaker: I suggest that the hon. member look up the records. However, none has in fact been like the holiday like he had in Switzerland. I saw a picture of the Prime Minister. He was mounted on a bobsleigh built for one. It was the first time in a year and a half that he was by himself. He did not have to turn and say "David, which way do we go today?"


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Bob, you have a long way to go.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. member will be running the next election, if I know anything about it, as a "Liberal-crat" because he is a bit of a wit. I do not mind his interrupting from any seat because it is always very helpful.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of the right hon. member that I paid him a compliment and nothing else. I said it would take a long time for the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) to come up to par with the right hon. member and I meant every word I said.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, an observation like that indicates the biased nature of the hon. gentleman. I find the Leader of the Opposition deals at great length with inflation in his speeches. Apparently the hon. member has not read the words of the Prime Minister of Canada on December 23, 1970. I keep a record of all these gems. He had just returned from abroad. These were his words:
It is obvious from the statistics the fight against inflation has been won. The government's anti-inflation performance has been unequalled by any country in the western world.
According to the Canadian Press dispatch, he went on to say:
Now the government has to deal even more vigorously with the twin economic evil, unemployment... There is a delicate balance between unemployment and inflation and the government has to be careful not to set off another round of inflation.


An hon. Member:: Great sense.


John George Diefenbaker: Last night he was in Toronto and he spoke there to an audience of those who could afford to pay $75 to attend.


Some hon. Members:: A hundred dollars.
March 7, 1974


John George Diefenbaker: Well, I am always Conservative.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: He revealed a great deal last night. He said: We are going after this problem; inflation has to be met. There is a new thing going around I am told. They call it streaking. Last night the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) streaked. He appeared with all those garments of expectation, hope and political promise removed. All I have to say is that the Leader of the Opposition finally has a recruit in a government which up to the present has shown no sign whatever of doing anything effective to meet inflation.
What is one of the major reasons for inflation? It is overspending.


Some hon. Members:: Right on!


John George Diefenbaker: There never were, in the history of Canada, three governments together which have spent so unwisely or so riotously as this government. Five years ago we had the third best inflation rate in the world. Today we are in sixteenth place. And why? Spending the people's money. Is there anyone opposite who will stand up and justify just one simple example? I could give yards of them, but one will suffice: the spending a year ago of $385,000 on flowers and plants for government offices and $105,000 to water and trim them. Is it any wonder the Prime Minister was chosen as flower boy of the year? I will not include you, Mr. Speaker, but every other person in the House I include. Have you visited the hallway in front of the Prime Minister's office?


An hon. Member:: Beautiful!


John George Diefenbaker: Even the floor of the hallway is covered with that deep carpet. Between $60,000 and $80,000 was spent on trimmings in that place. And in Toronto last night he said the government was going to meet the problem of inflation. Mr. Speaker, there is waste on every hand. For three long years, every one of the ministers- and we are graced this afternoon by the presence of two of them in the House-


An hon. Member:: Three.


John George Diefenbaker: One of them is the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) who has the largest portfolio of all and the happiest disposition, though he does not like some English people in Montreal. Then there is the Minister of State in charge of multiculturalism (Mr. Haidasz). He has been spending right and left. And after all the promises made to people of various racial origin, what are they going to get? They will receive one-seventeenth of the total amount spent on biculturalism.
The Prime Minister used to say nothing needed to be done, that everything was going along well. Last night, like King Canute, up to his ankles, he said: We are going to do something. He got down to business and we can look forward to legislation which certainly is not covered in the Speech from the Throne. Apparently, some of the Liberal members have whispered to him that the stand taken on inflation by the Leader of the Opposition is the right one and that action is necessary.
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: The Prime Minister is touching all the bases. Three years ago he said it was the labouring people with their claims for high wages who were contributing so largely to inflation. But you can never follow the metamorphosis of the right hon. gentleman-yesterday, against the monarchy; today, for it. Ask what you would like to have, and it will be followed-figuratively speaking. But he has relieved labour of any responsibility. We farmers will come later on. Oh, here is the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). I am glad he is with us because, if I have time, I want to deal with him. His demanding presence always deserves respect in the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: This is what the Prime Minister said:
It is important to commend those whose performance has been responsible and restrained.
The opposition was not included in that.
It is therefore appropriate at this time to destroy the myth that the cost of labour has been a dominant factor contributing to the present inflationary round in Canada.
The Minister of Agriculture has not expressed a similar view, but this is the official view now. Having slapped labour in the face for four years, the Prime Minister has suddenly decided that the responsibility for inflation is not theirs. He went on to say that it was not true that the average working man has caused excessive upward pressure on prices.
One of these days I am going to make a speech about all the criticism that was heaped on my head at one time, because some of the members opposite seem to have forgotten that we were in office. They seem to have forgotten the fact that in the period to which I am referring we enjoyed the lowest rate of inflation of any country in the world. How was it done? Simply by having a vociferous minister like the Minister of Transport. If word came that there were to be increases which we believed to be unjustified, the heads of those corporations were contacted and asked whether it was true. We inquired why, and very often they said it was because of increased costs. You would be amazed, Mr. Speaker, how quickly these plutocrats said, "We have not decided on the matter yet", when it was pointed out that if they did, an examination would be made under the Combines Investigation Act and if the increases were not justified they would be prosecuted. Today there is open season on the manner in which the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Gray) and the other ministers, including the Prime Minister, look after inflation. It goes up, up, up.
The day before yesterday they saw the light. They followed the course followed by certain of my ministers and got in touch with the bread people. Yesterday the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs was able to say that there would not be an increase to the four cents. Westons agreed to this the day before yesterday. Then the minister came out with the No. 1 government policy of all and told Canadians that if they did not cut down, boycott them, ignore them. There is the government's policy.
27398-18J

March 7, 1974
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker
Mention has been made of the actual rate of inflation. Mr. St. Laurent was not a spendthrift. He did not waste the people's money or live in glorified greatness. Under his government the rate of inflation was 2.04 per cent. Under the government of Mr. Pearson the rate was 3.26 per cent. He never indulged in self-glorification. He lived in the home I lived in when I was Prime Minister and was most economical in office. Under my administration the rate of inflation was 1.4 per cent.
What is the rate today, Mr. Speaker? The average of this government has been at least 6.7 per cent. The government has done nothing but spend, spend, waste and tax, and then they wonder why the people are asking what can be done to control inflation. Everyone rushes to spend their money as fast as they get it so it does not lose its value.
Going back to 1971, after the Prime Minister announced that we had inflation beaten the rate stood at 1.6 per cent and by the end of the year had risen to 5 per cent. By the end of 1972 it was up to 5.1 per cent, in 1973 up to 9.1 per cent, and the rate today is 9.1 per cent. When is the government going to decide that the people's money should not be wasted? That is the simple question. But the government will not answer it because everyone is engaged in spending and nobody cares. There is no control.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry I have to interrupt the right hon. gentleman, but I must remind him that his time under the rules has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Mr. Speaker:: The right hon. member for Prince Albert.


John George Diefenbaker: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will restrict my remarks to the next five minutes before adjournment.
What are the government's policies in the field of agriculture? Reporting for the Wheat Board, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) has said that all is well. The government brought in the LIFT program. When I returned from the Far East and the U.S.S.R. I said that the demand for wheat was going to be beyond anything we had had before. At that very time the government of Canada called on the western farmers to cut down production. I opposed the LIFT program in the light of events, and I am able to say now that by following the LIFT policy of the government of Canada the western farmer lost hundreds of millions of dollars.
Why cannot some action be taken with respect to boxcars? This morning I decided to turn to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand), and I hope he does not turn away from what he said. We have been trying for months to get the Minister of Justice to bring in legislation to provide that these great railway companies shall not defy the people. Each area of the economy ought to receive its fair share. I suggested a controller with the power to direct that a fair share of available cars be given to grain movement. This is not the case today. The hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) pointed out that cars were piled up for weeks, unused. In explanation all we got was a snow job from the government. The minister says that when the snow goes, everything will be well. Why will this government not appoint a controller?

I am glad to see that at last the Liberal party has awakened to the need for an international food bank. They speak of it today as if it were a recent discovery, a product of the mind of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp). I never charge him with coming to conclusions on anything and I know there is no basis for that.
I brought this question up in December, 1957, before the NATO conference in the city of Paris. All the leaders were there for the first and last time. Only two nations joined, Canada and Norway, no one else. Then, in September of 1960 before the United Nations I brought up the suggestion of a world food bank, but again there were difficulties. However, today other nations are beginning to learn, and Canada is beginning to learn.
I had hoped to deal with international affairs, Mr. Speaker, because, if ever there was a mess in Canada, the administration of international affairs today is in a class by itself. Finally, I ask when will the government give the western wheat farmer immediate interim payments to the end that he does not have to continue to pay interest at a rate of 9, 10 or 12 per cent?


Mr. Speaker:: It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, it would probably have been unforgivable, on the occasion of the debate on the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne and after one year at the head of the Department of Transport, if I had not found the time despite the circumstances to tell the House about the situation as concerns the Department of Transport and about the future as I see it.

I want this speech to be as non-political as possible. I do not know how successful I will be, but I will judge from your reaction. In any event, I tell you that is what I am going to try to do as I think this is a problem so important to the future of this country that we should, at least for a few hours, look into each other's eyes and say what we really think about this matter.
Before preparing my notes for this speech I looked through Hansard for the past 20 years in an attempt to find a comprehensive speech on transportation as a whole, not just on one aspect or a philosophy of the moment. Unfortunately, I did not find such a speech. I found speeches delivered by a number of persons which were good in respect of a particular purpose, but I did not find a speech which covered npt only the problems of the moment but the problems to be encountered in the future.
The last great speeches on transportation were made back in 1967 when the National Transportation Act was adopted by the House. At that time we, as a government, laid down a number of principles in which we believed.
March 7, 1974

These principles were not really rejected by the opposition. Of course, there was opposition but not in respect of the main principles. We said at that time that transportation should work in the same way as other things in other sectors of the economy. We suggested that we should have competition between the railway companies as well as competition between the railways and the trucking industry and between the trucking industry and the shipping industry. We felt in that way we would be sure of getting the best deal possible in this field. I was here at that time and I do not remember hearing any indication of any reservation about this principle. I can tell you now in all honesty from my experience that this fundamental principle is wrong in Canada. It is not entirely wrong but is partially wrong, because if you look at the size of this country and the distribution of its population you will see that you cannot have a transportation network which is economic everywhere; you cannot have an economic system of transportation to service the north, for example, or to service those regions of the country where the population is very thin. You cannot have an economic system for regions which are remote from the centre.
Let us speak about the Maritimes, for instance. If we had laid down this principle at the same time or immediately after we had passed those laws which enable either the department or the CTC to subsidize a certain part of the country, not only the Maritimes but other regions would have suffered. That means that the fundamental principle can apply where there is competition in Canada at this moment, but it will not work in the many places in which there is no competition.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It was not true in 1967.


Jean Marchand: I agree with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield). I believe we thought this experiment would bring results in all regions but this has not happened. I am sure the CNR does not have competition in certain regions. The same applies to the CPR. Sometimes they agree not to have any competition. The fundamental principle of this act has been distorted by the situation in Canada. This is the reason there are so many complaints. I shall not attempt to say to this House that everything that has been done since I have been in office has been perfect. I shall not attempt to prove that.


An hon. Member:: We agree.


Jean Marchand: You agree. I am glad to hear that you agree with something. Sometimes I am pushed around a little in the House by some tricky questions because in the transportation field there can be a lot of difficult situations. I believe I can say I have been lucky. In any event, I think it is correct to say that many good things have been accomplished during this past year and a half I have been in this ministry. I do not say this for myself but on behalf of all the public servants who work hard to solve certain problems, as they did in respect of the problem of the freight rates in the Maritimes. There was an increase from 30 per cent to 50 per cent in the subsidy on westbound traffic. They were successful in working out that formula. I believe everything is just
The Address-Mr. J. Marchand about settled now and we will have an agreement on this question very soon.
So, that has been done and it is very important. That does not mean we have solved all the problems of the Maritimes, but it is something we can place on the right side or on the left side of the ledger. I am not an accountant, so I do not know which side is the good side.


An hon. Member:: The right side.


Jean Marchand: Then, let us put it on the right side. We dealt with the famous Darling report. For years this problem was never solved, but now it has been solved. We have agreed on a formula which will provide that coastal shipping in Canada will be carried on only by Canadian ships and Canadian crews when they are available. So, if we add that to the restrictions we are placing on shipping in Arctic waters, this means that sooner or later we will have something that will look like a merchant marine in Canada. There are many other reasons to believe this is the direction toward which we are moving. This is something positive which is worthwhile mentioning.
We speak also a great deal today about the Western Economic Opportunities Conference and its effects on the western provinces. I have heard statements to the effect that nothing has happened since the meeting in Calgary six or seven months ago. Well, this is not true. I have met twice with the ministers of transport and I shall meet with them again in Vancouver sometime next week. All these ministers agree that if we are to change the pricing systems of the railways in respect of freight, this cannot be done overnight. A proposal was made by Manitoba and another was made by Alberta. We agreed to have a firm of specialists study these and make recommendations. We all agreed that this study could not be available before the month of May or June. The fact there has been no result yet is because we agreed that there should be this kind of consultation. Now, we hope to have some kind of an answer. We agreed on that.
We are agreeing now on the upgrading of the highways on the Prairies. We agreed to freeze all branch lines. This has been done. I hope we still have agreement with the province of British Columbia concerning the rail and port development in the north of the province. This involves an amount of $325 million for the development not only of the natural resources of the north but also the port of Prince Rupert. This is something which is there; no one can deny it. There is also the matter of the Clinton-Ashcroft bypass on which we have a clear agreement. Everyone agrees this is good.
A large amount of money is being spent in Calgary for the new airport. This is something new and it is on the right side of the ledger. We have a new international air policy for the international carriers, CP Air and Air Canada. This is new. It is not perfect. However, I know this has really helped both air lines. It will help not only in solving disputes between CP Air and Air Canada but also with the main problem of getting the largest share we can of the international market. This is what we have done. This is a fact. It is something positive. So, we have signed a bilateral air agreement with the United States. Some people may say it is rotten and they do not like it in

March 7, 1974
The Address-Mr. J. Marchand
respect of their areas, but others say it is good. I shall not discuss its merits, but I know it is the largest bilateral agreement ever signed in the world. This opens many markets. I believe in the long run after we open United States markets to Canadians we will win because it is a larger market and we have a good chance of having a better return. This is something else that should be placed on the right side of the ledger.
In the matter of airports, we thought we could build an airport at Pickering to service Toronto. I am not responsible for that, and if it is proven that it is useless to have an airport there then I am not going to insist on the expenditure of $400 million.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean Marchand: I know of many other places in Canada where we can spend that kind of money. However, there is an inquiry being conducted and I am not going to make any judgment here. I do not think that would be proper.
We have not been paralysed at Mirabel in Quebec, yet. Work is proceeding, and I think that in about a year's time Mirabel will be opened and it will be an excellent airport, we have spent a lot of money at Saint John, New Brunswick, and at Halifax in order to improve their airports. We have spent money to improve navigational aids for air and for inland and ocean water travel. All this can be put on the right side of the ledger. So if somebody writes, "You know, this department has done nothing and is doing nothing"-I do not know if you could call that person a journalist, but I do say that is the kind of dishonesty that should not exist.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean Marchand: On the other hand, if you tell me we have not done everything we could have done, and even I will not admit it publicly, unfortunately you will be largely right in certain instances. Anyway, the burden of proof falls on you, not on me, in that field. There is just one thing I would like to get across to hon. members, if that is possible. I don't want to take up too much time with my remarks.


Mr. McCain:: Take all the time you need.


Jean Marchand: I am just practising your language right now.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean Marchand: To be sure of not losing my mother tongue, I would try to explain a few things as briefly as possible in French. Are we really going to stay indefinitely in this closed circle, which is the essence of a circle, or are we going to broaden somewhat our transportation policy and see how we will serve the Canadian people in the future? That is the important thing. Then it is not simply... and by way of an answer I could very well say that we will try to build more railroad cars to carry lumber, coal, or western wheat. It can and will probably be done, but the transportation policy has not been basically changed.

The right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefen-baker) was telling me this morning of the wheat problem in the west. He is right. Railway companies are indeed not interested in carrying wheat. It is not profitable; they have been shaken by the present situation and do not want to buy cars to carry wheat. Even is they were paid, I doubt that they would do it. So there is quite a problem. Government cannot discuss indefinitely. The external trade of the country greatly needs an effective transportation system, giving a fast and safe service, for Canada is an exporting country. Actually, the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific companies do not have available for Canadians more cars than they had last year.

About the same number of box cars are available this year as we had last year. This means that no provision was made for any growth in the economy. This is true. So, what do we do in this situation? Hon. members may say, "You are the minister; you do it." I have a few answers to that, Mr. Speaker. It is true that hon. members gave responsibilities to the minister, but they forgot to give any authority at all in many instances.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean Marchand: I am just talking to the House. I told you I would not make a political speech. I am just trying to tell you the facts. Everything is done the same way. We have the CTC which has final authority over almost everything, except in a few cases where there is provision for an appeal to the minister.
Remember, Mr. Speaker, that we decided to have two national carriers. You know in this country we like to have everything in duplicate-two languages, two great ethnic groups, two railways, two national flag air carriers. We like to have two of everything. We do not like to be alone.


Mr. Andre:: Two parties in power?


Jean Marchand: Yes, two parties in power- and two leaders of the Official Opposition!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, you can understand that in such a short time I will not have the opportunity to go over all the problems, but the problem of the freight cars is a real one. We were fortunate that we did buy a certain number of hopper cars last year. As a result the railways own a number of cars, and the Wheat Board owns a certain number of cars. I do not know if there is a possibility we may buy some more as a result of other governmental re-organization.
Then, there is the question of regional air carriers. Very often I hear hon. members make speeches on the philosophy that should govern our aviation policies. Air Canada is a national carrier. Then, we decided to have another one. But often hon. members will say, "That is fine, but what are you doing for my locality? It is more important." At present we have PWA, Quebecair, Nordair, Wardair, EPA in the west, and Transair. I apologize for mentioning Wardair because it is not a regional carrier.
March 7, 1974

When an airline is designated a regional carrier it often enters the charter business in order to maintain a satisfactory economic condition. Then, it will turn around and tell us, "We have to stay in the charter business to remain economic, and we will have to abandon some local or regional routes." What do we do in that situation? Are we to establish a third carrier system? That would be silly. The third carrier would also buy big jets in a few years, and in order to pay for them it would need routes that extended beyond the particular locality or region originally awarded to it. That might make sense, as a result of which at that stage we will have big regional carriers with big jets, a third system of carriers with big jets, and we will be on our way to creating a fourth system of carriers. This is precisely the policy that was followed in the United States, with the direct result that many companies went bankrupt.
We also have the problem of isolation in Canada. There are communities far away from the bulk of the population. They need a service, and in return we say, "If you can find an airline which is going to make money servicing your area, then all right we will build you an airport." That means we will have Canadians who will not be serviced and who will remain isolated from the rest of the country. You can say, well, this is public money and we should use public money in order that those people will feel they are Canadians, so we have to give them service.
Then, there are all the problems of urban transportation and these are very serious ones. I remember about six months ago when I flew to Paris the journey took five hours, 45 minutes but from Orly airport into Paris took one hour and 45 minutes.


An hon. Member:: How many stops?


Jean Marchand: No stops-oh, a stop between Paris and Orly but not for the purpose you think.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Explain.


Jean Marchand: So, what do we do? We have now an agreement with Ontario and we are going to have this commuter train between Richmond Hill and Toronto. This is not a policy, it is, an ad hoc decision. We say, all right, we are going to do it because we have a problem, but can we restrict that to Toronto? What about Vancouver, Quebec, Montreal? Do we have a policy? I am working with my colleague, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) on a policy-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: There is your problem right there.


Jean Marchand: You have problems with him? I do not. Mr. Speaker, I think I have taken enough time and I do not want to be unjust to the other members who wish to speak.
I do not blame anybody for our problems. I do not blame any former ministers of transport; they all tried to solve the problems as they saw them. Nobody foresaw the new technology; nobody foresaw that it would take an hour
The Address-Mr. J. Marchand and a half or an hour to go from Dorval to Montreal; nobody foresaw the congestion in the airports, but these are the facts.


Some hon. Members:: Why not?


Jean Marchand: It is just a few years since a minister of transport could go to a place and say "We are going to build an airport here" and his announcement would be well received. Now stones are thrown at him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean Marchand: Here you have a poor French Canadian who has to go to Toronto to try to convince them that they should have an airport.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean Marchand: But I do not want to talk about the past, Mr. Speaker. We do not have what we can call a real policy for the future. If I stay in this post I shall surely ask the authority of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the cabinet to try to elaborate this kind of policy so that we know where we are going.
This morning we were talking of snow in Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Of course, this is not new; snow in Canada is a very old feature of our country. Maybe we will have to stockpile some rolling stock somewhere. Do we always have to establish a level of rolling stock, for example, exactly at the level of economic activity in Canada or should we be wiser and say that even if it costs money it is better to build more freight cars and have them in reserve? This would meet a situation such as the one we encountered this winter in which there was a shortage of rail cars for lumber, a shortage of cars for wheat, for fruits and almost everything, even for moving grain to the east. At the same time we had too many cars in the maritimes; some were waiting in Sydney to be crossed over to Newfoundland. I am not going to tell you that I am building rail cars in my yard, because I am not. I am sure of one thing, however; I do not think we can go very far in this country without a policy in that field which is much more far-reaching then the one we have followed nationally until now. Everybody tried to contribute suggestions because this is a problem which is vital to the country.
As minister, you will understand that I am responsible for the ministry of transport. I would like hon. members to visit the ministry so that they could find out exactly what it is. There are three large sections of this administrations-air, marine and surface. As well as that there are many Crown corporations such as the National Harbours Board, the seaway, four pilotage authorities, CNR, Air Canada, Northern Transportation and so on and so forth. None of these companies have the same type of relationship to the minister, so how can he handle them?


An hon. Member:: Sell them.


Jean Marchand: Some corporations have to go directly to the minister as authorized by the law, while others do not. Everybody is working hard, but I think that if we want to progress in the field of transportation in the future we have to manage transportation in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

March 7, 1974
The Address-Mr. Ellis


Jean Marchand: That does not mean that we have to run each railway in Canada; that has nothing to do with it. That does not mean that we have to run each regional air carrier, but it means that we should have the power to define the national objectives; what the people are expecting; what kind of service we have to give them and where we have to give that service to meet those expectations.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean Marchand: This is a really fortunate country. We have everything in Canada. We have water, air, surface-we have ice, we have snow and we have distance-we have everything to have fun in transportation. Something we do not have is a real policy and I hope that sooner, rather than later, it will be possible to have such a policy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) wishes to ask a question, but this can only be done if he has the consent of the House and the hon. minister as the time of the minister has expired. Does the House give consent to the hon. member to ask a question of the minister if the minister consents to answer?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the minister on an excellent speech.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: The minister mentioned air and rail transportation in his speech but neglected to say anything about motor transport. I want to ask whether he intends to look at part III of the Transportation Act in considering his policy and if he intends to make a statement on it soon?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I presume that the hon. gentleman knows that it has not been ratified by the provinces yet. I hope it will be soon so that we can have a national policy.


Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege to follow an orator of the stature of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand). At the risk of having hon. members thumping their desks again may I say, through you, that it was a fine speech and I enjoyed it. It is a tough act to follow.
It is with some regret that I enter this throne speech debate today, Mr. Speaker. On January 16, last year, very shortly after the opening of the first session of this parliament I spoke at some length about some very serious concerns with regard to the Unemployment Insurance Commission. Those concerns are as great today, indeed, even greater, and I intend to dwell for a few moments solely on this very unhappy situation.

Before I do, however, let me say that as I read over the comments I made at that time I recall congratulating you, Mr. Speaker, and the Deputy Speaker, on your elections to the onerous duties of your offices. After this past year I feel I am now in a position to pass judgment on the handling of these offices with at least some small experience. I can only say now that my remarks at that time were traditional and frankly not sufficiently commendatory. I am extremely impressed with the manner in which Your Honour handles the daily challenge of this House with firmness and yet complete grace, especially during times when members both new and old, myself included, must strain the patience of Your Honour to the breaking point. I thank you for the many courtesies afforded to me. These same comments, in a like degree, must also be accorded to the Deputy Speaker, who has brought to his position a calm patience which, I understand, was not his trademark prior to his election to this office. His grasp of the intricacies of the task has been exceptional.
I also want to say a word of appreciation to the two assistant acting speakers for their efficiency and fairness, as shown to me when I have risen to speak. If I may reflect for one further moment, you will recall that I spoke, as is customary, of the many great qualities of the riding of Hastings, which I am proud to represent. If there is a member in this House now who is not aware of the qualities of that riding or even of the excellent cheese which we produce, I will have erred grievously and I shall correct that error as soon as possible.
Now, let me speak of my major concern, that of the tragedy of the Unemployment Insurance Commission. In reviewing my remarks of the year past I noted that I brought to Your Honour's attention, and to the attention of those in a position to make corrections, a number of details which I felt surely would have warranted a serious study. During the intervening space of over 13 months I have repeatedly brought to the attention of the minister, other members of the cabinet and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), both in this House and in statements outside the House, a need for a full-fledged inquiry, this being the only way that we can properly expect to achieve any semblance of order out of this very disordered piece of legislation.
I suppose it might give a minister of the Crown some small pleasure when he thwarts a member of the opposition in his attempt to achieve a specific correction in that minister's field; but when hundreds of thousands of Canadians do not receive proper treatment at the hands of the Unemployment Insurance Commission, when many Canadians, through no fault of their own, need assistance, and, what is even more important in my mind, when the many millions of Canadians who have to pay the exorbitant rates charged by the Unemployment Insurance Commission have little or no hope of collecting benefits and see no end to this most disgusting form of indirect taxation, then, when these many Canadians become as unhappy as I am, I think the minister may well have thwarted a section of the Canadian public, to his everlasting discomfort.
It is interesting to note that I started to demand an inquiry into this matter on January 16, 1973; and mine was
March 7, 1974

a lone voice at that time. Since then, the Canadian Construction Association, the Retail Merchants Association of Canada, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Chamber of Commerce and many other associations representing Canadians from all walks of life, have joined in my request for such an inquiry. While I have had support from members of my party throughout all this, I am very pleased and proud that just recently the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) formally, on behalf of the party, issued a similar request to the minister for a full-fledged inquiry. As a matter of fact I had hoped, from the report of a press conference by the minister after a speech at the Canadian Construction Association in Quebec, that there would indeed be consideration of an inquiry. At that time I suggested publicly to the minister that he might well ask that some indication of this be included in the Speech from the Throne which we are discussing now. Unfortunately, the following day, in Cobalt, the minister denied ever making such a statement.
I know that the press have a tendency sometimes to shade or colour or slightly change what we, as practising politicians, from time to time say; but, Mr. Speaker, they do not make up such statements out of whole cloth. No, indeed! I suspect very strongly that in the presence of some of the heavyweights of the Canadian Construction Association the minister began to realize the enormity of the request and the need for such an inquiry all across Canada. Who got to the minister after that to have him reverse himself at a time and place when there would be no pressure I do not know. Suffice it to say I am deeply disappointed and curious as to what he is trying to hide.
Let me explore for a moment the need for an inquiry. In a document which I prepared some months ago and which is available to any who asks, I contended that almost $1 billion had been distributed throughout the Unemployment Insurance Commission to people who were not deserving of assistance. That, Mr. Speaker, is a particularly strong statement, one which I researched very, very thoroughly before making. While there have been, from time to time, scandals within governments at all levels in this country and in other countries, I doubt if there has ever been such a wastage of funds collected from taxpayers in modern times. Very briefly, so that there will be no question in anyone's mind, I ask people only to take the figures given by the minister as to the number of disqualifications made in the latter part of 1973. Assuming that the level of disqualifications would have been as great from the inception of the new legislation, and multiplying that by the average amount of a claim, you will come to a figure of well over $850 million. My contention that almost $1 billion has been improperly distributed is very easily substantiated.
In my opinion it does no good for the previous minister to say that this money was a new kind of social distribution of wealth, that it, in fact, actually helped the economy. If we are to have welfare programs, let's do them honestly; let's do them humanely; let's do them only where necessary, but let's not call them an Unemployment Insurance program. There were, and are, many other accusations in the document I referred to and I have added to the list since. It is interesting to have the minister, in his recent speech, admit that the charges which had been
The Address-Mr. Ellis
made, and I assume he refers to my charges, were accurate.
At one point in my discussion of these problems I pointed out that in my opinion the level of collections would be completely insufficient to balance the fund. Despite denials late last year, there was a major increase in premiums, ostensibly a 40 per cent increase but in actual fact an increase ranging as high as 98 per cent, to some Canadians.
I suggest to the minister that the increases which he implemented, unless there are major changes in the legislation and unless some of the abuses are curtailed, will not come anywhere close to balancing the books this year, next year or in the years to come. Employers and employees alike have threatened they will not pay the increased premiums.
Let me just point this out as a means of comparison. The budget for administration for the Unemployment Insurance Commission, which supposedly only services approximately 6 per cent of the working population who are unemployed, cost taxpayers $145 million in 1973. By contrast, the administration of the Income Tax Division of the Department of National Revenue, which collects from every Canadian, employed, unemployed, or retired on a continuing basis every day of every week of every year, in 1973 cost taxpayers only $136 million. I am unaware of the relative efficiency of the Income Tax Division. Perhaps there is some fat there also; but, surely in a comparison of the two figures one can only shudder at the obvious inefficiency of the UIC.
Another salient comparison, particularly since the government blames its problems on outside influence, can be made if one looks at the unemployment situation in the United States. There, the level of unemployment is within one half per cent of ours, but wages run about 20 per cent higher. The unemployment insurance figures suffer terribly by comparison. The average Canadian recipient of UIC assistance received $2,328 last year, while the average U.S. recipient received $768. In the United States, the cost of unemployment insurance equalled 2 per cent of the budget. In Canada it was 10 per cent. Although Canada's population is only 10 per cent of the United States, the cost of the unemployment insurance in Canada is 50 per cent of the U.S.; our cost of $2.1 billion versus theirs of $4.1 billion. In 1970, our programs on a pro rated basis were about equal. How many more comparisons are needed to prompt an honest inquiry?
Let me for a minute make a few interesting points to those hon. members sitting on my far left; far left, supposedly, in more ways than one. The NDP supposedly is the party of the labour unions. The NDP admits, and yes, even brags that they were successful in keeping Bill C-125 from becoming legislation during the first session of this parliament. Not that perhaps Bill C-125 was a perfect answer by any manner or means. Indeed, in my opinion, it was similar to the ad hocery that has taken place, but let us consider the way the members of this party represent their unions. I suggest that the average union employee is ripped off by the Unemployment Insurance Commission, harder by far, in fact four times over, than any other average Canadian. Let me explain.

March 7, 1974
The Address-Mr. Ellis
The union employee is the one who is the least likely to be laid off. He is the one who bargains in his contract, and rightly so, for security. It is the many thousands of unorganized workers in Canada who normally make up the larger share of those receiving unemployment insurance benefits. The union employee, if he has any program for providing him with assistance from his regular employer for any layoff, gets no help from the Unemployment Insurance Commission, or at least very little. Thus it is that the average union employee is less in need of this program than any other. However, it is the union employee who pays the largest share of the premiums. The average union employee who makes over $170 weekly, enough to put him in the category of paying the maximum premiums, is the type of employee whose rates were increased by 48.7 per cent in January of this year. It is this type of employee, if he happens to be in one of those areas which were added to the work force at the inception of this legislation, whose premiums were increased by 98 per cent. Therefore, the average union employee pays more in direct premiums.
In addition, the average union employee provides a great deal of the purchasing power in Canada. The employer, the manufacturer, the producer who is being charged 1.96 per cent of wages does not actually pay those amounts himself. Rather, he adds that amount directly to the cost of the goods and services he provides and, once again, it is the average union employee who picks up the tab by purchasing those goods and services. There is no way he can prevent this situation.
Finally, the fund is not, by the wildest stretch of the imagination, self-sustaining and a good deal of the money being disbursed comes from the general rate. It is the average union employee who, through direct income taxation, pays a major portion of the income taxes which go to make up those many billions of dollars that are being distributed through this fund. In my constituency, a number of union employees are very unhappy with the Unemployment Insurance Commission.
Much has been made of the documents which I have in my possession. The most ludicrous outcome of this situation was the instigation of an investigation by the RCMP as to the source of those documents. I have far too much respect for the RCMP, probably one of the finest police forces in the whole world, to ever believe that they would have started such a ridiculous and asinine project of their own volition. No, they had to be directed to do so, and I suggest that direction had to come from the minister of the Crown responsible for the Unemployment Insurance Commission. If that minister was not responsible for instigating that investigation, then I suggest to him that he find out who was responsible.
It was obvious after my discussion with the officers involved that they had been badly misled because they fully anticipated that the documents I had in my possession would be marked "confidential". This of course, is not the case. I do not like the sensationalism caused by using documents in this nature. Had there been anything, in any minute way a threat to security, I swear I would not have used it.
There is, however, a document which I have not referred to yet and, before I go any further, let me state categorically it is not marked "confidential". To the best of my

knowledge, it is the only remaining one of its kind since the chairman of the commission was very careful to have the remainder of them destroyed. It did not come to me from a civil servant working within or without the Unemployment Insurance Commission so there is no question of breach of oath. I have, however, carefully checked its authenticity and am thoroughly convinced of its validity.
I have now to turn my attention to the former minister responsible for the Unemployment Insurance Commission, the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey), since I cannot by any stretch of the imagination centre my criticism of the formation of the legislation on the present minister. I am now in a position to state categorically that in February of 1970, months before the legislation came into effect, the knowledge was available that a mistake, a gross error, had been made in the calculations used to estimate the cost of the disability program that was to be implemented. This error, in the range of $200 million to $300 million was known. I ask if the hon. member for Verdun was aware that that error had been made, discovered and was not being corrected. Through the many months of interrogation and investigation before the standing committee, my colleagues who were in the House at that time constantly questioned the validity of these figures, since to many it was obvious there had to be an error.
There was an error and someone responsible knew there was an error. I ask the hon. member for Verdun, did he know that such an error was being perpetrated in the presentation of the statistics that were used in the preparation of this legislation? If he did know, then with a great deal of reluctance I state that he was dishonest in not bringing it to the attention of the committee. If he did not know of this error and since we have debated the matter publicly on many occasions-I admire the hon. member for Verdun personally and I would much prefer to think that he did not know-I suggest to him he has no recourse but to join with me in my request for an inquiry into this matter alone, if nothing else.
The approach of the present minister to my many allegations has been, unfortunately, typical. At one point when I questioned him with regard to the increase of computer facilities at the regional pay centre, in Belleville, he indicated that there were no enlargements planned. Those enlargements are in place and functioning at almost double the original capacity. On another occasion when questioned about the computers, the minister blamed staff. At that time I took very strong exception, and I continue to take strong exception to that approach. My investigation, and indeed the investigation undertaken by the Department of Supply and Services not that long ago in the province of Quebec, resulted in a clear indication that the average employee of the commission is, by and large, a hard-working civil servant. In the words of the department itself, had it not been for the dedication of these people, the commission could not have weathered the extremely difficult conditions during the early years of the legislation.
The approach has been to install new locks, to change the keys of the existing locks and in the case of the Belleville Regional Pay Centre, to put on a massive lock costing over $600 which prevents anyone on staff from
March 7, 1974

entering the executive suite. The cost of the lock and the cost of installing the lock are outrageous. It is the typical approach of the minister and his department that they would take Gestapo-like methods in an effort to prevent the Canadian public knowing exactly what is going on in the Commission before they make even the feeblest attempt to correct this situation. Again I ask: What are they trying to hide?
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) has conducted surveys. I have conducted surveys. Others have conducted surveys. They all underline the need for an inquiry. Virtually every newspaper, radio station and television network in the country has commented on such a need. The major associations which I mentioned earlier have demanded an inquiry. In the name of all that is reasonable, what does a Canadian have to do in order to bring about such an inquiry? The avoidance of an inquiry in order to maintain the ego of the few whose interests are perhaps best served by not digging into the matter thoroughly is a position which will not much longer be accepted by Canadians in any walk of life.
The Speech from the Throne spoke of a comprehensive review. That is just not satisfactory. It is not sufficient. It will not do. The Canadian public will not accept the whitewash job perpetrated upon them by the very people who were the cause of the problem in the first place. It may well afford some satisfaction to the minister to thwart me in my efforts but I suggest to him that should he continue to do so much longer, with the increasing pressure from Canadians in every province, he will do so at very considerable risk. And, I suggest to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) there will be considerable risk to him, also.


Mr. Mackasey:: Perhaps the hon. member would allow me to put a question to him. I respect his opinions and I intend to comment on them a little later. I wonder whether he would tell me the number of disqualifications he is using as a statistic in order to arrive at the figures he gave.


John Raymond Ellis: I am using the minister's own reports. My recollection is that in the last half of 1973 it was close to a quarter of a million.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Disqualifications?


John Raymond Ellis: Disqualifications.


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this debate in order to say something about what I regard as being Canada's most pressing national problem to the extent that it affects the greatest number of people directly today. I refer to housing. I listened with a great deal of interest yesterday to the speech given by the Minister of State responsible for housing in the hope of hearing him announce new programs to deal with what might properly be described as a crisis situation in housing. What did I hear? I heard the hon. member from British Columbia speak for ten minutes on harbours, all of which were located, of course, in British Columbia. Then, he spoke for another ten minutes on railways. Again, all
The Address-Mr. Broadbent
the railway development to which he referred happens to be in British Columbia.
Toward the end of his speech he deigned to spend a few minutes on the subject of housing. But nowhere was there any indication that the government intends, at least before the budget is introduced, to move in a serious way to deal with the housing situation. There is every indication that in this area of policy we are saddled with a do-nothing government, a government which, once the housing bill was passed last spring, decided, presumably, that enough had been accomplished.
Let me put forward my reasons for believing that such an attitude is palpably absurd. Indeed, it is more than absurd since it involves a serious question of social morality, and the government has "copped out" altogether on this issue. To put the subject into some kind of perspective, let me compare it with the so-called fuel crisis. What does it mean for Canadians? I do not wish to be misunderstood. In the long run we shall face a fuel crisis in Canada, especially in the years beyond 1980. We shall be confronted with serious shortages and plans must be made now to deal with them. But in the short run, which countries face an oil crisis? Western Europe does, and so does Japan, since the oil used there has to be imported. But a man in Tokyo or a woman reading the headlines of her newspaper in Brussels, could scarcely bring themselves to believe that Canada, a country self-sufficient in oil, was really facing a fuel crisis. In reality, the current "crisis" centres on the amount which one part of Canada will charge another part of Canada for its products. As to the effect of the present situation in terms of cash, a typical family will be paying $50 more for heating their home over the six months winter period. In the same six months, given the present rate of inflation in the housing industry, the price of the home itself will have increased by $4,000. When we make that kind of comparison, it is abundantly clear where the national political energy should be going at this time.
Let me give the House some further information as to what is happening in the housing field. In Ottawa, Toronto and Vancouver, prices have increased in the past year by some 25 per cent. In virtually all of urban Canada the picture is the same. For the first time in Canadian history a steadily-employed, moderate income family living in Canada cannot afford to buy a housing unit, whether a single family dwelling, a condominium, or other kind of accommodation. The reason for this is that governments at the federal level in the past, both Liberal and Conservative, have failed to recognize that housing is to be distinguished from other goods and services available in the commodity market. They have regarded housing as being basically like any other consumer item. They have refrained from interfering with the financial markets or with the acquisition of land because, in their view, a house is like a television set or an electric toothbrush or any other item of consumer use. Price, in their view, must correspond with market conditions.
Thus, the situation which exists today is a very bad one-and I say this with great deliberation-it will become worse in the next three or four years. The generation born in the late 'forties or early 'fifties is now coming into the housing market. A number of crises have already

March 7, 1974
The Address-Mr. Broadbent
arisen in connection with that generation. First, there was the elementary school crisis; the number of places in elementary schools had to be expanded rapidly to meet the need. This was followed by the need for a similar dramatic expansion of places available in our high schools and, later, in our post-secondary institutions. These same people are now young parents with one or two children; they are out in the housing market in every city from St. John's to Vancouver.
I point out in passing that we are among the most highly urbanized people in the world with almost 85 per cent of our population in the cities-a higher proportion than in the United States. Moreover, the proportion in the age group normally buying houses, the proportion with young families, is the highest in the western industrialized world. This means that a housing crisis of significant proportions is upon us, and it will continue if we allow the normal market situation to continue unchanged. If we want to do that, it means that we have to abandon the typical approach to housing used by both the Liberal and Conservative parties in Canada. What have these parties done? In the past they have relied on profit incentives. In 1967 they combined together to lift the 6 per cent ceiling on bank mortgages.
In 1969 the Liberals and Tories voted in favour of lifting the 6'/2 per cent NHA ceiling on mortgages. In the same year, the former minister responsible for housing in a Liberal government, the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) who now sits as a Conservative, recommended that we introduce a rollover period on mortgages of five years. The idea was justified politically at that time on the ground that when you take out a mortgage at one point, five years later the interest might come down and the mortgage payments are thus reduced. But what has happened, of course, has been that ever since this feature was introduced in 1969 mortgage rates have not gone down, but both Liberals and Tories were happy to accept the profit incentive idea.
Again, both these parties combined together three months ago in this House to vote for the mortgage mechanisms bill. In the immortal words of the minister responsible for housing, the purpose of this bill was to enhance the attractiveness of investments in mortgages. The cumulative effect of the reliance on the profit motive, clearly argued for by both Liberals and Conservatives, is that during the Trudeau years, when the four innovations I have just mentioned were introduced, average or low income housing disappeared from the housing market and high income houses appeared like they had never appeared before in this country. The profit margins of the financial institutions of Canada went almost out of sight and have been almost at the highest level in Canadian history. Mortgage rates now are around 10 per cent.
The average price of a house for sale in Toronto is $41,000. According to NHA regulations, you would require an income of $21,600 to purchase that home. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, how many people in the city of Toronto earn $21,600? Maybe 5 per cent, 10 per cent at the most. The NHA authority, which was set up to enable the average person in Canada living in a city or urban area to finance

the purchase of a home, is now assisting only the top 5 or 10 per cent of the income earners in our population.
This same reliance upon and encouragement of profit incentives has led the banks to invest in mortgages like they have never invested before. I have already referred to the high profit levels of financial institutions. Bank profits in particular have risen 85 per cent during the past five years. These figures are significant and I wish the minister responsible for housing were in the chamber. We will see what is going to happen with his financial mechanisms legislation when it takes effect this year. Last year banks in Canada increased their mortgage investment by 67 per cent; in 1973 their investment was up 67 per cent over 1972. The reason for this is obvious; there is no better place in Canada to make a quick buck, a very substantial return, than to invest in mortgages, which is exactly what the banks are doing.
I could list the profits made by a number of major corporations involved in other aspects of house financing or land development, but I will mention only one, Cadillac Development Corporation. This is not a small concern but one with holdings in Ottawa, Toronto, Mississauga, Windsor, Hamilton, Hull and in the U.S.A. It is a Canadian multinational corporation. If we look at this corporation's profit picture for the nine months ending September 30, 1973 we find profits increased 57.1 per cent over the same period in 1972. Their profits from land and housing increased 214 per cent. This is the profit made by one of our larger development corporations, but is quite typical of Campeau and a dozen other development corporations I could mention. However, I will not bore the House with all the statistics.
Quite apart from the financing of houses, which has become crucial in terms of cost, the other important aspect of housing costs is land. Land costs during the last three years have gone up, on average in Canada, by 60 per cent. Last year the average increase in our largest cities was 20 per cent. I am not at all happy to say that I learned only yesterday that the city I represent, Oshawa, now has the dubious honour of having the highest lot costs in Canada. According to figures not yet released by Statistics Canada but which will be coming out soon, the cost of the average lot in the city of Oshawa is now $14,875. This is on an NHA financed housing project and is the highest average in Canada. The average cost of a housing lot across Canada that is not NHA financed is even higher than this scandalously distressing figure of $14,875. What has brought this about? Again we have left to free market forces the buying and selling of our land. With the increased numbers of persons entering the housing market at this time, what can one expect? One can expect a few people to make a lot of money if the market is left to operate on its own.
Many hon. members are aware that the Globe and Mail published an interesting investigative report last spring. It revealed that of all the land available and designated for housing development in metro Toronto, some 80 per cent was owned by five companies. These companies are now in the market for one reason and for one reason only-to make a speculative land profit. That is where the big gain is to be made in our major urban centres, and it is where they put their money.
March 7, 1974

Let me give an example of the wheeling and dealing of just one company, Consolidated Building Corporation of Toronto. In July of 1973 this fine, noble, altruistic corporation bought 18 acres of land and resold it 17 days later for a profit of $1.5 million. That is not bad for 17 days. This company is in the land development business and has extensive residential and commercial holdings in and around the city of Toronto. However, in 1973 they found that land speculation in itself, not simply land development, was a more attractive business than building homes. According to the president of the company, as quoted in the Globe and Mail, the company is a public company and in the business of making profit. He used that fact to justify the company's total concentration upon land speculation.


Mr. Brewin:: Good capitalist theory.


John Edward Broadbent: Good capitalist theory, as my colleague says. The people who pay for this kind of theory are the countless thousands who want to buy a home in one of the cities of Canada at the present time.
What can be done to correct the situation, Mr. Speaker? Clearly we have to abandon once and for all the notion that market forces can be left to treat houses in the same way as they treat television sets and similar commodities, which is to let people pay what the market will bear. This kind of thinking must be abandoned. We have to regard housing as we regard the provision of schools and medicare: it belongs by right to all Canadians, not simply to those in fortunate circumstances. What is required to bring this about? It requires direct government involvement, just as did the building of schools for our children during the past century, and just as did the provision of medicare services during the past decade.
Let me suggest two specific courses of action. In order to deal with financing of housing we must say to the banks, the trust companies and the insurance companies that they hold savings of Canadians and can make legitimate profits on most of their investments, but in the area of housing they will have to put up mortgage money at an interest rate which will not produce a profit. We should say that very explicitly. We must say to the banks, by a change to the Bank Act here in the House of Commons, that they must put up mortgage money at 6 per cent, and we must change other financial legislation which applies to other financial insititutions to achieve a similar effect.
I suggest that we should make sure we have a vigorous department of housing rather than be satisfied with the current situation in which the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) makes fine, well-intended speeches but does nothing. We should have an active department of housing whose responsibility it would be to allocate that 6 per cent mortgage money to the moderate and low income group first, and then to the upper income group when the needs of the first groups were met. I suggest in all seriousness if this were started now we could provide mortgage money so that 90 per cent of the families in Canada could afford housing without a serious impact on their monthly budgets.
The Address-Mr. Broadbent
The second approach we must take has to do with the land matter. What can be done there? As the minister of state responsible for housing knows, in the 15 larger cities in Canada there are 50,000 acres of what is called quick-start land now available. This is land that can be used for housing almost immediately. If this government wanted to act in this regard, all it would have to do is buy the 50,000 acres to be used for housing units. This land could accommodate 250,000 units which would house almost one million people. That land should not be turned back to speculators, because if that happened we would find ourselves in exactly the same position five years hence when the land was sold at a fantastic capital gain.
The federal government should purchase the 50,000 acres of land and lease it under contract on bid to designers for housing units such as Habitat built for the 1967 exhibition. Entrepreneurs who were genuinely interested in providing such accommodation could be awarded contracts for the construction of 250,000 units to be leased. The units would be sold to the citizens but the ownership of the land would remain with the government, in this way we could cut the cost of the average unit from $10,000 to $20,000, as we would not be passing on the cost of the land to the purchaser. When an owner of one of these units decided to sell he would be required to sell the unit back to the housing authority. If he were allowed to sell it on the open market the price would be anywhere from $10,000 to $20,000 higher with a substantial capital gain. This should be discouraged, and this could be done by requiring that the unit be sold back to the housing authority. The owner would be allowed, in addition to what he paid originally, a certain amount related to the increase in the cost of living, plus an amount for any improvement such as a patio or some other substantial change to the unit. There would be no capital gain. In this way we could keep at least the cost of that housing within reasonable limits.
I might say in passing that there is one government in this country which has started to move in this direction, and I refer to the province of British Columbia. I found out recently when speaking in the city of Kamloops-I was not aware of this fact before going there-that the government of British Columbia had turned over 40 acres of prime downtown land in that city for housing on the condition that it be developed on a leaseback program of the kind I have outlined.
If we combined these two approaches, that is changing housing financing by making mortgage money available at 6 per cent, and developing an imaginative land bank system so the land would remain in public hands, we could provide housing for all those post World War II babies who are now adults with babies of their own seeking accommodation on the housing market. This could not be done overnight, but within two to four years this problem could be resolved. We should adopt these two principles; providing mortgage money according to the needs without worrying about making a buck, and providing land on the basis of need instead of for speculative gain. In this way we could remove, in the years ahead, a serious problem, at least for generations if not forever, and housing would fall in the category of being a social right, just as we now have medicare and education in that category, services that Canadians now rightly take for granted.

March 7, 1974
The Address-Mr. Tetrault


Mr. Oza Tetrault (Villeneuve):: I am most delighted today, Mr. Speaker, to be able to express my views and those of my electors. The Speech from the Throne contains many words about social security. We do not seem to know too much about social security, but I think a responsible government in a free society would find it very easy to apply the principle that everything physically possible and desirable should be made financially possible.
This principle was applied during two world wars, the first from 1914 to 1918 and the second from 1939 to 1945. We never stopped the wars because we had no money, and I am sure that if a war broke out tomorrow we would be able to find all the money necessary to defend our country. However, once the war ended, I am sure the government would then again suggest that we tighten up our belts.
Both the Conservative and Liberal parties were elected with the financial help of large corporations. Once the old parties are elected they must first serve those who elected them, and this is detrimental to the labour force in Canada, or the little man.

Mr. Speaker, these were the words of James A. Garfield, a former President of the United States:
He who can control the money supply of a country controls the trade and the Industry of that country.
Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the brave member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent). He certainly has very good ideas to help those having housing problems and what have you. He said that the banks were making very large profits, around 85 per cent in 1973. I will come back to this subject later, Mr. Speaker, and give some figures. This may be somewhat monotonous, but I would appreciate having them printed in Hansard to open the eyes of my knowledgeable colleagues.
Mr. Speaker, on February 24, 1974, during a CBC interview with Mr. Andre Payette, the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was asked the following question, and I quote:
Nevertheless there is in Canada at the present time one Canadian out of four whose annual income is lower than the threshold of poverty. While solving the problems of tomorrow, what is being done to settle our current problems?
Replying to that question, the Prime Minister admitted that there were too many poor people in Canada and I quote him:
I have always stated, and it is the point of view of the Liberal party, that Canada is an extremely rich country; its natural and human resources make it one of the most fortunate countries in the world. So we do not suffer from a shortage of resources, but we do have a distribution problem.
Mr. Speaker, for more than 30 years in the House, the Social Crediters have been suggesting that our monetary system is deficient, that it must be changed, that action must be taken to improve the fate of the poor in Canada.
When the first citizen of the country admits that there are poor people in Canada in spite of our prosperity, Mr. Speaker, the Social Crediters are not surprised, because in such a system as ours leading us into debt, it is impossible to get out of the hole.

Canada's public debt is continually increasing: 18 years ago it was $17,951,491,464 and in 1973 it was $51,717,700,000. Provinces and municipalities are also overburdened by debts and, Mr. Speaker, I know what I am talking about because for six years I was mayor of Val-d'Or and our greatest problem then was always the matter of finance.
At that time we were not wondering whether we had any equipment or men, but rather where to find money. Today, in 1974, the same problem is recurring. The more things change, the more they are the same.
Mr. Speaker, here are a few statistics concerning 1973: direct and indirect municipal debt: $8,421,273,000; yearly interest: $452,983,000. The provinces have a debt of $17,054,997,000; the interest they have to pay amounts to $566,185,000. Canada's national debt totals $51,717,700,000 on which we pay interest costs of $2,260,600,000 and this finally works out to $77,193,970,000 all told. Canadians must pay yearly interest costs of $3,170,771,000, which represents a grand total of $9 million a day in interest for the municipalities, the provinces and the federal government.
Mr. Speaker, I wonder where we are going with such high interest costs, which must be paid by every Canadian. If my memory serves me right, every Canadian must pay $110 a year toward the national, provincial and municipal debt.
Mr. Speaker, how many bridges, miles of road, hospitals, schools and public utilities are not provided for the population because of this? These $9 million a day add to the wealth of financiers while the taxpayers continue to wait for the public utilities to which they are entitled and for which they have paid through their taxes.
The governments that allowed the public debt to increase uncontrolled are responsible for the useless spending of $9 million a day, the cost for servicing the public debt alone. This money should be used to meet the needs of Canadians rather than to add to the wealth of financiers.
Mr. Speaker, in 1970-71, the Canadian government lent $65,900,000 to the province of Quebec. Similar loans were granted to the other provinces under the same conditions.
Over 20 years the province of Quebec will have to pay the capital and interest, an amount of $162,900,000, that is about three times the total amount of the loan.
Mr. Speaker, those are figures that will give Quebecers food for thought and I am surprised that here, in this House, every time I address my colleagues concerning the monetary system, they do not seem to be interested nor to understand.


An hon. Member:: They do not understand.


Oza Tétrault: I realize that.
Mr. Speaker, the Social Crediters have repeated and will keep repeating several times that we ought to grant interest-free loans to finance public developments.
The only way to end the catastrophic indebtedness of municipalities, provinces and the federal government is to finance public developments through interest-free loans.
March 7, 1974

Some will say that granting interest-free loans does not make sense. I believe everyone knows that at the time when the Quebec premier went to Europe to borrow funds to finance the James Bay development, a former minister of Mr. Lesage's cabinet, Mr. Gerin-Lajoie, was in India lending money, interest-free, for a period of 50 years plus ten years of grace. If there is logic in that, Mr. Speaker, I wonder what it is.
Mr. Speaker, the federal government can, even today, use the Bank of Canada to grant interest-free loans to the provinces. The Bank of Canada Act authorizes interest-free loans to the provincial or federal governments for a maximum period of six months.
Mr. Speaker, why not offer the same advantages in Canada as in foreign countries, and grant loans for periods of "sixty years" instead of "six months"?
The Social Credit Party of Canada advocates the use of the Bank of Canada to finance the public sector and put a stop to disastrous running into debt which threatens to lead our country, one of the world's richest in natural resources, to the brink of bankruptcy.
Mr. Speaker, the list of figures I will give might be monotonous, but I want them in Hansard to prove to the people what kind of administration we have.
17 DEFICIT BUDGETS-2 SURPLUS BUDGETS TOTAL DEFICIT: $6,316 million or $300 per Canadian
Year		Amount
1955	deficit	151 million1956	deficit	33 million1957	surplus	257 million1958	deficit	38 million1959	deficit	609 million1960	deficit	413 million1961	deficit	340 million1962	deficit	791 million1963	deficit	692 million1964	deficit	619 million1965	deficit	38 million1966	deficit	39 million1967	deficit	422 million1968	deficit	79 million1969	deficit	566 million1970	surplus	393 million1971	deficit	370 million1972	deficit	600 million1973	deficit	450 million
Mr. Speaker, those figures are food for thought for the Canadian population.
Earlier, the tremendous profits the banks are making were mentioned and once again, even though a list of figures is monotonous to listen to, I want to quote them.
A deposit of $100 in a savings account of a chartered bank entitles the bank to loan $1,250 at an interest rate, in 1974, of 10 or 12.5 per cent. Here is an example, Mr. Speaker. A customer deposits $100, and I quote from a table:
The Address-Mr. Jamieson
Bank
Deposit
As Legal Savings Reserve: Balance:
1-Mr.	A.	borrows	$100.00	at	10%	int.	$8.00	$92.002-Mr.	B.	borrows	$100.00	at	10%	int.	$8.00	$84.003-Mr.	C.	borrows	$100.00	at	10%	int.	$8.00	$76.004-Mr.	D.	borrows	$100.00	at	10%	int.	$8.00	$68.005-Mr.	E.	borrows	$100.00	at	10%	int.	$8.00	$60.006-Mr.	F.	borrows	$100.00	at	10%	int.	$8.00	$52.007-Mr.	G.	borrows	$100.00	at	10%	int.	$8.00	$44.008-Mr.	H.	borrows	$100.00	at	10%	int.	$8.00	$36.009-Mr.	I.	borrows	$100.00	at	10%	int.	$8.00	$28.0010-Mr.	J.	borrows	$100.00	at	10%	int.	$8.00	$20.0011-Mr.	K.	borrows	$100.00	at	10%	int.	$8.00	$12.0012-Mr.	L.	borrows	$100.00	at	10%	int.	$8.00	$ 4.0013-Mr.	M.	borrows	$ 50.00	at	10%	int.	$4.00	$ 0.00$1,250.00	$100.00
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the bank transformed $100 into $1,250, thereby creating a net profit of $125 at the end of the year on a $100 saving deposited in an account.
This is the way banks do business, Mr. Speaker, and it is unfortunate so few people are interested in the way we are being administered by them in Canada.


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic expansion):: Mr. Speaker, there have been occasions in this House when I have taken advantage of the throne speech debate to be, what one on the other side of the chamber might term, hypercritical. But let me assure everyone that I have no intention of doing that today. Of course, there may be some regrets on that score. There are some important matters of government policy, and one or two other matters related to my own province, to which I should like to make reference, and I am delighted to see my colleague, the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall), in the House on this occasion.
First, I want to associate myself with hon. members who have already spoken in this debate and who offered their congratulations to the mover and seconder of the Address in Reply. It was interesting and encouraging to note that both of those hon. members emphasized the plight of the less fortunate and deprived peoples of the world. While listening to them I was reminded of the old adage which says that if the problems of everyone in the world were put in one great heap and you could take back any person's problems you liked, chances are you would take back your own problems. Perhaps that is not entirely true in a world in which disparities are widening. However, it is true enough for us in Canada to recognize that, in relation to the other peoples of the world, those described by the mover (Mr. Stollery) and seconder (Mr. Pelletier (Sherbrooke) ) in this debate, our condition is nevertheless one for which we should be extremely grateful. In fact, if we were to take that theory of putting all the problems together and apply that to countries, I suspect there is not a Canadian alive today who, seeing the problems of virtually every other country on the face of the earth and given the opportunity to trade Canada's problems for those of other countries, would not willingly take back our own. I think this is another reflection of how successful and fortunate we are.

March 7, 1974
The Address-Mr. Jamieson
We can say this without being smug or narrowly nationalistic, and also while being fully conscious that despite our good fortune, relatively speaking Canadians have severe difficulties of their own that continue to impede the basic objectives that I am sure all members of this House hold in common with the great majority of their constituents. One such goal that has been pursued by every Canadian government in history has been the reduction of regional disparities. There are probably more laws on the statute books, and more programs in both federal and provincial departments and agencies, relating to this subject in one way and another, than to any other. It could hardly be otherwise given the makeup of our country and the continuing necessity to combat a broad spectrum of natural forces in order to maintain and strengthen national unity and ensure for all Canadians a fair share of our national bounty.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to turn this into a philosophical discourse, but I hope that hon. members will permit me on this particular occasion to remind this House that in just over three weeks' time my native province, Newfoundland, will celebrate the completion of its first 25 years of confederation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Welcome!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Having been very deeply involved in a variety of ways in the events leading up to that historic joining of our two countries, this may he an appropriate time to tell this House what we as Newfoundlanders expected from the union and the extent to which our expectations have been realized. Of necessity, these are personal observations, but I believe they will reflect the views of a great many people of my province. Today, all but a handful of us are happy to be Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: That includes, I might add, those who favoured confederation and that substantial minority, including myself, who had doubts about the wisdom of union and who fought and voted against it. Incidentally, it says something about the rapidity with which time passes to observe, and hon. members may be interested in this particular statistic, that today, just 25 years after the event, no less than 60 per cent of our Newfoundland population has never known anything but Canadian citizenship. Put another way, only a rapidly shrinking 40 per cent of the people of our province can recall our days of independence. That is truly, I think, a really remarkable and, in some cases, frustrating reminder to us all of how fast time goes by.
It is satisfying and somewhat ironic that today I find myself a member of the government of Canada, a proud Canadian and even prouder member of this House of Commons and that I find myself the minister who has been given the primary responsibility for dealing with regional disparity, the problem which perhaps more than anything else, brought Newfoundland to accept union with Canada in 1949. The promise of that day was that our partnership offered us greater hope for the realization of

our aspirations than if we remained outside the mainstream of Canadian life. Today, although much remains to be done, I say, without serious qualification and with a great deal of satisfaction as one who describes himself as a Canadian not by birth nor by conviction but by conversion, that confederation has been good, extremely good, for Newfoundland.
Of course, Newfoundland is not immune to the impact of the revolution of rising expectations. In material terms, however, the condition of the Newfoundland people today when compared to that of 25 years ago-and I am sure the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) would agree with me in this-is so vastly improved that had such gains been forecast even by the most enthusiastic confederate of the late forties, the unanimous judgment would have been that he was certifiably insane. The evidence of this progress is everywhere, but a single example will suffice. In the current year, 1974-75 the Department of Regional Economic Expansion alone, will spend, in Newfoundland, more than twice the total budget of the province in the first year of confederation. That gives you some idea of how dramatic has been the growth.
It is not difficult to see why the great majority of Newfoundlanders are avowed federalists; why we believe in a strong central government and that the whole is more important than its parts. This is not because Newfoundlanders wish to have their hands forever in the federal till. Being a proud and independent race, we long, indeed pray, for the day when ours will be a have, rather than a have-not province. That day, however, is not yet; and until it comes the commitment to our fair share, implicit in the terms of union, must be honoured. I am happy to say that this government recognizes and accepts that responsibility and I pledge it will continue to do so.
It is not an easy task. Economic and social progress are relative. Although we have shared in Canada's prosperity and its successes over the past quarter century, Newfoundland was so far behind, there was so much catching up to do that the problem of narrowing the gap, of coming closer to standards taken for granted in many of the more senior regions of Canada has been frequently frustrating and always difficult.
Of course, we are not alone in this dilemma. Regional disparities continue to plague many other areas also; areas that have belonged to the Canadian family for a much longer period than has Newfoundland. No one is more aware of this fact than I, especially because of my present responsibilities. I hope, within the time limitations of this debate, to give this House some of the strategies that I consider appropriate, at this point in time, for dealing with regional disparities. Before I do, however, I would like to make one further comment on the attitude of most Newfoundlanders toward confederation. I ask the indulgence of the House in this regard because I want to get it on the record.
I have said that our expectation is, and always has been, that we will be treated fairly. We can ask for no less for all other Canadians. This is true, whether we are speaking in economic or cultural terms. We were a distinct group, with our own traditions and heritage for more than 450 years before joining Canada. We are determined to retain that individuality and, in large part, I believe, we have been
March 7, 1974

successful. I believe, therefore, that we as Newfoundlanders, can understand and support the special aspirations of other groups and provinces, such as Quebec, when they seek equality of opportunity and the preservation of their distinctive characteristics. In one way or another, each of us in Canada is part of a minority and this is good for Canada. But distinctiveness in matters that are important to us, is no barrier to a strong federalism. Indeed, it can strengthen Canada as a land in which each of us respects and supports the rights of the other.
I will turn now to some specifics with regard to the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and some of the new approaches that we are adopting. The statement that economic disparities pose a threat to national unity has become a cliche; but it is true that eliminating these disparities is, as it always has been, one of our most difficult challenges. The approach this government has adopted is achieving results, some remarkably good. But, I am the first to admit that there is more that needs to be done. From time to time I have told various committees of the House of the general policy approach my department is adopting. If time permits, I will review these details later.
First, however, I believe members will be interested in proposed changes in the implementation of the Regional Development Incentives Act. This act, which became effective July 1, 1969, has been one of the instruments by which the Department of Regional Economic Expansion has sought to improve employment opportunities in slow-growth regions of Canada. Some of the records with regard to its achievements to date, its weaknesses and some of its failings, were published in the spring. Members have had ample opportunity to discuss them. I have welcomed suggestions from the various corners of this House as to how changes ought to be made and I believe that what I have to say will indicate that I have been receptive to a great many of those suggestions.
I turn, first of all, to the question of decentralized administration. Like all the other programs of my department, the incentives program will be administered out of ten provincial offices and four regional one rather than centrally, here in Ottawa, as has been the case heretofore. All projects will be evaluated in the provincial offices, with decisions on most smaller cases being made there. The delegation of authority will seek to maximize the responsibility of the provincial offices in the management of the program. The regional and headquarters offices will provide support in evaluating large cases or difficult ones when this task is beyond the resources of the provincial office to undertake. Most large cases, and those involving technical or complex considerations, will be referred to an advisory board on industrial incentives which will now be composed of federal officials from other departments as well as from DREE. I might say that, after reviewing this matter, it was not proposed to have representatives of the business community, however respectable, on the board which was evaluating incentive programs of this kind. This will now be done internally, with various inputs from the various departments to the government.
This decentralized form of administration will provide applicants with increased service, as they will be able to
The Address-Mr. Jamieson
walk into provincial or regional departmental offices and discuss their applications with the incentive officers handling them. That, coupled with a more selective analytical approach aimed at reducing processing time, will provide applicants with decisions about their projects quicker than under existing arrangements. Again, this has been asked for widely, both in this House and outside.
The changes being introduced will call for the amount of the grant to be based on a standard formula according to the region and type of project. Here, again, I suggest there is a marked and distinct improvement over the old arrangement. In the Atlantic region, for instance, and this,
I suggest, will be extremely important to the hon. members concerned, new facilities and expansions to produce new products will be eligible for assistance based on 25 per cent of the approved capital costs for buildings, machinery and equipment. This is something which I wish to bring to the attention of members, particularly those from the Atlantic provinces, because it involves a change in the method of payment for the number of jobs created.
Under the new scheme of things, we will provide 25 per cent with regard to fixed capital costs, plus 30 per cent of the average wages and salaries in the second and third years of operation. Up to now, the incentive per job has been based primarily on the number of jobs which have been created and has not had much connection with the pay rate for that particular job; so that theoretically at least, if the job paid $75 per week, the incentive was virtually the same as if it paid $150 per week. Under this new scheme we are taking a justified step to encourage enterprises in the Atlantic provinces in particular to pay decent levels of wages and we are saying, "The higher your wage bill is, the more return you will get in the form of incentive." We will do the same thing in other designated and special regions, and they will receive the same level of assistance except that, for obvious reasons, since wage rates tend to be higher outside the Atlantic provinces, the percentage of wages and salaries to be used in calculating the incentive will be 15 per cent rather than 30 per cent.
These new arrangements differ, as I said, from those under the old program, primarily in that there was no standard formula on which assistance was based. In a rather general way that assistance was based on a great many fuzzy criteria, if I may use that expression. Now, the applicant will have a much better awareness of the level and degree of assistance which he will be entitled to and, also, he will be able, in the great majority of cases, to get that assistance on a much more rapid and assured basis than has been the case up to now.
I should say a word about modernization and expansion with regard to producing more of the same product. In the case of a fish plant, say, which does not have the technique to create a new product line, the level of assistance will be at 20 per cent of the approved capital cost of plant and machinery, regardless of the designated region in which the facility will be located.
I wish to move on, because there is so much to say in such a short time. On the question of relocation-and this is bothering a number of people-it certainly was not our intention to move available jobs around the country. We have tightened up the regulations and we will demon-

March 7, 1974
The Address-Mr. Jamieson
strate in precise language, when they are promulgated, that although our current regulations exclude an incentive in an instance where a project would simply transfer existing jobs from one location to another within a designated region, the regulation change applies this constraint to all of Canada and makes incentives contingent on any plants of the applicant or parent firms manufacturing similar products anywhere in Canada continuing to operate at the same level as at the time of the incentive application. This will be welcome news to many who feel that under some circumstances, perhaps, shifts were made within the Atlantic provinces or within designated areas in order to take advantage of the grant provisions.
I will turn now to minimum capital costs. We have had many representations to the effect that the floor or minimum which we were prepared to consider for incentives was too high. One of the major features of the revised program will be the introduction of incentives for smaller projects. In line with government policies I and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) have seen what we could do for small business. We have discovered that there have been many worthy projects put forward to the department under the old program that did not qualify because their capital costs were lower than those prescribed by the regulations. I think hon. members should note that the figure is $60,000 in the case of a new operation and $30,000 in the case of an expansion.
In the case of a new plant or an expansion into new product lines, which is virtually the same thing, these costs must normally total $60,000. We will be reducing that to $25,000. To make it more flexible still, in the case of that kind of new operation the costs involved may be either $25,000 or there may be the creation of five additional jobs. So, we will be able to work with the small businessman in the manufacturing and processing sector in particular, in order to try to encourage that type of enterprise. We will also reduce the figure to $25,000 for straight expansion of existing product lines. The reduction in that case, from $60,000 to $25,000, is not so great. We have simply brought both into line at $25,000, for obvious reasons.
I now turn to another interesting and useful change we will make in the regulations. Again, I hope this will demonstrate that I have been listening to what hon. members on the committee and in this House have been saying. We will bring in a new program providing for an incentive grant which is to be repayable under certain circumstances. This will overcome special problems encountered in several types of projects. One type involves projects which will be very profitable if the products are quickly accepted by the market. Where the government risk is considered worthwhile, an incentive may be provided with the condition that, if certain levels of profitability and other performance stipulations are met, the incentive will be paid back. This is an example of new flexibility. In looking at the profit position of a particular applicant, it might be very difficult to justify an outright non-repayable grant, even if it could be demonstrated that the project itself is worthwhile.
Even large and often profitable companies find themselves in cash flow difficulties, which may lead to the abandonment of a project or to delay in its implementation. This provision will enable us to say to a manufactur-

er or processor or company to which this will apply, "We will provide you with the incentive; but, if your profit projections turn out to be correct, then there appears to be a case for recovering these moneys at some point when you are on stream and your balance sheet shows that you no longer need this form of assistance. I hope we will be able to cope with certain other cases by using this technique.
Another type of project might not be able to attract sufficient financing at reasonable rates while, on the other hand, an outright grant might not be considered appropriate. In such an instance, a loan guarantee might be given if a suitable lender is available. However, where a lender is not available or the project might be lost because competitive funds are not available elsewhere, an incentive with specific provision for repayment might be a suitable instrument. Again, projects which might not have received an incentive can be assisted. I believe they can be assisted in a way which is consistent with our view that, while we wish very much to see industrial development take place in the slower growth parts of the country, we do not want, and I do not believe there is any necessity in some .nstances, to simply make public funds available as a gift. If the project is as good as the promoter says it is, surely the logic for some form of repayment, continued expansion or some other justification might deserve merit.
I want to touch on a few other modifications. We are going to change the qualification so that leased assets for incentives can be covered in certain cases. The forest industry, for example, often has a very large investment in terms of leased assets. Therefore, in order to accommodate the applicant, we will now embrace these, something we were not capable of doing before because they had to be fixed assets in the literal sense of the word. Something else we are going to do is adjust the list of eligible assets to include certain off-site assets employed exclusively for the operation. Here again I am thinking in some respects of the forest industry and some aspects of other types of manufacturing industry, for example transportation vehicles used between separate sections of the same facility. It seems to make eminently good sense to include these in the calculation of a grant.
There will be an addition of a few new activities to those already eligible for assistance. We discovered in some instances the definition of manufacturing and processing had to be broadened to some degree. I may say I am open to other suggestions beyond the examples I am giving today, but the type of thing is grinding, mixing and blending of fertilizer and feedstuffs, drying of hides, cleaning or drying of peat or Irish moss, certain transporting and merchandising activities and most types of concrete and asphalt mixing. These have now all been included in the program.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: There will be an increase in allowances for cost over-runs for payment. Members have asked me on occasion what we are doing with regard to the possibility that, with today's circumstances, estimates might well get out of hand in some respects and a project, after it had
March 7, 1974

been partially launched, might run into difficulty. At the present time we allow for a cost over-run of 15 per cent. It is now our intention to make that 25 per cent. This will take care of and answer that question that has been asked frequently about what we are doing with regard to compensating Atlantic provinces industry because of higher energy costs and things of that kind.
We are going to make changes in the provisions governing equity to provide greater flexibility in the time of payment of the equity participation. I believe this will be welcomed by certain applicants.
Another one members made representations on, and which I have come to believe is correct, has to do with the loan guarantee program and the magnitude of the loans and the minimums we will guarantee. This matter is of particular interest to tourist operators, for example. In this case, the loan program is available to certain new commercial undertakings and to new expanded and modernized manufacturing and processing facilities. In revising this, the guarantee fees will be lowered and the minimum capital costs required for a commercial facility to be eligible will be reduced sharply from $252,000 to $100,000. This will be very much of an improvement with regard to the number of people who can take advantage of the loan guarantee.
With regard to the payment procedures, we do not propose to make any change in the current requirements. That is, no monies are paid until I, the minister, am satisfied that the project is in commercial production, has been for a period of 30 days and the number of jobs are in place. In short, it will still be a question of proving that the project is operating before we pay them 80 per cent. The other 20 per cent, of course, is retained over a further period of time. I do not think there is any wisdom in making alterations to that.
In addition to the assistance which will be available under the revised incentives program in designated areas, that is those regions of the country which are marked as being eligible for RDIA, we have also taken into account the representations of members who have stated they cannot get incentives in their areas because they are not covered by the incentives program.
To date I have signed four general development agreements with the provinces, one with Newfoundland, one with Ontario, one with Alberta and one with Saskatchewan. I anticipate signing with Quebec probably next week, and with the other provinces before the end of the current month. Under these general development agreements, it will be possible for the federal and provincial governments to agree to support a major development opportunity in any area, whether it is in the designated section or not, provided the two governments are satisfied it will make a worthwhile contribution to the economic development and improvement to that area. I am sure the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) will welcome that particular piece of news.
I would like to say that I am very pleased with these changes in the incentives program. They have been worked out in consultation with the provinces, and will make that program a more effective instrument in our regional development efforts. The date on which they will be implemented will be announced as soon as final
The Address-Mr. Jamieson
arrangements for the transition from the old program are completed. Hon. members will appreciate there is a problem of getting from one program into another. It should not be more than a few weeks. Of course, before it becomes official, it will have to be gazetted, but that is all that remains to be done.
As for the general policy changes, I am very happy that the new approach has been, and I do not need to qualify this, universally welcomed by the provinces. As hon. members know, I have been back and forth across the country and there has been legitimate and, I believe, mutually satisfactory consultation on a wide range of matters, not simply the incentives program with which I dealt in detail, but the whole question of how we will approach with each province what they see as their priorities in terms of reduction of regional disparities and the improvement of slow growth areas.
One of the important discoveries, perhaps that is not too broad a word, that has emerged from this or has certainly been reaffirmed by this exercise is that a blanket program which falls with equal weight in each area of the country is clearly not the most rational approach. Individual governments have individual priorities and see their province proceeding in a particular way. Therefore, on that ground alone there is the necessity for us to the best of our ability to accommodate what provincial governments legitimately set down as their goals and objectives.
The second point is in a country as vast as ours, the opportunities vary markedly as to their size, availability and type. I will give hon. members just a few quick examples.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before the minister gives examples to hon. members, I must remind him and the House that the minister's time has expired unless he has the consent of the House to continue.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to the House. I will not give too many examples. I merely want to illustrate the kinds of things we are talking about. In Saskatchewan, several proposals for subsidiary agreements are already in the discussion stage, involving such areas as steel and metal-related industries and joint government action in the Qu'Appelle Basin to increase employment through the development of year-round recreation and tourist facilities. There will be others. In Ontario we did our first one in Cornwall, as you, Mr. Speaker, will know.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: In Alberta, one of the matters which I discussed at considerable length with the appropriate minister there is, for instance, combined effort on the up-grading of agricultural products, the value added to agricultural products. We want to assist in that. In Quebec, of course, there are industrial opportunities of a variety of kinds plus opportunities for the development of industrial parks and the various infrastructure supports which are

March 7, 1974
The Address-Mr. Hargrave
necessary in order to induce industries to come to a particular region.
Mr. Speaker, I have taken altogether too much of the time of the House. I hope members will appreciate that this has been a very busy 12 months trying to put all these pieces into place. I hope they will realise that there has been no unnecessary delay but each one of these schemes has required individual discussions with individual provinces and with a great many governmental departments. However, we are off and running, and I look forward to a productive period ahead in carrying out the government's commitment to reduce regional disparities in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, may I first of all, on behalf of my constituents in Medicine Hat, offer warm congratulations and best wishes to our newly-appointed Governor General, His Excellency Jules Leger, and to his most gracious wife, Madame Leger. I should like to assure Their Excellencies that a genuine western welcome, even a southern Alberta welcome, awaits them whenever they choose to visit Medicine Hat.
I should also like to extend my congratulations to the mover (Mr. Stollery) and seconder (Mr. Pelletier) of the Address, with particular reference to the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Pelletier) whose speech I enjoyed very much.
There are two subjects I wish to deal with this afternoon. The first is a very important local issue-indeed, in many respects it is truly a national issue. I refer to the closure, recently announced, of the defence research establishment at Suffield. Second, if time permits, I propose to make a review and assessment of the serious and immediate crisis confronting the Canadian cattle industry.
Mr. Speaker, Friday, February 22 was a bad date for the city of Medicine Hat. I am referring to the announcement by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) that the defence research establishment at Suffield would be phased out. On that date, too, the minister announced that a new defence research establishment would be established in the Winnipeg area, representing a capital expenditure item of $11.5 million and an annual maintenance cost of $6.5 million. In the government announcement it was stated that the new facility at Winnipeg would not mean any increase in the defence research budget since both funds and personnel would be transferred from other defence research establishments. With the greatest respect I suggest this new announcement means another $11.5 million of taxpayers' money, plus the operating costs, and is indeed a substantial increase in the government's budget. I think it is important hon. members realise that the facilities being replaced have a probable total capital value of some $40 million.
Let me briefly review the history and background of the Suffield research station, because I think it is important to do so. These facilities were created during the second world war as an army base. The station was formed through the acquisition of about 1,000 square miles of farm and ranch land along the west side of the South Saskatchewan River. The headquarters are located some 25 miles northwest of the city of Medicine Hat, just north of the village of Suffield. The Defence Research Board took over

the base in 1946. Headquarter facilities occupy an area in excess of 120,000 square feet of building space presently in use. The central laboratory alone occupies approximately
64.000	square feet. The Suffield Research Library contains
20.000	volumes. Building construction since 1947 has cost about $12.6 million. Prior to 1947, both the Canadian and British armies were involved in the wartime operation of the station. At the present time the Suffield payroll amounts to $2.5 million a year, nearly all of which is spent in the communities of Medicine Hat and Redcliff. This generates a tremendous amount of activity, business, social and otherwise.
The scientific, technological and research involvements of Suffield are legendary in Canada. Indeed, they are continental in their scope. Universities which have been associated with Suffield include the University of Alberta, the University of Calgary, Queen's University, the University of Saskatchewan and the University of Victoria as well as the Technical Institutes of Northern and Southern Alberta in Edmonton and Calgary. Industry in Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom has also been involved in co-operative research because of the wide expertise available at this Suffield station. Computer facilities are available and have been used by agriculture departments.
One of the more spectacular and advertised activities at Suffield is the explosives testing program carried out by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, a program made possible by reason of the vast extent of the back-up area-1,000 square miles. Currently this area is being used for a United Kingdom army tank training program now in the third year of a ten-year contract. Some 184 families depend upon the research establishment for their livelihood. A good many of them have been there for more than 20 years. Many more Suffield residents are actively involved in the supply and service aspects connected with this institution.
In the period since the minister made his announcement not two weeks ago, I have received more letters, phone calls, telegrams and personal representations than I have received on any subject or issue since my election. They include representations from city council, the mayor's office at Medicine Hat, the Chamber of Commerce there, various unions on behalf of employees directly affected, and other organizations.
If, as the member of parliament for this area, I might summarize the views expressed in all these communications, I would do so along these lines. First, and foremost, this question was raised: if the research establishment in Canada needs to expand its northern operations and its activities in the field of search and rescue, as suggested in the announcement, if the government really believes in its policy of decentralization, particularly as it applies to the west, and if part of the Ottawa defence research establishment must be moved, again as indicated in the announcement, why should these activities not be added to those carried out in the existing excellent facilities at Suffield instead of building a new research establishment at Winnipeg for a further $11.5 million?
March 7, 1974

This afternoon in Suffield and Medicine Hat the minister's special assistant, Mr. Jim MacNicol, is hearing the views of all concerned about this decision to close down the research establishment at Suffield. In conversation with him before leaving for the west I asked him whether he was going to explain the government's decision. He quickly responded that he was making this special trip to listen to all who wished to meet with him, and I am sure that Mr. MacNicol will hear a very strong and united voice today asking that this Suffield decision be immediately reconsidered.
It seems to me that this decision is decentralization in reverse. By that, I mean it is moving from a 30,000 population city, Medicine Hat, to a 550,000 population city, Winnipeg, which actually is Canada's third largest city. This is reversing the east to west, and indeed the south to north, moves that most of us feel are so necessary to properly develop western Canada. Many of the letters I have received told me of serious personal involvements which will result, such as moving east when retirement plans have already been started in southeastern Alberta. The minister's reply to my question on February 28 suggested that I was aware that "the research establishment at Suffield has been phasing out for several years". Of course, I and the entire Medicine Hat community were totally unaware of this defence department of Defence Research Board decision until that day, February 22, which was less than two weeks ago. In retrospect, it probably would have been much better had we all been informed several years ago.
In summary, then, concerning this Suffield decision I most earnestly and seriously ask the Department of National Defence, and especially the minister of the department, to consider carefully the implications of this decision on the Medicine Hat-Redcliff community which I have the honour and privilege of representing. If improvements and additions are necessary in defence research establishments in Canada, why not at Suffield? I ask the minister seriously to consider this question.
I want to make a few comments about the cattle situation, but before doing so one of the letters I received on the Suffield issue suggested that perhaps I was more interested in cattle than in people. By coincidence, over the last two weeks I have also received almost as many communications on the fat cattle market crisis in which this industry is presently involved. These letters have come from a very wide cross-section in both western and eastern Canada. Because it is a national issue and because I have been spokesman for the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, I should like to comment on the current cattle situation.
For the second time within the last six months a fed cattle market crisis has occurred in Canada due primarily to the direct and indirect involvement of last year's freeze on beef prices in the United States. Live fat cattle prices in Canada have dropped eight to 10 cents a pound over the last three weeks, to a current level of about 42 cents in the west and around 44 cents in Ontario. Feedlot costs of gain in the west are 55 cents to 60 cents a pound, and probably a little lower in the east. Actual cash losses per head on most fat cattle sold over the last three months range from $100
The Address-Mr. Hargrave
to $150 per head. This is continuing and the situation is getting worse. In retrospect, the only way these losses could have been eliminated would have been to stay completely out of the cattle feeding side of our industry. Live fat cattle imports from the United States since January 1 have increased from 2,154 in 1973 to 29,114 in 1974, a 14-fold increase. There has also been a 50 per cent increase in the tonnage of offshore imports of carcass beef, exclusive of United States imports. This, of course, is the main reason for the dramatic drop in fat cattle prices today.
Our Canadian domestic marketing of fed cattle-by that, I mean grade A and grade B-are down 32,000 head, which is 10 per cent, for 1974 over the same period a year ago, that is, from January 1. However, we are not short of fat cattle in Canada. It is now apparent that there is a holdback from market of fat cattle both in western Canada and in Ontario. We should keep in mind that the largest calf crop in our history is about to be born both in Canada and in the United States.
Over the last three weeks between 7,000 and 8,000 fat cattle have been imported weekly, nearly all coming into Ontario. This is about two-thirds of eastern Canada's fed cattle weekly kill numbers. The week that is just ending tomorrow will likely see the largest number of imports for the year. A direct result of this is the extreme difficulty of getting bids on feedlot cattle, especially in western Canada. The packers are backing up because there is no outlet for their carcass beef in the east. Another result has been the extremely light deliveries in both east and west since practically no cattle are being offered. For example, today on the Toronto market there were only 600 cattle in total offered for sale.
On February 25, the Canadian Cattlemen's Association presented both a short-term and a longer-term recommendation to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie). The longterm approach has been suggested by long standing United States import quotas of 400,000 head per year, with appropriate quarterly quotas. In addition, the United States charges a 10 per cent ad valorem tariff on certain imported cuts of beef. Canada has no quotas on live cattle or dressed meat imports from any country. In addition, we have no equivalent to the United States ad valorem tariff.
The cattlemen have recommended that Canada should insist on a reciprocal, proportional quota system involving United States exports to Canada that would allow 40,000 head per year, or 12,000 per quarter. These figures are in the approximate ratio of the cattle populations of the two countries, which is ten to one. Because of the time lag to negotiate and to institute this quota provision, the cattlemen have also insisted on provision for a short-term, temporary tariff that would automatically increase with increased import levels. On Tuesday evening last, March 5, a seven-man delegation presented this proposal to our Minister of Agriculture in somewhat more detail than I have outlined here. After their presentation the delegation indicated considerable disappointment and frustration in that the minister did not seem to indicate any immediate and positive action.

March 7, 1974
The Address-Mr. Hargrave
I should like to say a word or two about this DES situation, since diethystilbestrol is again in the news. DES is now legal for use in cattle feeding in the United States. Implants of DES are presently available and in use in the United States. The feed additive form of DES will also be in use within 30 days when new supplies become available in that country. Canada's ban in respect of DES still stands and the Minister of Agriculture announced just a few weeks ago at the CFA convention in Saskatoon that it would not be lifted. Technically, I suggest that Canada has two alternatives: Either to re-licence the use of DES in Canada or institute a complete embargo on all imported fed cattle and beef from the United States. The cattlemen suggested that a monitoring or certification procedure on imports is not a practical method and would not be acceptable since it is literally impossible to tell whether an animal has been fed or treated with DES, and certification is begging the honesty of the industry in the United States.
By coincidence, the United States announced in a news report yesterday morning that their DES-free certification program was about to be launched. This announcement pointed up the fact that the United States is anxious to protect their very excellent export market for cattle in Canada, and also pointed up the fact that last year this market alone totalled some $141 million. I am entirely satisfied that the proposals of the cattlemen are both reasonable and workable and merit the full support of all hon. members in this House. Last fall during the first such crisis only the feedlot operators were hurt, while the cow-calf and grass yearling producers sold their cattle on very strong markets. Now, however, the entire industry is sharing the impact of the fat cattle market price, and this is why it is much more serious now than it was last fall.
If the feedlot industry in Canada is to survive, it must recognize that high feed grain prices will likely continue through the balance of this year and most of 1975. I suggest this is due to the world shortfall position on feed grains. The industry must also realize that there will be an unofficial fat cattle market ceiling established by consumer resistance at retail outlets. These two situations will dictate much lower prices for feedlot replacement cattle, perhaps as low as 40 cents a pound. We in Canada should not forget that we are a net importer of cattle and that almost all of our imports are fat cattle coming into Canada for slaughter. This has been the case for several years. Our imports come mainly from the United States, with lesser amounts, coming from Australia and New Zealand. The United States is also a net importer of beef and cattle, being probably the largest importer in the world.
The throne speech contained a very specific reference to our cattle industry and I should like to quote one sentence as follows:
-incentives to increase the production of livestock necessary to provide for Canadian and export markets.
The present and future life of the Canadian cattle industry is now seriously in question. Cattlemen are not asking for subsidies or handouts, but only for a fair and equitable opportunity to compete with our United States neighbours in this same cattle industry. Our own Canadian industry is a $1.5 billion industry at farm gate values. That is how

much it was worth last year and slightly less in preceding years. It is the largest agricultural commodity group in Canada today and it is worth saving. To save it we will require genuine understanding and some immediate action by government.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I had intended to participate in the debate by referring to an entirely different subject, but the remarks of the hon. member for Hastings (Mr. Ellis) this afternoon, and his attack on unemployment insurance, leave me very little choice but to answer some of his allegations. I do not intend to do so in a personal manner as I have never in the 12 or 13 years I have been in the House found it necessary to be abusive.
Before speaking about unemployment insurance, I want to follow tradition by paying tribute to the mover and seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. It is significant that the mover, an hon. member from the greater Toronto area, reflected upon a comparison of affluence in Canada with the affluence of those countries vaguely referred to as being in the third world, whereas the seconder in a very deep and thoughtful speech reminded us of the poverty which still exists in Canada. Galbraith in "The Affluent Society" suggested that it is hardly beneficial today for politicians to ally themselves with those who are very poor, since in this industrial era, in north America particularly, the poor represent a very small minority, very inarticulate and very passive, and, quite frankly and bluntly, to be allied with them can quite often be a political detriment.
Poverty does remain in Canada. Those economists who think you can eliminate poverty by simply giving everybody a sum of money per week fail to understand the difference between being hungry and living in a poor environment. There are whole areas in Canada which, because of poverty, regional disparity, geographic location and the inability of having someone articulate on their behalf, find that they have substandard roads and substandard schools, because teachers do not want to move in and teach in these areas, as well as substandard medicine, because doctors do not want to go too far away from the centres of learning. So poverty has come to mean to too many Canadians more than just the absence of dollars and cents, but has become in reality the absence of opportunity. This parliament, including members on all sides, as I have no monopoly of concern for the poor, should remind itself periodically that there are still many thousands of Canadians whom one might consider to be in the poverty category rather than just hungry in the evening.
The hon. member for Hastings referred to a 1970 paper of which I should have been aware, having something to do with disability. I looked puzzled because disability has nothing to do with unemployment insurance but workmen's compensation. I can only presume he was talking about maternity and sickness benefits. I went back to my office and found about three and a half feet of paper on the subject, including the Mercer report and various discussion papers. The hon. member is welcome to go through them.
March 7, 1974

I know there were many estimates of what the cost would be of these particular sickness and maternity benefits. There have been papers prepared and sooner or later one will come out which might suit me or one might come out which would suit the hon. member, but very little will be proven. What has been proven is that previous to the Unemployment Insurance Act only 15 per cent of Canadian workers had any sickness benefits and only 3 per cent had maternity benefits-one of the prime recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women. The hon. gentleman is entitled to his opinion. I think from my discussions with him that he is serious, so I respect him; but that does not necessarily mean he is right when he says that the trade unions are upset and are complaining about the practices of the Unemployment Insurance Commission. Let me say to him that next week when the Canadian Labour Congress appears before the cabinet we will learn whether they believe the commission is being operated properly, whether it is too lax, or whether it is operating too severely. This will be a very interesting meeting.
I do not usually quote economists because, as someone once said, the main purpose of the study of economics is to make certain that an economist does not fool you. There are, I suppose, as many economists as there are scientists, but unlike scientists they are the only people I know who can be well paid for anticipating something and then even more highly paid for explaining why their anticipation went wrong. Nevertheless, there are some good and valid economists. I think of the report put out by the C.D. Howe Research Institute which I believe is as independent an organization as one might find. I should like to quote one small section from a book put out by the institute written by Judith Maxwell and Carl E. Beigie:
In an earlier section of this chapter, we concluded that Canada does not have the plant capacity to employ all the labour available for work, and we also concluded that unemployment will rise in 1974 because of slower economic growth. One further conclusion that seems obvious is that Canadians should not consider the unemployed to be welfare bums. If, in fact, the unemployed are expected to work, then Canada has failed them by not providing jobs. This means that the country owes them an adequate income either from unemployment insurance, manpower training allowances, or the welfare system.
Many Canadians believe that programs making transfer payments to persons are already too expensive, and the Economic Council of Canada has urged the three levels of government to reduce the growth of these expenditures to an annual average of 11 per cent. While this is an admirable objective, it loses sight of three basic facts:
The high unemployment of recent years places a greater burden on transfer programs, as explained above.
The sophistication of modern medicine means that many ill, injured and aged people are kept alive when in other societies they would not survive. This means that the population of handicapped people is relatively larger here and, in addition, that Canada keeps them in greater comfort than do many other societies.
Transfer payments must keep pace with inflation. To set a target of 11 per cent a year when prices are rising by 8 per cent means that the country has made a very small transfer of "real" income. Once the transfer payments system is perfect-which it is not-
There is a footnote referring to the Special Senate Committee report on Poverty in Canada.
-the growth rate should be at the same pace as inflation. But the system needs dramatic improvement first.
The Address-Mr. Mackasey
In summary, then, the main policy response to higher unemployment in 1974 should be to provide either incomes, training or jobs in community work for the people who are effectively locked out of the economic system.
Mr. Speaker, you either believe this or you do not.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker-


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Perhaps the hon. gentleman would permit me the luxury of half an hour without his usual intervention.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I just want to know the year of the article. I do not mean to detract from the minister's time.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: It is 1974. I think it is ten days old as everybody should know who is interested in the subject. It has been in every daily newspaper, except perhaps the Hamilton Spectator in recent weeks. The term "welfare bums" is a despicable expression. That it should be used in connection with the people drawing unemployment insurance or even welfare is nothing of which any Canadian should be proud. According to a study of health and welfare, and the study by the C. D. Howe Institute, perhaps 14 or 15 people out of 100 on welfare could work if work were available. People who do not work because of the absence of day care centres and those who are chronically ill, mentally retarded and those who are third generation welfare recipients, or unfortunate alcoholics are not the type of people who work even in this time of affluence, and rather than call them welfare bums or resent the $1.40 or $1.90 or $2 a week that we contribute to UIC or welfare, we should thank God we are not part of the welfare trap ourselves.
It is ironic that the first voice that should be raised in respect of an inquiry into the Unemployment Insurance Commission should be from the construction industry. Anybody who knows anything about labour-and I know the hon. gentleman who speaks for manpower does-and anybody who knows about technological change in the Labour Code will know it has not cost this country one day of labour unrest but on the contrary has resulted in many settlements. Amongst the leaders against that particular legislation was none other than the construction industry. But, what industry depends more on federal handouts than the construction industry in general? Unemployment insurance is the greatest handout and subsidy to the employer in the construction industry of any industry in this country and I am sure they would be the first and the greatest opponent of the concept of merit training which would place the responsibility right on the employer in the construction industry to provide his workers with a guaranteed annual income or would at least cut down on the characteristic of the construction industry today which is if you lay the cornerstone at 1.30 you fire the workers at a quarter to two. The government will look after them through one of its programs.
A construction firm can go from 800 employees to a telephone answering service, a secretary and one architect while the boss suns himself in Miami as the federally sponsored project comes to an end. Perhaps the inquiry should not be into the Unemployment Insurance Commission but rather into the construction industry and the way

March 7, 1974
The Address-Mr. Mackasey
in which these people manipulate funds from the government. They build at a time that suits them. They do not spread the work across the year and in this way avoid the responsibility for fringe benefits and for a guaranteed annual income or some legal obligation to their workers. The problem with unemployment insurance is that it is a complex piece of legislation and all members, including members opposite, I am sure realize and appreciate this.
In the act, I believe in sections 108, 109 and 110, there is reference to an advisory committee which has power to inquire. That committee did inquire in October 1973 into the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Commission. The final report of that advisory committee was placed on the table in October. It was a unanimous report. One of the signatories to that report was none other than the representative of the construction industry. I would welcome a public debate with Mr. Durocher any time he has time to spare from his lobbying from department to department to see what he can accomplish on behalf of the construction industry or what he can do to build up strength to reduce the federal sales tax on building materials.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), for whom I do not hide my affection and concern, perhaps because he is a fellow maritimer, has always shown concern for people, as well he should because in the years when he was premier of Nova Scotia the average unemployment rates in that province were 20 per cent, 21 per cent and 22 per cent, and these were acceptable and considered normal. But now he comes along and at a $100 a plate dinner the other night says we need an investigation of unemployment insurance, not to see if it is administered properly but to see if it contains disincentives to work.
I point out that this is an act which provides an average of $70 a week, or about $1.75 an hour. What are the disincentives in such an act into which the Leader of the Opposition demanded an inquiry when speaking before "poor" people who had to pay $100 a plate for their dinner? It was great stuff politically, but let him come down to the Verdun anti-poverty association and I will arrange a bean supper for him at 50 cents and he can ask those people what disincentive they find in unemployment insurance. They will tell him all they want is work, that that is all they are seeking.
To suggest that Canadians are lazier than Americans shows a distrust of Canadians, a distrust of workers. It is an insult to suggest that the average European, the average American or the average Canadian does not want a decent job, something that will challenge his initiative and be compatible with the level of education that we provide in this country. If we educate the children of the Atlantic provinces who previously may have been denied secondary education, or even high school education, for financial reasons and then call them lazy bums when they come out of high school and will not work in a tavern cleaning off the tables, we should remember that we ourselves would not do that.
But perhaps the policy of the Conservative Party is to go back to the days before we had unemployment insurance. I say read "The Lost Years," by Broadfoot, before advocat-

ing that. Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, I was out in that beautiful part of the country, Alberta, in Edmonton, and talked to some 700 people there. There were many who had lived nine years on welfare, others who saw their farms disappear in the dust bowl and others who simply packed up their belongings and abandoned their farms. Because they drew $14 a month welfare in those days they were not allowed a radio licence, a beer licence, and certainly not an automobile licence, in case some of that money may have been wasted on a glass of beer, in case they may have stayed at home listening to the radio, or in case they bought a gallon of gas to go for a ride on Sunday. I ask hon. members opposite, is that the type of Canada to which they wish to return? It is the type of Canada we will see if they continue this unalleviated harassment of unemployment insurance, particularly if they do not base their criticism on facts.
I ask the opposition to remember that the press of this country has intelligence and that the press gallery in this chamber is not for sale to the opposition, to me or to anyone else. Rather, it is an extension of the House of Commons. Instead of feeding more and more on the question period, members of the press gallery are doing their homework; they are delving into the situation and finding the facts. For example, in Saturday's Montreal Star there was an article by James Stewart, who used to be in the press gallery 10 or 15 years ago and who spent a week or two studying unemployment insurance before writing about it. This is what he says about it:
In the eyes of the Canadian Labour Congress and the Confederation of National Trade Unions, in fact the law is already proving too restrictive and punitive, offering few improvements over the old system for some workers, and leaving too much influence in the hands of employers.
It is too long an article for me to read it all, but perhaps I might read his conclusion first and return later to other sections of it.
It looks more and more as though the bosses who scream loudest about the unemployment insurance scandal are part of the scandal themselves. They're simply lousy employers.
Perhaps the inquiry people have been asking for should go beyond the ski bums and maternity claimants.
It should look deeply into the big operators in the cheap labour market, the companies that lay-off at will, using UIC as a crutch to protect their profits, as a subsidy to reduce their obligations in sickness and maternity benefits, and as a scapegoat for their own shabby employment habits.
I take my hat off to Jim Stewart who had the courage to point out what too many of us here already know. Then he writes about the case of a woman as follows:
A woman, growing older and a bit slow, was laid off from her office cleaning job. She got something like $35 a week in unemployment insurance benefits, but she was told she had to prove a daily active search for a job.
She did this for a few weeks. Then she complained to her member of parliament that her diligent and vain search for work was costing her, in bus fares, $8 to $9 a week of her $35 benefit. Outraged, he told her to go home and relax, and if she had any trouble to call him.
I might say that it was a Conservative member of parliament who went to her rescue. Why couldn't she get another job, Mr. Speaker? She was 59 years old and she was no longer productive for the firm that won a federal office cleaning contract. She just could not wash enough floors between midnight and 8 a.m. to provide a proper
March 7, 1974

income for that enlightened employer, so he finally dismissed her. She went on unemployment insurance. She complied with the regulations which say that you must be actively seeking work. This cost her $8 or $9 a week in taxi and bus fares and finally she complained, as she had every right to do, to her member of parliament.
One of the complaints we have heard from the hon. gentleman from Hastings is his inability to get information. He always asks, "What are we hiding?" Mr. Speaker, any information I get is public. There is the Auditor General's report of October 5, 1973, which can be obtained from the library by any member of parliament. Statistics Canada will give you the complete breakdown of disqualifications and disentitlements monthly if you ask for it. Then there is the annual report of the Unemployment Advisory Committee which was tabled on July 7, 1973. There is nothing that is hidden. What is really the problem is that too few people understand how the act works; too few people care; too few people have the courage to speak for the poor, because to speak for the poor in these reactionary times is a political liability, and there are too many people in this House of Commons who judge their success by their ability to get re-elected, and nothing else.
I have said many times, and I have written innumerable articles on this, that I will accept any amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act that will improve it. But I will not accept anything that will drive the poor people into the hands of unscrupulous employers, that will drive them into conditions that are deplorable and that are bypassed by inspectors who never get around to inspect such places, or that will drive them to accept work with employers who pay only the minimum wage or below the minimum wage. There are ample cases of this in the evidence already available.
Employees in this country have never been quite so well off. It was only a couple of years ago that we were crying about unemployment. Today we are bothered by too much affluence and labour-intensive industry cannot find people to work for $1.25 an hour in Prince Edward Island, $1.50 in New Brunswick and $2.25 in Toronto for the one simple reason that you cannot live in Toronto on $2.25 an hour.
Maybe I am wrong, Mr. Speaker, but we never hear very much when we ask the opposition: what would you do to improve the act? I come back to the same argument that I used a year ago. We can throw the fishermen off, if you like. By strict definition they are employed. If you want pure insurance of the private nature, I say throw the fishermen off who are employed, but I doubt if anybody on the other side of the House from the Atlantic provinces or from any province, if he has the slightest humanitarian instinct, will get up and make such a suggestion. You can throw out the woodworkers who work piece-work in the middle of the woods. They are self-employed. Why not make that suggestion if you want to save money?
What is the disincentive the Leader of the Opposition is talking about? What are the disincentives in a man receiving $107 a week unemployment insurance when he had to earn $170 or $180 a week, or more, in order to get that $107? What are the characteristics of the man in Canada who
The Address-Mr. Mackasey
earns $180 a week? We have studied the facts and here they are: he has a mortgage, he has car payments, he has life insurance payments, he has a child in secondary school. If he is thrown out of work at age 48 for the first time in his life, he can postpone such expenses for about three months. Is he going to quit a job that pays $180 per week or more to draw unemployment insurance of $107 per week, and not sure if he can find work again? Where is the disincentive? There may be disincentives at the bottom end of the scale where some poor fellow is getting $2 an hour on the Gaspe peninsula and can now draw $1.33 and says to himself that for 67 cents an hour it doesn't pay to go back to work at what he was doing. Would you drop the $1.33 and put that person on welfare, or would you raise the minimum wage?
Have hon. members opposite stopped to figure out what the average benefit is based on? It is 66 % per cent of what the industrial income of this country is, subject to taxation. What were the old rates? They were 50 per cent, non-taxable, in 1968. When you calculate the rate of inflation between 1968 and 1974, you find that the man drawing $107 is earning less, in proportion to what he was getting when he worked, than the man who was getting $53 maximum, in proportion to what he was earning when he worked. Yet people use the phrase "generous unemployment insurance benefits". Sure we distributed $2 billion last year. Again, I have the tables but I do not intend to get into them. Most of that $2 billion went into the areas of the country which needed the money-the Atlantic provinces, northern Ontario, northern Saskatchewan, the province of Quebec and the Gaspe area, to be spent by the poor in the areas where it should be spent.
How many people know that you cannot draw benefits in Toronto under any conditions for more than 23 weeks if you have 19 or less weeks' work attachment, as opposed to 52 weeks before, because of the level of employment in that particular area? How many people know that the country is divided into 16 regions and in eight of them the limit that you can draw unemployment insurance is 23 weeks, and then you are thrown off if you happen to miss one of the blitzes for which we are very famous.
Mr. Speaker, when all parties put the act together, we were not unaware of abuses. In 1968 I ran a campaign, as minister responsible, against abuses that won first prize in Marketing Magazine. That was a big deal, I suppose. It was harsh enough for Dalton Camp, that small "1" liberal, to take me apart in his column. I thank him for that because I still have the column. It reminded me that in my zeal to be efficient in running the unemployment insurance program I was unintentionally abusing the act myself and throwing people off that act for the simple pleasure, I suppose, of running up statistics. That was in 1968.
When we drew up this act, some of the officials in charge of benefit control had been with UIC since 1942 when the act first came in. We plugged every possible loophole. When you talk about eight weeks' work attachment, do not compare it to 20 weeks; compare it to seasonal benefits. People who are familiar with unemployment insurance know what I am talking about. Under the old act, with no week's attachment between December and May you could draw unemployment insurance benefits
286

March 7, 1974
The Address-Mr. Mackasey
and call them seasonal benefits. That has been eliminated. We lengthened the waiting period from one week to two weeks so that we could review more thoroughly the applicants to make certain they were qualified. That is paying off. If you look at the statistics, you will see that about three times as many people are disqualified for leaving jobs than in the old days. Because more are leaving, or because they are apprehending more with more efficient methods? It depends which way you want to look at it.


Mr. Yewchuk:: You should get a new speech, Bryce.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Virtually every abuse under the old act has been plugged, and yet members keep coming back to the fact that it is abuse-riddled. Mr. Speaker, if people want to go from eight weeks to 12 weeks, go ahead. Maybe you save $50 million out of $2 billion. In Newfoundland, 13.9 per cent of all claims in 1972, and I can only talk about 1972 because those are the figures I am aware of, and I was there-I do not talk for 1973; 1972 is supposed to have been the year of poor administration, so if anything the figures are worse-came from people with 11 weeks work or less; 14 per cent for Prince Edward Island; 12 per cent for Nova Scotia; 13.8 per cent for New Brunswick; 10.6 per cent for Quebec, and all the other provinces considerably lower. If you want to go to 12 weeks, those are the people you will affect, the people who can least afford it-once again, people in areas of regional disparity. I just heard the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson) speak about how we are going to eliminate regional disparities. In the meantime, why should we select these people-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. member as his time has expired. He may continue with the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. McKinley:: Mr. Speaker, we would agree that the hon. member continue so long as he brings his remarks to a close in reasonable time.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and hon. members. I can understand people believing that the plan is abused, and I select no one opposite as a redneck or a reactionary. There are reactionaries in every party, but what comes out of a party is a consensus. The people who went on unemployment insurance in 1972 with eight weeks work represented 2.5 of all claims in Canada. That is what all the excitement is about-2.5 per cent, 11 weeks or less, 35,000 people. There were 1,800,000 who drew unemployment insurance benefits at one time or another in 1972, and 35,189 had 11 or less weeks of work. Incidentally, they stay on benefits for a shorter period of time than the person with 20 or more weeks. They simply want a chance; they want a job. They are marginal workers who come out of school with substandard education and want nothing more than to work. They work as long as there is a job available for them, provided the money is sufficient to live on. That is the plain fact of life.
The person in Toronto who complains about his inability to obtain workers is usually an employer who wants it both ways-to be in the centre of the most prosperous city in the country, to have minimal transportation problems,

because chances are he has no railway costs, and at the same time he wants the same type of labour at the same wages as if he were located thousands of miles from Toronto. He has all kinds of spokesmen in the House of Commons, but not too many people stand up for the poor because it is not politically advantageous.
Let me give one example out of many. I will not refer to those referred to in the Montreal Star since I do not know where those examples came from or how valid they are. I remember that in October, just prior to the election, the Financial Times carried great headlines stating that a lumber company had laid off 187 workers, and eight weeks later when they recalled the workers, none showed up. According to the article, the workers were on unemployment insurance. The company could have kept the workers for those eight weeks if it had realized that they would be needed for the production of lumber eventually. But when the company wanted its 187 workers back, they were not available.
One of the directors of the company, a learned senator, came to me-after all the publicity was over, of course- and we discussed the problems. I got him to give me the social insurance numbers of the 187 workers involved so that we could run them through the computer and find out who they were and if they were still on the unemployment insurance list. It turned out that 14 of the 187 were drawing unemployment insurance. The other 173 were working for competitors of the company which had originally hired them, or for companies in other industries. When confronted with these facts, the senator said he was sorry. There was no retraction in the newspaper, however.
Being short of workers, the company went to Manpower and Manpower officials went to the camp to find out what was the trouble. Well, there was not much trouble. You could earn $300 a week in lumber camps, according to Bob Neilsen of the Toronto Star. Your only problem was that the camp in question was 92 miles from the nearest town and how you got there was your own business. When you got there, you slept with 16 other people. If your chain-saw broke in the middle of winter, you repaired it outside. Oh, yes, you could make $300 a week if you were in the right strawberry patch; that is, if the lumber was of sufficient diameter. There was no guaranteed weekly wage, let alone monthly wage, since you were on piece-work, and som-times you could not work when it snowed or rained. And this company complained because it could not get workers. I am not talking about a company in eastern Europe; I am talking about one in Canada.
In contrast, there are companies in British Columbia and in Ontario which build decent accommodations for their workers, which permit wives and children to come with the worker, which guarantee a weekly wage and provide transportation. There is a waiting list of people who want to work for these companies for the kind of wages they pay. Let those employers who are complaining about unemployment insurance and welfare programs as being for the benefit of lazy Canadians look in the mirror and see their own faults. They are prepared to overlook their own faults very conveniently and to condemn those who speak on behalf of people who normally have nobody to speak on their behalf.
March 7, 1974


Mr. Speaker:: I see that the hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Hales) has risen to ask a question. I would remind the House that the time of the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey) has expired and unanimous consent is required if he is to answer the hon. member's question.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Hales:: Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate hearing the former minister speak on this important subject. I should like to ask the minister how he would handle the case which I am about to raise, and what changes he would make to the act to meet this kind of situation. I am speaking of a man who is offered a job paying $3.23 per hour, and after working only one day he discovers that by working he will be only $7 better off than if he stayed on $100 a week unemployment insurance. How would the former minister propose to get a man like that back to work?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, if he is getting $100 a week in unemployment insurance, he was earning $150 a week and not slightly over $3 per hour. If he was earning $150 a week before collecting insurance, he should normally be able to return to a job paying $150.


Alfred Dryden Hales: But what if he cannot?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: After one month on unemployment insurance, under the formula of the commission benefits drop from $150 to $140. After 60 more days, if he is irresponsible or too restrictive in his demands, he can be disentitled.
May I ask the indulgence of the House and speak for two more minutes so that I can rectify something which I believe the hon. member for Hastings (Mr. Ellis) said. The hon. member suggested, I think, that 250,000 Canadians had been disqualified. I do not want that inaccuracy to be left in Hansard. I suggest the minister may have said that 250,000 people were disqualified or disentitled. There is a big difference, Mr. Speaker. You can be disentitled for as little as 25 minutes and then be reinstated. You could be disentitled for a variety of reasons. As I said, you can be disentitled for as little as 25 minutes.
Our system allows us to pour out millions of statistics. If you want figures showing, say, one million disentitle-ments by June of any year, you will not have any problem getting them. An officer may say to you that in the circumstances you are disentitled, that you are no longer eligible, and so on. In the meantime, your circumstances may change and in half an hour you could be reinstated. Nevertheless, you are a statistic; you are shown as having been disentitled. That is why I am suspicious of statistics.
The only statistic I believe in is this: in December, 1973, 6 per cent of the people paying unemployment insurance were drawing benefits; in 1972, 7.4 were drawing benefits; and in 1970, 10.6 of the so-called lazy bums of the Canadian work force were drawing benefits. Since we have gone from 10 per cent to 6 per cent, I suggest that some of our economists themselves should be on the unemployment insurance rolls.
The Address-Mr. La Salle


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I will say from the outset that it is with pleasure that I stand quite officially on one side of this House that I have known quite well. First of all, Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the mover and seconder of the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Stollery) and the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Pelletier), not so much to congratulate them for the contents of the Speech from the Throne but for the courage or the guts they had to support such a speech which I feel contains the very same wishes or good intentions we know or I heard for the last six years.
I would like to deal immediately and quickly with the last few years that led to this Speech from the Throne. I was during three years one of those who showed tolerance and patience for the measures introduced by this government. On many of them I was very generous I think in supporting this government on several occasions, believing as thousands of Canadians that satisfactory results could take place. We realized in the last six years that the "just society" which was the goal that we no longer hear about now is far from being achieved and I think that thousands of Canadians admit that the results are pitiful.
I must say, Mr. Speaker, that it is not because this government did not make an effort. I think it did. It is not because it refused to introduce changes because it did bring in certain changes and proposals. However, we ended up with an inflation that is no less serious than before, an unemployment rate that is both steady and unacceptable, and the increase in the cost of living. We know how housewives are concerned, and rightly so. We also have the so-called oil crisis which made us go through difficult days.
When one assesses the last six years, in spite once again of the proposals that were made it is difficult, and it was difficult for me, to continue to support a government which does nothing to meet our aspirations and the results of which are totally unsatisfactory to the majority of Canadians. Of course, I tried during three years on behalf of my constituents to do the best possible job. For that matter, having worked as well as I could for the past six years and realizing that the government has chosen to disregard a number of suggestions -the government is not the only one making them-I have felt necessary, because I was not listened to attentively, to reconsider my position with a team acting as a unit and to give Canadians the opportunity not necessarily to destitute the party in power, but to put an administration a lot more efficient and productive in its place. Indeed, hon. members opposite will refuse to believe that there could be on this side hon. members as competent as they are. I think, in the light of our accomplishments since the 1972 elections, that there are many Progressive Conservative members who could come up with initiatives comparable to those put forward over the past six years. For that reason then I thought it fair to answer the call of the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) in order to represent the province of Quebec within this party as this is necessary and pressing because even if 50 per cent of the government members are from Quebec, we can see that the province is poorly
27398-19*

March 7, 1974
The Address-Mr. La Salle
represented on some occasions and even not represented at all on some others. I could enumerate all the pieces of legislation about oil that we have discussed here. During two months, while the official opposition was fighting a serious battle about the importance of a single price, we have not heard, except on rare occasions, members from Quebec answer the accusations of the opposition leader which were perfectly justified when he said that Quebecers were betraying their own province on the energy matter. And we know it very well.
Furthermore, this government is going to create soon a national energy corporation and we don't know what will be the powers of that corporation and I am aware that Quebecers are very anxious to know if the government is not securing powers in the hydro-electric energy field. We do know that Quebecers are now worried about this matter. But Quebecers in power are not speaking about it and do not want to say anything on the subject and we are waiting for the opportunity to take required position on this matter. I should like-


An hon. Member:: You don't know what is happening.


Roch La Salle: Yes I know it very well. Yesterday, a question was raised about my return within the Progressive Conservative party. The hon. member for Levis (Mr. Guay) was asking if I would still be a member of this party at the next elections. I should like to tell him, Mr. Speaker, that I had the guts to make some decisions and take some positions. I think I had to do it. I had to consider the work made in the last 15 months by the opposition and I have understood that it reflected perfectly well the worries of Canadians.
The right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said in his speech that the Leader of the Official Opposition was repeating the same complaints. I think that he omitted to say that the complaints of the opposition leader are also those of most Canadians on major problems. But in the Speech from the Throne, the government was careful not to specify. We ask once again for a vote of confidence from the Canadian population, without wanting to assess the miserable results of which we are all aware. And these are precisely the points that the opposition leader mentioned in his arguments and those that concern most Canadians. The members on the other side are well aware of this. Therefore, I should like to tell the hon. member for Levis that if there is any worry about whether or not the Progressive Conservative Party can win part of Quebec, the members opposite can rest easy because the Progressive Conservative Party will get a sufficient number of candidates elected to represent fairly and equitably the province of Quebec. Everything is fine! Our objective is not to elect 56 members, of which 50 rarely open their mouth. Our objective is to obtain the election'of about ten good members who can do what they are supposed to do in this House and represent the aspirations of Quebec, just like we recognize that the first duty of Albertans and Manitobans is to tell of the aspirations of people in their province.
It is said that we need a strong government. I was listening to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson) who spoke of decentralizing his department. Mr. Speaker, these are things I like to hear: decen-

tralization of powers, respect for provinces and provincial jurisdictions. No one can accuse the opposition leader of not having this respect. The same thing could not be said about the present leader of the government however. My Quebec colleagues know it very well. Because opposition members are talking about inflation, unemployment, the high cost of living and the oil crisis, they are being laughed at. There will be an attempt, of course, and it has been mentionned, to create a national energy corporation whose powers are not very well known yet. If this proposal is not first discussed with the provinces, it may raise great problems.
Federalism may hope to survive only to the extent that the provinces will be happy to stay within Confederation. And the government's attitude, this centralizing attitude cannot last whether Quebec or any other province is involved. I am happy to have found out recently that Quebec was not the only province that has problems when it comes to the respect that each province is expecting from the federal government. Therefore it is false to say that a strong federal government is needed. But if we so work as to respect provincial jurisdictions and make provinces sufficiently happy within Confederation, it is possible to talk of a viable federalism.
Of course the national energy Corporation as envisaged by the government was born from sheer necessity since it meets a suggestion made by the New Democratic Party. There is no doubt about it.
But instead of being tempted to nationalize, why does the government not introduce encouraging measures for the Canadian investor so that the people will consider investing in Canadian companies? Tax incentives could be given too.
These would be measures which would enable Canadians to save and invest in Canadian industries and which would also enable our firms and Canadians to gain control over our industry as a whole, perhaps not fully but at least to a much greater extent than we do now. It is a matter of regaining our economy and rather than attempting to nationalize this or that it would be very important and much more beneficial to let Canada really in the hands of Canadians, to introduce encouraging measures and advantages for Canadians who invest in our industry. This could indeed prevent us from having to advocate the establishment of a national energy corporation.
I would like to say that in these last six years I spent in Parliament, I have always endeavoured to meet the aspirations of my province. Once again, it is the duty of all hon. members to meet, as much as possible, the needs of their provinces.
I blame members from Quebec for having been too silent on several problems and I am particularly shocked to notice that today still the Quebec Minister of Communications must wage a pitched battle against his Ottawa counterpart (Mr. Pelletier).
With a Quebec representation of 50 per cent or more within the government, the Quebec people expect practical and positive results. When there are problems between Ottawa and Quebec, we always find out, to our disappointment, that it is our Quebec ministers who ridicule the
March 7, 1974

Quebec government. Even recently we saw how long it took the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) to understand the Quebec position on family allowances. Have any changes been made to the Constitution since the present government came to power? No, Mr. Speaker, we are no further ahead. I say these things because I choose to repeat them at every possible opportunity.
I want to prove to the Quebecers that a Liberal government will not necessarily favour them or improve anything. When one studies the major problems, one realizes again that the government has a long way to go before finding all the solutions. Of course, I will be asked this question. As a matter of fact it has already been put to me, as well as to others: Does the Progressive Conservative party have solutions to all current problems?
Mr. Speaker, I could not give any guarantee that my party has all the solutions, but we know for a fact, and the people of Canada know it very well, that the present government does not have them.
Therefore, is it possible to do any worse? I do not think so. The integrity and the honesty demonstrated by the leader of the opposition will be ample evidence to Canadians that it is possible to have a government that could do much better. We are not asking too much of Canadians when we are asking them to give another political party the chance of finding solutions since this government did not come up with them.
Mr. Speaker, to substantiate my statements about the Quebec representation in Parliament not being sufficient or adequate, earlier I mentioned the constitutional problems and the too few or inexistent improvements. I would also like to bring to the attention of the House the glaring injustice being committed against expropriated people in Sainte-Scholastique.
Obviously my colleagues on the other side do not want to hear about it, but we know very well that just yesterday there was a meeting of 2,000 persons who feel, justifiably so, that they have been discriminated against. When one considers the differences of $200 to $2,000 an acre in the evaluations paid at Pickering, I believe that no member from Quebec, who has a little guts, cannot but be revolted.
It can be said that there are such and such reasons, but there is nevertheless the fact that the government had to go back to Sainte-Scholastique and try to patch things up, with no success. We realize that the minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) is not responsible for the evaluations made. On the other hand, the Minister of Transport has the responsibility of condemning the basically wrong evaluations, but nothing has been done as yet. It seems that this flagrant injustice of the expropriated people of Sainte-Scholastique will be tolerated.
Therefore, I ask the members from Quebec to stand up so that the wrongs made by the evaluators be corrected. I do not accuse hon. members of committing this mistake. What is unfair is to keep quiet as you have been doing for a long time on this matter.
Mr. Speaker, I would like as well to emphasize how important it is for my region not to be able to get a grant for a designated area, which my region was until June of
The Address-Mr. La Salle
last year. I would like of course to ask something to the minister in view of his earlier statements. It seems necessary of bring a few changes in the assessment of possible grants to be paid to certain industries or regions. These changes are already applied in a few provinces. After waiting for six months, I am justified to insist that the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion answer my riding as well as many others. The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) rightly referred to it yesterday. He must answer the province of Quebec so that a new agreement be reached as soon as possible. The file has been submitted long ago so I do not know why the government has not answered yet, has not signed this agreement, but I hope that it will be signed as soon as possible because I think that my constituents, like all the people from Quebec who have been deprived of this agreement, are entitled like those of any other region of Canada to be able to get a grant which is necessary, and in my region it is imperative that we benefit-


Mr. Trudel:: You have a glib tongue!


Roch La Salle: -while the hon. member for Montreal-Bourassa (Mr. Trudel) is asking me a few questions, I ask him to invite his Liberal government of the province of Quebec to be understanding and above all I ask him to see that this agreement is signed for the benefit of Quebecers. This is another delay and another injustice on the part of a government composed of 50 per cent of Quebec members, and which brags about dutifully serving the province of Quebec.


Mr. Bechard:: You are talking through your hat.


Mr. Wagner:: That doesn't mean anything, 50!


Roch La Salle: I know it doesn't mean anything.


Jacques L. Trudel: Fifty is 25 times 2.


Roch La Salle: I would also like to ask important supplementary credits to the minister responsible for amateur sports in order to answer a need or a motivation of the youth for physical conditioning which interests people of all ages. Thanks to the forthcoming Olympic Games in 1976, they have received supplementary credits. That is not enough, Mr. Speaker. If it is necessary to have good physical conditioning, I think the time has come to transfer to another department than the Department of National Health and Social Welfare the agency responsible for amateur sports, which are completely sunk in the estimates of that department. I would suggest the establishment of a department in charge of amateur sports, physical conditioning, sports and leisure in Canada. In my opinion, if an in-depth study were made in this regard, one would realize that it is urgent to grant sufficient credits to give all young people an equal opportunity to enjoy a better physical training program than the one now existing.	.
Mr. Speaker, I would like particularly to point out to the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) certain parishes of my constituency which have made suggestions because they urgently need more functional post offices. The city of

March 7, 1974
The Address-Mr. La Salle
Joliette as well as the municipalities of Saint-Jacques, Saint-Thomas and l'Epiphanie have made instances in my constituency and I must on their behalf draw the attention of the Postmaster General so that they may obtain adequate services.
Mr. Speaker, in the Speech from the Throne, reference has been made to the improvement of the social climate, but nothing has been said of the possibility of granting the old age security pension at 60 years of age. In my opinion, several of my colleagues would be as a rule in favour of such a measure. It would perhaps only be necessary to introduce legislation for a 5-year period-whether it is voluntary at first, it does not matter-recognizing the provision of an old age security pension at 60. The reduction on the labour market of the number of 60-year-olds would then create more vacant jobs for our young people who are unemployed.


Albert Béchard: You are complaining because we are spending too much-


Roch La Salle: Surely the hon. member for Bonaventure-Iles de la Madeleine knows that such legislation could be helpful to him. There is no problem
In my opinion, the cost of such legislation could be estimated and since we could provide work for the unemployed we could determine the saving realized by giving holidays to those who deserve them and work to those who are at an age to work. If we want to improve the social climate, the passage of such an emergency measure should be seriously considered. I will continue to believe that such legislation could solve the serious unemployment problem which we are now experiencing.
Before ending my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words about farming since it is a most important factor in my riding. I realize also that agriculture is not in top shape throughout Canada and several members have said so.
When we see that in 1973 Canada has imported 50 million pounds of butter, I think we are right in being concerned.
A decrease of 8 per cent in dairy production was recorded in Canada last year, which has meant importing butter and at the present rate, unless the government takes drastic steps, we expect the import of 100 million pounds of butter next year.
The Canadian Federation of Milk Producers has submitted a brief asking for an increase of $2 per 100 pounds of milk. Again the government will probably hesitate to meet these requirements since it has no policy governing production costs. We realize that production cost have soared and I have here a brief submitted recently by the APU and the Canadian Federation of Milk Producers which shows that the cost of milk production has increased to $10 per hundred pounds, while these same producers are receiving only $7 per hundred pounds. They are therefore asking for a $2 increase in the hope that production costs could stabilize again in 1974 and finally they are anticipating some profits. I think that the Canadian Federation of Milk Producers is perfectly right in asking for such an increase and we wonder to what extent the government will comply quickly with these representations. I am talking

about stabilization. We will never be able to ensure stabilization without providing short term grants if we really want to save farmers.
More dairy farms will go out of business next spring. Although some people maintain that this has to do with the age of the milk producers, it is not true, Mr. Speaker. The first reason is that the dairy producer does not make enough money to keep a long-term operation. Milk producers, with an average age of 40, are not ready to get their old age security pension. On the contrary, they are good at figures and they are not going to give up their dairy business because they do not make any profit.
I think the government should give special consideration to this problem and bring forward positive measures to deal with it, while ensuring that the consumer will not be saddled with all those responsibilities.
Mr. Speaker, I would have much more to say, but my time is up, and I want to say again that I will do my utmost to bring up those questions regularly in the House in order to meet the wishes and settle the problems of most Canadian citizens. I will fight with all my might a government that has failed to include in the Speech from the Throne positive measures to improve the lot of the people, a government that even dares to ask for a confidence vote from the people.
Mr. Speaker, it is high time we tried a new administration that has been preparing itself very well in the last few years.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, since it is nearly six o'clock and I would not like to be cut short at six o'clock, may I-


Claude Wagner: You can always start now.


Albert Béchard: May I call it six o'clock, with the consent of the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner)?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Since it is about six o'clock, I leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: I recognize the hon. member for lies de la Madeleine (Mr. Bechard).


Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to your attention that the name of my riding is Bonaventure-Iles de la Madeleine.
Mr. Speaker, as did those who spoke before me I want to extend my respectful compliments and congratulations to His Excellency Governor General Jules Leger and his lady, and wish them years of happiness and joy in their mandate. The years of experience acquired by Mr. Leger in his many functions both in Canada and abroad where
March 7, 1974

he carried out his responsibilities with competence, tact and dignity prepared him very will for the high office recently entrusted to him.
One cannot omit to point out the quality of the most eloquent speeches delivered by the mover and the seconder of the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Stollery) and the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Pelletier). Their words actually moved the Liberal fibers of any Liberal worthy of that name. This refreshing bath, Mr. Speaker, even moved the fibers-formally Liberal fibers-of the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner). This refreshing bath in which our distinguished colleagues immersed us can only be enlivening for one who, politically committed during all his life, stood up with vigour and no less pride for the great principles of liberalism.
With respect to those principles, it is no coincidence to find in the Speech from the Throne so kindly delivered by His Excellency the great Liberal philosophy passed on to us by Laurier, King, St. Laurent, Pearson and so admirably and efficiently continued and adapted to the needs and evolution of our modern society by that man whom history will undoubtedly indentify as the greatest Prime Minister Canada ever had, the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). No, Mr. Speaker, it is not a coincidence. The very essence of liberalism we all are imbued with has always governed the action of all Liberal governments, and of this one in particular. One only has to review all the acts adopted by successive Liberal administrations, especially those passed under the administration of our two last leaders to realize how much the Liberal party has always been concerned with the well-being of the individual in every class of society.
It has now become a cliche, Mr. Speaker, to identify the Liberal party with social reform in Canada.
Legislative measures aimed at giving the individual, the citizens, more security, more importance, more freedom, in the true sense of the word, and more dignity, more than any government had ever dared, especially Progressive Conservative governments-


William Heward Grafftey: More unemployment, more inflation!


Albert Béchard: Let us talk about unemployment. I shall come back to that later.
Those measures were passed by Liberal administrations, and particularly by the government of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). They covered every field and the list is too long and the time at my disposal too short to name them all, but after such achievements, and I can mention a few that were unthinkable, as I said, a decade ago, the opposition and particularly its leader (Mr. Stanfield), its deputy leader for Quebec the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner), who is here tonight, and only two nights ago, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), dare accuse the Liberal party and the right hon. Prime Minister of lacking imagination and determination. These false healers of all ills-I should rather say these false controllers, as they are fond of controls-in the one important field of social security which is designed to relieve the distress and the
The Address-Mr. Bechard
problems of older people, of the underprivileged, those false controllers or false healers of all ills, have only succeeded, Mr. Speaker, since Confederation, since 1867, to give to our older people the small amount of $16 on a total now reaching $188 a month. It takes plenty of nerve to dare speak about a lack of imagination and determination.
This is the record of the previous government of the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) and now of the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe: $16 in a lifetime, since Confederation. Those who are so concerned with welfare, are complaining today about inflation.


Jacques L. Trudel: The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe is blushing!


Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, am I ever sorry for the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle). He became suddenly mute until this afternoon but he is riding again the horse he had so wisely and rightly discarded in 1971, after swearing publicly on television and radio and before a committee of the House never to ride it again because of the shabby position taken by the Progressive Conservatives on the Official Languages Act. He had done the same thing during the debate on the 1976 Olympic Games.
Mr. Speaker, I am also sorry-


William Heward Grafftey: Be serious, this is petty politics!


Albert Béchard: What is it? You could not possibly have listened to your colleagues' speech, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe and the hon. member for Joliette.
How I sympathize also, Mr. Speaker, with the so-called Quebec lieutenant of the Progressive Conservative party, my colleague for Saint-Hyacinthe-


An hon. Member:: Not Marcel Masse!


Albert Béchard: -because since he has been sitting on the Progressive Conservative side, we can readily appreciate the delicate position in which he finds himself. Sometimes we can see he is on the verge of shouting: What in heavens' name am I doing here?
Mr. Speaker, the "reconquest" about which the national leader of the Progressive Conservatives spoke so highly on the occasion of a fund raising cocktail at the Quebec City Chateau Frontenac where, by inadvertance or by pure coincidence, the only two elected PC members in Quebec were conspicuous by their absence, this new conquest, Mr. Speaker, is not for tomorrow. The absence of these members was well caricatured in Le Soleil of March 5, 1974. The Leader of the Official Opposition is shown climbing the Cap Diamant on his way to the Plains of Abraham, followed by someone who is deemed to be a leader and the new PC member, to speak in the language of the inhabitants who are there in a ship on the St. Lawrence. The leader is supposed to be the province of Quebec lieutenant. The caption says: "Eh you, there, if we have any trouble we will go and fetch you." So the "reconquest", as I said, is not going to take place tomorrow.
I was referring a moment ago to the social dedication which the Liberal party has always indulged in. However, Mr. Speaker, in our party as in all other parties which are concerned mainly with the individual's well-being and

March 7, 1974
The Address-Mr. Bechard
betterment and not only to the well-being of those who are better off and those who were able to contribute more generously to electoral funds and therefore ensure more security, we did get from time to time people whose views were a little too conservative, who were attracted by the Liberal party or willing to join it for the determined purpose of slowing down the Liberal political action which they considered as being too avant-garde.
This was a real misfortune and disaster for our country and the Canadian society which could have benefited earlier, and in a more equitable way, from changes that were made necessary by the unavoidably changing world and that the Liberal party has always advocated.
In our so-called democratic western societies, too often in the past have we toadied to high finance. In doing so, we consciously or unconsciously deprived citizens of a standard of living to which they were entitled as human beings. Unfortunately we realized too late that we could not neglect workmen, farmers, fishermen, older citizens, the poor, the sick, children, women and underprivileged people of our society as management or the state saw fit.
The Liberal party, however, prompted by the very concept of its existence, raalized quicker than any other political party in Canada that our system was bad and that government responsibilities should be redirected toward individual well-being and respect for the human being. Consequently a wide range of social security measures and progressive legislation specifically aimed at individual security were passed in this country.
I am far from suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that everything is perfect in the best of worlds and that the Canadian citizen has no more problems. I am not afraid however, to assert that liberal policies, and the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) agrees with me that-


Claude Wagner: Oh, no!


Albert Béchard: -generally speaking, the Liberal policies developed when he had been a Liberal for several years reduced the involuntary injustice of former governments and that the Canadian citizen now lives more comfortably with less tension and more freedom. There will probably be some people in this House and elsewhere who will say after my next comments that I despise or ignore private enterprise.
On the contrary, I salute all the Canadians from coast to coast who have accomplished and are still accomplishing great things to develop the various industries that have contributed to building our country by providing the Canadian population with its daily bread while developing our natural resources and that have placed Canada in the enviable position it now enjoys.
What I cannot accept, however, Mr. Speaker, is the scandalous sweating of the worker who is the main contributor to the development of this country and who provides the necessary profits for his employer so that the industry may continue to give work to Canadians and progress in order to continue developing our resources for the good of all Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, no intelligent Canadian citizen can pretend, at least I hope not, that an industry, a business or a company does not have the right to make profits.
Such an attitude would be bordering on insanity. However I cannot honestly believe that these same industrial and commercial firms are eager to make excessive profits at the expense of Canadian consumers.
Such excessive attitude-it has long been and still is recognized-is conducive to a situation like the one which prevails now in all countries of the world, including Canada. Our industrialists and businessmen have come to realize this, as evidenced by the improvements they have made to their respective business and the lot of their employees.
All countries of the world are faced with inflation, a problem which occurs at various stages in their development, a disease the root of which is not always found in their own country but elsewhere in the world. The escalation of prices is particularly acute in the area of food products, an area which hurts each and every Canadian.
Because Canada must rely enormously on trade with the outside world to sell its products and acquire the goods which it does not produce at all or in large enough quantities, it is not immune to the fluctuating whims of international prices.
Mr. Speaker, this morning the former leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) spent half an hour blaming the government for its spending. The Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) brought up the same question recently when the main estimates were tabled.
The former prime minister said that the rate of inflation was 1.9 per cent under his administration. But, Mr. Speaker, he should be the last person to remind the Canadian people and Parliament of his administration from 1958 to 1963.
The member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) referred to unemployment. At a time when the labour force was much smaller, the number of jobless almost reached one million in 1963, when we returned to power. Throughout Canada, restrictions were announced on radio and on television rather than in Parliament, after the 1962 election. That is respect for Parliament! The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) referred to regional development this afternoon and yesterday. The Conservative party allowed winter works in order to cut branches along the roads. That is the meaning of regional development for the Conservative party.


Robert Elgin McKinley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, if there was unemployment in Canada in those years, it was brought about by the Liberal administration.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The hon. member knows that this is not a point of order.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, it is easy to say that when one was not in the House and was not even thinking of going into politics in that riding.
The inflation rate was 1.9, but apart from unemployment, there was nothing, no industrial development, aus-
March 7, 1974

terity was everywhere. Austerity and restrictions were announced on television, mind you, if you remember, just after the 1962 election.
Mr. Speaker, while this government has been making every effort during the past years to fight this plague, the energy crisis arose last fall, and one must realistically admit that it had something to do with the actual rise in the cost of living.
Considering such difficult times, one can now say, although the problem is not yet entirely solved, that Canada showed maturity. The position it took to protect our energy resources as well as the consumer against an unacceptable increase in the price of a product so vital to our economy, was the best one.
Thanks to those measures, Canadians were able to keep warm this winter even if it cost them a little more. We were privileged, Mr. Speaker, to have as leaders of the country men as determined and energetic as the right hon. Prime Minister and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald). We owe to this team to have avoided what could have been disastrous for the Canadian people, as in so many countries, and for the Canadian economy in general. The new energy policy announced in December by the right hon. Prime Minister, and all the effective steps taken by the government will guarantee Canada, from coast to coast, sufficient oil supplies at one price only, in view of the huge oil potential of our country. In addition, that policy was not designed to take away anything from those areas of the country richest in oil; on the contrary, it will guarantee them tremendous developments even while they share their natural resources with their fellow citizens who are less fortunate in that specific field. Canada has developed and has become what it is today, Mr. Speaker, through the co-operation of all its provinces, an element that is essential to our unity, and I would even add, our survival as a respected nation. If Canada wants to continue to grow and ensure future generations a decent standard of living, that co-operation and sharing must be maintained and grow stronger. Our country, in the field of oil potential alone, can not only be self-sufficient but even surpass in importance the countries of the Middle East whose reserves are far more limited than our own, and achieve a standing that will be respected throughout the world.
Here, Mr. Speaker, I should like to echo the remarks of the Minister of Supplies and Services (Mr. Goyer) on the project he conceived to ensure our country that success in the future through the maximum development of the Athabasca tar sands. Our country has the opportunity of making giant strides in that field and, in so doing, of ensuring its security and independence in the case of an energy crisis in the future, not to mention the tremendous contribution it would make to our economy. The outlay will be fantastic; I will be told, and our economy cannot afford such an expenditure. The minister has explained the funding of this project and I will not take the time to repeat it at this time. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, it will not be an expenditure, but rather an investment which is bound to make Canada grow to such an extent as to put to shame those who dismissed our country as "a few acres of snow". I commend the minister and I hope that his initia-
The Address-Mr. Bechard
tive will meet with general approval for it is not one that can be brushed aside with a sweep of the hand.
Previous speakers have mentioned the measures adopted by the government to offset the ill effects from inflation, so I will not repeat them. Besides, the time allotted to me is running short. I will bring up the subject again on another occasion.
Before concluding my remarks with considerations peculiar to my riding and area, I would like to greet with satisfaction the measures announced in the Speech from the Throne to improve the lot of Canadian farmers and fishermen so that they may be able to increase productivity and the quality of their products and pave the way for younger people anxious to go into farming if we want to ensure a sufficient quantity of food to the people and, if need be, facilitate the export of our surplus at better prices.
For several years a serious problem has been facing farmers and agricultural producers of eastern Canada and Quebec especially, that is supplying feed grains in sufficient quantity and at a price comparable to that of western producers. No resentment has ever been shown by eastern farmers regarding what their fellow citizens of the west could benefit from. Never. However they did want to get the required feed grains and meals at a price enabling them to compete on the market. Steps have been taken to solve that serious problem, but these have been far from satisfactory. We must at any cost, and that is pressing, find quickly a solution.
To fishermen the Gaspe Peninsula and the Magdalen Islands in particular, where fishing is of great importance in the economy, it is urgent that harbour facilities brought up in the Canada-Quebec agreement be set up and this without delay. In this connection, I am pleased to see in the House tonight that the Minister of the Environment is listening to me.
While in my constituency the main harbours have already been built or are under construction and while for the Millerand harbour over $1 million is provided in the estimates for 1974-75, I cannot remain indifferent, Mr. Speaker, to the problems raised by lack of sufficient funds for the fishing centres of Grande-Riviere and Les Mechins for instance. I want, in full support for my Gaspe and Matane colleagues (Messrs. Cyr and De Bane), as well as for the fishermen of that region, to urge the Minister of the Environment and Minister of Fisheries as well as the government to provide additional supplies to these fishing centres. The agreement for the Lower St. Lawrence area, the Gaspe Peninsula and the Magdalen Islands will expire in 1976.
We must not forget the coastal fishermen because they cannot all seek shelter in those harbours and they earn most of their living through fishing, especially in the Bonaventure constituency. They are greatly to be pitied since centralization has monopolized these last years the department's total budget. Some may say that I am doting, Mr. Speaker. For some, perhaps. But if nobody pays attention to me, I certainly intend to keep on doting and to persist in the same vein until some action is taken, to comply with my legitimate requests.
294

March 7, 1974
The Address-Mr. Bechard
The now famous seal hunt, that most compassionate and soft-hearted people, more soft-hearted as to the disappearance of those small animals than as to that of human beings, for instance, an unborn child, succeeded in having prohibited almost gradually, that seal hunt Mr. Speaker should be restored.
I do not deny the fact that the species should be protected and that some control would be necessary. The conscientious fisherman, the fisherman from the islands, who devotes himself to seal hunting, is aware of that problem and also aware of the need for controls, but that source of income for our fishermen should be preserved at all costs at such a difficult time of the year. If need be, seal hunting should be developed so as to be more beneficial for the islands' residents through the establishment of a plant or by encouraging the establishment of a seal skin processing plant in the islands.
Apart form providing a substantial income for the fishermen, seal hunting contributes to the preservation of our fish reserves, since an incalculable amount of fish are eaten up by those seals. Officers from the Department of the Environment should never forget that important factor of decrease in the fish species which are the fishermen's main source of income.
Therefore, I wish to associate myself fully with the conclusions of a group of fishermen from the islands who met recently in La Verniere to discuss that important subject which was dealt with in a CBC broadcast this week.
I would have many other specific subjects to deal with in the interest of my constituency, Mr. Speaker, but I will have to do so some other day for lack of time.
The Speech from the Throne gives us plenty of work to do. This legislative program aimed at improving the lot of the Canadian people will hopefully commend itself to all hon. members, including those for Saint-Hyacinthe and Joliette (Messrs. Wagner and La Salle) who, to the best of their knowledge and belief, will want to pass it quickly, I am sure, in the best interests of the Canadian people.


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Albert Béchard: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, could the hon. member tell the House whether he endorses the recent statements made by the hon. member for Matane (M. De Bane) and the hon. member Gaspe (Mr. Cyr) to the effect that the fishermen in the Gaspe peninsula are mistreated by the present government?


Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, firstly the hon. members for Matane and Gaspe did not say such things but they pointed out that the loans granted to the Gaspe peninsula according to the agreement ending in 1976, were not sufficient for the building of all centralized fishing harbours to be finished in time. I do not hesitate-for I just mentioned it in my speech-to say it is not sufficient and that we will demand more. But the Progressive Conservative party suggests that we spend too much money. The hon. member for Joliette wanted in one hand the old age security
[Mr. Bechard.J
pension be given today to all persons of 60 and on the other hand, we are blamed for spending too much.


Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, let me begin by adding my voice to the tributes which have been paid to His Excellency the Governor General. I am certain that all Canadians join in wishing him every success and fulfillment during his tenure.
I think this was an interesting day of debate on the Speech from the Throne. I listened to the previous speaker with a certain amount of amazement. The basic principle behind his speech seems to be that flattery will get you anywhere. He would like to move a couple of seats to the right, I expect. Trying to compare the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to the disadvantage of Sir Wilfrid Laurier is gilding the lily somewhat.
I enjoyed the speech of the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle). He appears to be the happiest man in the House these days. He has joined a winner. He knows where he is, and he will be here long after some of the flowers opposite have wilted. I listened to the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey) trying to rationalize and defend the Unemployment Insurance Act. I suggest to him that he should get a little support from his ex-cabinet colleagues if he feels like coming here and being punished frequently by the party which turfed him out of cabinet, I suggest it indicates a streak of masochism. However, that is his problem and not ours.
I was much impressed today with the very eloquent address of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand). I wish I could speak as well in my first language as he does in his second. I would not agree, however, with the content of his speech. It would seem to indicate that his department is out of control. He appears to think it is an unmanageable department. I suggest that is too facile an excuse. No department is unmanageable; what it needs is a good manager.
The debate on the Speech from the Throne is different from most other debates undertaken by the members of this House in that it offers an opportunity to reflect upon the general direction of governance in Canada. Rather than discussing the minutia or motives in a specific piece of legislation, we can reflect on matters and trends which are of general concern to the country and to its future.
As the member from Don Valley (Mr. Gillies) noted when examining the economic aspects of the debate, "the question of whether or not one is prepared to support the Speech from the Throne really depends upon whether or not one can decide from what is said that this government has the vision and imagination to solve the economic problems that are facing Canada ..." This is indeed our function in this debate, to consider the past achievements and failings of the Liberal-NPD coalition and then to study carefully the merits of the government's plans, extracting what policy there is from the rhetoric.
In addition, and probably of greater importance, we must consider the aspirations and anxieties of the Canadian people. We must consider the future and the problems it will bring in the widest terms, in economics, ecology,
March 7, 1974

sociology, demography, politics; indeed, every facet of man's social existence must be considered. For, Mr. Speaker, it is incumbent upon the members of this House to provide Canadians with the leadership they need for the coming decade and it is this debate which gives us the greatest opportunity to consider this, the task at the core of democratic rule.
How, then, are we to judge the fitness of this government to lead the country? It seems to me that we must do these things: first, we must examine the aspirations of the citizens of Canada and the problems which will face the country, considering especially the record of the government in understanding these hopes; second, we must examine the government's suggestions as given in the Speech from the Throne and evaluate them in terms of their ability to satisfy the nation's needs; third, we must judge the record of this government in terms of its ability to implement that which it has promised.
All three of these are necessary, and while the need for the first two steps in unquestioned, the third is just as vital. As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) put it last session, "the question of trust and confidence is part and parcel of the question of credibility." All too frequently policies have been evaluated in an abstract political vacuum; too frequently we forget that it is a specific political party which has to translate broad objectives into specific legislation and which must supervise the executive implementation of that legislation. We must judge the government party, or should I say parties, in terms of its ability to do this.
Of this triad of necessary conditions for good government, empathy with the people, programs and ability to translate programs into well functioning government outputs, I should like to begin by considering briefly the last condition by examining the success the government had during the previous session of parliament in realizing the objectives which it set itself in that Speech from the Throne. In examining that document in light of the last 14 months of government action or, perhaps more properly, government inaction, we see that the editorial comment, "there is less to it than meets the eye," was indeed correct. Of the plethora of commitments undertaken then, some have been fulfilled; however, the resulting legislation has tended to lack any consistency or unity of design.
This is possibly best exemplified in economic affairs where the Liberal-NDP union has created as its illegitimate offspring an incoherent mass of band-aid bills, each doing something to alleviate the hardship of those caught up in the government's economic mismanagement yet none of them offering any consistent or broad attack on the causes of the country's economic ills. The laudable pledge in the throne speech that the government will "contain inflation" and "attain reasonable price stability," after inflation of 9.1 per cent in the last year sounds now like the bitterest irony.
Fourteen months ago the government had proud words on social security. There were as bases for action the "five principles which, taken together, comprise a statement of the government's commitment in respect of social security." What has been the reality of the legislation on social security? Nothing except incremental adjustments which have barely kept pace with soaring prices. Like the crea-
The Address-Mr. McKinnon
ture in "Through the Looking Glass" who said, "It takes all the running you can do to keep in the same place," I only wish that the Liberal-NDP coalition would not continue to ascribe such grand munificence to their enlightened social philosophy but would, instead, give the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) his due. It has been his mismanagement of the economy which has created the absolutely compelling need for increases to prevent those such as old age pensioners falling further behind in their race with the ravages of inflation. Is this the "compassionate and equitable guaranteed annual income" which the aged and disabled were promised 14 months ago?
As a light and humorous footnote, were it not so callous toward those caught on fixed incomes, we may listen to the blustering of the NDP. That marvelous group manages simultaneously to take credit for the raise in old age pensions and avoids responsibility for the niggardliness of the amount. Being able to ascribe all that is good in an action to oneself, and all that is bad to another, is an exalted exercise in either egotism or double-think.
It was a peculiar spectacle to watch the Prime Minister and the member for York South (Mr. Lewis) arguing last Thursday as to who could take credit for last session's band-aid legislation. Neither of them wished to take any responsibility for bringing the country to an economic condition where such band-aid legislation is necessary. Their differences, I suppose, come down to "Who runs Canada?" If the member for York South can dictate terms for his support, then he can equally be blamed for not insisting on sound economic policies. If the Prime Minister is correct and the NDP are merely seagulls following his ship, then he alone should assume responsibility for the inflationary mess we are in. These two party leaders squabbling over credit for the goodies, whilst blaming others for everything else, does little to enhance the image of parliament. It is a sorry sight. To attempt to take credit for high incomes, and blame others for high costs, is simply dishonest.
While not agreeing with Prime Minister Harold Wilson-and let me now congratulate him on his victory and wish him well in his extremely difficult task ahead-I admired his honesty and courage when he stated, "One man's pay raise is another man's cost rise." We could do with more of that kind of candour in this House. I am not saying that wage raises are the only factor; profits, world conditions and, not least, government extravagance all contribute to high prices.
In the 1973 Speech from the Throne the government also spoke at length on the subject of housing. Whether the legislation which resulted will have a significant effect or whether, as with pensions, it only represents running to remain in the same place we cannot yet tell. What is apparent is that the legislation did not tackle the root causes of high housing costs, costs which preclude far too many Canadians from becoming home owners. Will the government's meagre palliatives do anything about the phenomenal price of urban land, the greatly increased price of building materials or, above all, the usurious mortgage rates? No, not until a coherent, inclusive program is enacted, for these problems are the result of economic and demographic problems which need to be dealt with directly.
27398-20j

March 7, 1974
The Address-Mr. McKinnon
Let us reflect briefly on the interrelation between inflation and the high cost of housing. If there is an inflation rate of, let us say, 8 per cent, will mortgage rates fall below 8 per cent? Never, for only a fool would loan money at a rate that would ensure his losing real purchasing power from that investment. What happens to the price of land? Unfortunately, it becomes more expensive when more of it is bought for speculation. During times of inflation it becomes a good investment for it is a classical hedge against inflation. This sets off a vicious circle, vicious, that is, for the hapless, prospective home owner as increased demand forces up prices, making land a better investment against inflation and thus causing greater demand, higher prices, and so on and on.
To be far, I must admit that the Liberals did not pledge themselves to a fight against these basic problems in housing, and in this they have lived up to their word for they have certainly not tackled these basic problems.
Let us now turn to the government's latest Speech from the Throne to see what promise it holds and to search for any new commitment to a more thoroughgoing and coherent approach to legislation. The first thing that strikes me is that the government has finally seemed to realize that inflation is a problem of very serious proportions. That is well and good; but what form does that recognition take? It is, unfortunately, in the form of an extended mea non culpa. One wishes that half the energy which the cabinet puts into finding excuses were directed to finding solutions. Here the government has seen fit to blame the sinister forces of international economic problems for Canada's inflationary ills.
Is there any mention of the vast increase in the money supply? Is there any mention of lack of a government supply policy? Is there any mention of the effect of an increase in government expenditure of 19.6 per cent? Is there any mention of the inflation psychology fostered by statements like those in the throne speech, that inflation is a matter largely external to Canada and, therefore, beyond the control of the government? The answer to all these questions is no. Instead, we hear only the repeated incantation; international forces, international forces. This excuse, presages, unfortunately, the absence of any effective government legislation to deal with inflation. If the experience of the last throne speech is to be believed, for the good of the country let us hope that the government will instead do something effective and that the Minister of Finance will study carefully the speech which the hon. member for Don Valley made to the House last Friday.
On the lighter side, the address also contains a number of sections which seem to be on the same order as being for goodness, motherhood and apple pie. I am sure that all members of the House are for "the producer must be ensured a fair income for his work", of "the consumer must be ensured a fair value from his dollar," or my favourite, "research to make it possible to increase production, improve quality and lower costs". Babbitt is not dead while the writer of that cliche lives. There seems to be a strong emphasis on things being reasonable or fair, but virtually nowhere are we told what this is to mean in terms of objectives or policies.

In reading the rest of the Speech from the Throne I am struck by the lack of any systematic view of what needs doing. There is a series of disjointed proposals. Each is of varying merit, although most are in some measure useful. However, they do not cohere. One cannot adduce from them any consistent approach or comprehension of the aspirations of the people of Canada. This is, I suppose, what above all else discourages me about the present Liberal government. It lacks direction. It lacks vision. In worshipping the exercise of power for its own sake, the government has not only lost touch with the people's hopes but also has reached a point where it even fails to comprehend the essential problems facing Canada.
I have been here now a relatively short time, 14 months, but sufficient time to form opinions about the ministers of the Crown. The ministers occupying the treasury benches seem unable to respond to or produce a call for action. Look at that front row. We see the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis) who acted as a second to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) in his famous fight to keep tankers out of the Strait of Juan de Fuca. As the Leader of the Opposition said, "If that was a fight, we should get our money back." All pretence at even a token fight stopped, of course, when the Prime Minister declared that the tankers must go through.
Looking along the front bench further, we see the Minister of Transport who provided the layman's view about freight rates at the Calgary conference. At that conference there were only two people around the table who did not know anything about freight rates. Unfortunately, one was the Prime Minister and the other the Minister of Transport. This was embarrassing even to opposition MPs who were in attendance.
It has not gone unnoticed in British Columbia that the Prime Minister announced that the west was now to be officially considered as alienated and that steps would have to be taken to bring the western provinces back as the Liberals had done with Quebec. That message must have lost something in the translation, because the Minister of Transport almost immediately dictated that the airport in Victoria would become bilingual. Such hamhanded misinterpretations of the Official Languages Act makes it extremely difficult for the moderates in our country to prevail. I am only being half-facetious when I say the last person insisting on being spoken to in French at Victoria airport was reported to be Keith Spicer, and that was months ago. I do not wish to pursue that matter further, as in the present context almost any mention of bilingualism tends to exacerbate the problem. Perhaps I could close this subject by quoting Solzhenitsyn who said, "Intolerance is the mark of an inadequate education." There are, unfortunately, too many intolerant people on both sides of this question.
A little further along we find the hon. and affable President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) and House leader for the coalition, although the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) may be entitled to some of his extra allowance for the position. In his position as House leader he has taken a leading part in the negotiations concerning redistribution. Another title might be, "How to set democracy back ten years." In this cause he produced "Redistribution, 1974 approaches and
March 7, 1974

perspectives." Other than the misleading tables attached to his production, I object most strenuously to his peculiarly selective quotations from Laurier, Borden and St. Laurent which give the totally erroneous impression that these statesmen were not strong supporters of representation by population. This is a time for Oscars and Grammy awards, and to the government House leader I bestow the George Orwell award for creative history for the year.
I listened to and read about the speech which the Prime Minister made in Toronto last night. His speech this year in the debate on the Speech from the Throne was much better than that of last year. However, I resent his using the House of Commons for a trial run of the speech he was to make at a fund raising dinner in Toronto later. He told the same jokes there as he did here. He addressed a well fed and well heeled group of the Liberal establishment whose loudest applause was reserved for his assurance that the status quo would remain. Small wonder they applauded. They are not only able to protect themselves from inflation but, indeed, to profit from it.
Looking further down the front bench, we see the Secretary of State for External Affairs. This minister is the one who professed total lack of knowledge of any diplomatic freeze between the United States and Canada, although it was being discussed publicly in the United States. In point of fact, the state department of the mightiest nation on earth refused for two or three months to accept any Canadian diplomat above the Canadian desk level, yet our Secretary of State for External Affairs knew nothing about it.
A little further down the treasury bench we come upon the charming and hon. Minister of Finance. I wish to pay him a compliment. He is a true House of Commons man. I enjoy his speeches, but that does not mean I agree with him. He produced a budget on February 19, 1973, over a year ago. His most famous statement was, I suppose, when he declared the following on that occasion:
This budget is aimed at reducing inflationary pressures in Canada and at offsetting the effects of past inflation ... It is equally essential to reduce the squeeze of rising prices on family budgets and the erosion of the hard earned savings of Canadians.
That budget promptly generated the most disastrous erosion of savings and the highest inflation rate in modern times. I also wish to comment on something the Minister of Finance says frequently. He discusses the people he has dropped from the tax rolls. However, this goes back to the days of Mr. Benson who, on presenting a budget on June 18, 1971, said:
Mr. Speaker, as a result of all the changes in taxation of personal income that I am describing tonight, 1,000,000 taxpayers who would otherwise pay taxes next year will be removed from the tax rolls.
The present Minister of Finance reiterated this on February 19, 1973, when he said:
Tax reform introduced some 18 months ago removed from the tax rolls a million Canadians.
Continuing, he announced that one of the main points of the 1973 tax legislation was that three-quarter of a million people were dropped from the tax rolls. This means that wandering around the country out of a taxable population of a little more than seven million, there are 1,750,000
The Address-Mr. McKinnon
Canadians who have been removed from the tax rolls. And I have never met one of them. I don't know where they are. I wander the streets and I don't go around deliberately in the areas where everybody pays taxes, but in the poorer sections of my constituency I have never run into anybody who has said, "Thank God for Mr. Benson and for the present Minister of Finance. I have been removed from the tax rolls."
I thought this sounded kind of funny, so I had the tax returns looked up and my sources produced the basic statistics, the reports of 1971, 1972 and 1973 which show that in the year 1971, when Mr. Benson made his famous million cut, there were 7,363,963 taxpayers. In 1972, a year later, when the million should have presumably been taken off the tax rolls, there were in fact more than 7,600,000 taxpayers. This is like the flim-flam trick that goes on in the midway-the three-card trick where sometimes you see them and sometimes you don't.
The fact is that in 1973 there were still more people paying tax than there were in 1971. This is a cheap political trick. I would have come close to being unparliamentary by saying the minister was deliberately deceiving the House, except I did not think for a moment that anyone was being deceived. I did not think anyone would believe him, it was so patently dishonest. I was surprised to read a newsletter from the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) who quoted the figure of 750,000 being dropped from the tax rolls. He took credit for it at that time. So apparently the minister did deceive at least one member of the House. These people have not been cut from the tax rolls. They have done a little paper jiggery-pokery and probably claim that if nobody had had a pay raise during the year, about a million would have been removed. But everybody's pay went up, and they were not removed. I wish they would quit trying to deceive the country in this way.
However, the minister usually pays close attention to both the Leader of the Opposition and to the honorable member for Don Valley, and though he is a slow learner he has no scruples about cribbing, so we look forward to an improvement, hopefully, in his next budget.
Moving back toward the centre, we locate the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury). It is he who suggested a 3 per cent raise in pay for civil servants at or near the bottom of the civil service pay scale. He never seems, to me, to have the image of a cabinet minister. To me he works and acts more like a business comptroller who has been probably lent to the cabinet by some friendly corporation to keep control of their more woolly-headed socialist members.
There are too many members of the cabinet deserving of condemnation for me to deal with them all at this time, but I should not let the second row pass unmentioned since there we find such ministers as the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) who appears to be trying to wind down his department. Perhaps he wishes to be the final minister of veterans affairs. Then there is the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Gray) who, when the price of bread went up, suggested that people quit eating bread. There is an historical precedent for this. When Marie Antoinette heard that the people were rioting for bread, she said, "Let them eat cake." I am

March 7, 1974
The Address-Mr. McKinnon
surprised the Minister of Consumer Affairs did not think of this.


An hon. Member:: The Prime Minister had another alternative.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Yes, he had another alternative suggesting a different kind of confection. We work our way along to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) who has clearly ordered, now, that if war breaks out he should be awakened, even if is before 8 a.m. We work our way along to the end of the second row, past several ministers who belong mainly to the low profile, "keep out of trouble school," and we end up with the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde). This minister said in his maiden speech that he hoped to become a House of Commons man. His abrasive answers, or non-answers, to questions have done little to establish any such claim. It is hardly fitting or proper for a minister to tell questioners that they should read his press releases or his speeches and not to expect to get an answer in the Commons. After all, this is where we are entitled to ask questions and get answers.
In his department, incidentally, there has been tremendous growth in expenditures. They have risen to $6,854 million. I notice that the Grit member for Ottawa-Centre (Mr. Poulin) has stressed the growing danger of the drug heroin. But, like most back benchers in the Liberal Party, apparently he has little influence with the government because despite the enormous increase in the department's expenditures, the funds available for the fight against the non-medical use of drugs have been reduced. This leaves considerable doubt in my mind as to the correctness of the priorities of the minister of health.
I apologize to those ministers I have missed. It is not that they are unworthy of condemnation, but there is such a dreadful sameness about their gaffes and their maladministration that one wearies. I would not want you to think, Mr. Speaker, that they are not well-meaning people. They are. They are doing their best, and it is regrettable and most unfortunate for the country that their best should be so mediocre.
As I talk to my constituents, I am worried also at the degree of their alienation from our central government. To people in British Columbia, the federal government is a long way away. To them it is not only far removed but unfeeling. Inflation, high prices, shortages, rising federal taxes and budgets are things which are apparently beyond influence, matters controlled by a government of strangers whose actions are no more responsive to the importunities of the man in the street in Victoria than is the weather.
I find myself having to counter the argument that the federal government is irrelevant, though it is a sorry and lame reply to have to say that it must be important since it costs every man, woman and child in Canada $1,000 a year; that it must be important because it is the main cause of inflation and resultant insecurity for all. But the things that are visible and relevant to the citizens are their streets, sewers, highways and schools. All these things involve provincial or municipal government. I believe we must try to bring our central government closer to the people.

The Speech from the Throne is almost irrelevant even as far as members of this House are concerned. How are we to involve the people if we cannot give them anything better than this poor excuse of a program for the session? Why not a Throne Speech some time which states precisely what the government intends to do about the main issues which concern Canada? One is tempted to attribute the government's timidity, when it comes to enacting more than remedial legislation, to lack of courage. But to quote Plato, "It is wisdom which makes courage, self-control and integrity possible, or, in a word, goodness". It is a disquieting thought, but perhaps it is wisdom that this government lacks. I fear it is so.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker,
I begin my participation in this debate by adding my congratulations to the mover and to the seconder of the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. This is one occasion when people in the back rows get a chance to lead off. Maybe this should happen more often. I do not agree with much of what they said, but I congratulate them on the way they said it.
The Speech from the Throne lists a number of measures which the government says will be placed before the House. Many of them are measures which members of my party, as well as of other parties, have been advocating for a number of years. I, for one, along with many other members of the House, an anxious to see just what this legislation will be. We are anxious to find out whether they put their actions where their mouth is.
Before I deal with some of the items in the throne speech I want to add a few sentences of my own to the plea that was made by my colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) on behalf of the senior citizens of Canada. I have yet to find a member of this House, of any party, who is opposed to the idea of reducing the pensionable age to 60, at least on a voluntary basis, so that a person who wants to leave the work force and retire at 60, or a person who has to leave owing to illness or for other reasons, can do so and be eligible for pension.
In addition to that, it seems to me we must now provide that the pension will go automatically to the spouse of a retiring senior citizen so that we put an end to the situation where thousands of couples in this country are living on one pension. When a man has reached 65 and is eligible for the old age pension, his spouse, if she is in her late fifties or early sixties and is not employed, should automatically become eligible for the pension.
Finally, while all of us welcome our accomplishment last session in getting the cost of living escalator clause built into the old age security pension, and we welcome the small increase-it was slightly larger than the Conservatives offered, but still small-to $100 a month, we must continue to take steps to increase the pension until it reaches the $200 a month level.
I compliment the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mack-asey) on his speech this afternoon. He was much better able to keep his temper than I would have been; I would
March 7, 1974

have used some of the words that he said he would not use. But I do want to ally myself with the words he used in regard to those who were trying honestly, legally and properly to draw unemployment insurance benefits. The problem here, Mr. Speaker, is not the myth of the ski bum or the loafer who is drawing unemployment insurance; the problem is that people who are entitled to draw unemployment insurance and should be drawing it are being disentitled by the thousand each week. This kind of witch-hunt being conducted by a frightened Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras), in response to the rednecks and hardhats in his own caucus and in the caucus of the official opposition, is unfitting for a democratic government and democratic system.
Every member of this House has been swamped with phone calls and requests for help by people who have been disentitled to unemployment insurance benefits during the past year or more. I find, Mr. Speaker, that people are being disentitled because thay have been led into answering questions in a certain way during an interview and then conned into signing a statement in which they automatically incriminated themselves and caused their disentitlement to benefits.
I have no objection to a requirement that a person who draws benefits must be actively seeking employment. But I do object when overzealous officials of UIC go to the length of requiring a woman to refund $15 to the Unemployment Insurance Commission because she was honest enough to say there was one day when she was not available for work, and that was her wedding day. She did not get married until 6.30 in the evening, but UIC insisted that she send back $15 because she was unavailable for work that day. How cheap and "chintzy" can you get in a witch-hunt by a frightened Minister of Manpower and Immigration, some of his colleagues and members of the official opposition, to search out people who are allegedly drawing benefits to which they are not entitled?
This whole business about leading applicants to reply to questions and then to sign statements which under the regulations restrict them to a certain kind of job or amount of pay or location of work has been carried to an outrageous extreme, and I am glad the hon. member for Verdun made the speech he did today. I hope members of other parties will do likewise.
Items in the throne speech that we in the New Democratic Party are anxious to see legislated include, among others, the legislation that finally is going to set up a national petroleum corporation. May I say to my hon. friends opposite that we hope they mean business. This corporation must not be merely an agency whose efforts in research and planning, etc., are designed to do nothing more than aid and comfort the well-being of multinational oil corporations. This must be the beginning of a massive entry by the Canadian public, through public ownership, into research, exploration, production and distribution of oil and oil products. If the bill provides for anything less than that, I can assure hon. members on the government side they will have some problems.
The throne speech refers to an increased availability of feed grains. I am glad to see the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) in the chamber. If the Minister of Agriculture and the minister in charge of the Wheat Board mean
The Address-Mr. Benjamin
by "increased availability of feed grains" that more is available because the price on the open market and in the hands of the Winnipeg Grain Exchange is going to be cheaper, then I can assure both ministers that they, too, are going to have some problems. I hope that any measure brought forward to increase the availability of feed grains will provide that they are to be restored entirely to the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board and that this jurisdiction will apply from the Atlantic to the Pacific. If the measure does not mean that or something like that, again the Minister of Agriculture and his colleague from Saskatoon-Humboldt (Mr. Lang) are going to have problems.
The throne speech makes mention of "an agricultural stabilization plan to encourage rational production decisions", whatever that means. It also mentions "a prairie grain market insurance plan", whatever that means. I will say only this much about those two items. If one or both of them is designed to take the place of the misbegotten legislation that the minister in charge of the Wheat Board brought in in 1971, then it had better be much better than that legislation was.
I listened to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board on a farm broadcast a few days ago, Mr. Speaker, and you should have heard him. This is a man who could forget history, could rewrite history and could distort history that was only two years old. He made some remark about a few opposition members obstructing the legislation. Well, there were a few of us not only obstructing; we damned well stopped it going through because it was bad legislation. The minister conveniently forgets that the farm organizations were unanimous in their opposition to it, one of the few times when they have been unanimous about anything. He conveniently forgets the four reasons why we did all we could to prevent that bill from passing. If he forgets them again in this new legislation, then he and the Minister of Agriculture and other members on the government side are going to have some more problems.
The minister in charge of the Wheat Board can distort the record all he wishes, but that legislation was fought and prevented from passing because the government was attempting to repeal the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. The minister in charge of the Wheat Board has now succeeded in doing that via the back door, by making sure there was not enough grain in store in the terminals at the end of the crop year so that the federal government would not have to pay storage costs under that act.
The minister now complains, and pleads with the farmers to haul grain. If he had kept grain in storage at Thunder Bay and Vancouver to 80 per cent of capacity at the end of the crop year last fall, he would not have to cry now for farmers to haul grain. However, he was able to save the government some money in that it did not have to pay its proper share of the cost of storing grain. He wanted to phase out PFAA, which has been done, but at least we got better crop insurance out of it.
There are two items which had better find their way into any government legislation in the form of stabilization bills. That legislation must include provision for some kind of escalator feature in respect of the increase in cost

March 7, 1974
The Address-Mr. Benjamin
of production based on net farm income rather than gross farm income. If this principle is not found in proposed government stabilization legislation, that legislation will be treated accordingly by the members of this party, members of farm organizations and others in this country.
A great deal has been said in the last few weeks in the press and in this House by spokesmen for farm organizations, spokesmen for the government as well as by the minister in charge of the Wheat Board, in respect of the movement of grain. In this regard the minister, during the question period today and on other occasions, has blamed all the difficulties on the snow conditions. He will not admit it, but the Canadian railways were behind in grain movements before the first snowflake fell in Saskatchewan or anywhere else on the prairies last fall. They were behind then, and they are further behind now.
There is nothing new about this problem. It has occurred and recurred almost every year since the end of the second world war. Successive federal governments have refused to face up to the problem and deal with it in any effective way. We had a classic example forcefully brought to our attention last winter regarding this situation on the prairies, showing how incapable our railway transportation system is to meet the transportation needs of the country. They have never kept up with transportation requirements. To understand that this is the fact one need only look at the deteriorating condition of our railway tracks and consider the inadequate number of snowplows and locomotives to deal with snow conditions. Mile after mile of the lines of both railways in the three prairie provinces sat unused for six or seven weeks this past winter without a wheel being put to them.
To illustrate this point I would refer to what was said by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) yesterday. He said that 25 carloads of grain sat on one siding for almost 60 days. On a little siding in my own constituency, Adams, there were seven empty cars put in on January 29. Four of those cars were loaded on January 30 and three more were loaded on February 11. All seven cars are still sitting there. Four more cars were loaded yesterday by the elevator agent. He could not finish loading all the cars because the track was blocked with snow. I suggest there are thousands of carloads of grain on the tracks at various points which have been sitting there for weeks because the railways are incapable of moving them. Thousands of cars have been waiting to be loaded but the agents could not load them because they could not be spotted.
Both railway companies have decreased their mainte-nance-of-way forces, with the result that back tracks and switches have remained unshovelled and uncleaned for weeks on end. Snow fences are not only unrepaired; some have been taken down and never replaced. The CPR complained about having 19,000 miles of snow to plow in the prairie region this year as compared with only 1,000 last year. I would ask where their snow fences are and what has happened to their maintenance of way crews. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) complains that the railways thumb their noses at him and will not honour his requests. If the Minister of Transport has not learned by now that he must make the companies do these things, I suggest we need a new Minister of Transport.

Another item which is in the throne speech concerns steps to be taken to end any discrimination in freight rates. We must see that suggestion implemented. I never thought I would live to see the day when discrimination in freight rates came to an end, but it is in the throne speech and we are now waiting to get the legislation. We are anxious to see it, because we want to know what the Liberals mean by "any discrimination in freight rates". That statement which appears in the throne speech is pretty all-inclusive. If the government is really going to act on this, it will be a great day for western Canada and I am sure this will be of help to the people in the Atlantic provinces, in northern Ontario and in eastern Quebec. When that is done, it will be a magnificent day. I think I can even stomach the Liberals a few weeks longer just to see that legislation.


An hon. Member:: But how much longer?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Let me mention one or two other freight rate items in order to be helpful to the Minister of Agriculture. He might want to use my suggestions when he is finalizing the drafting of legislation, or to strengthen his proposals to the cabinet in order to make sure the legislation does in fact do away with discrimination in freight rates. It now costs 19 cents a hundredweight to ship live cattle from Edmonton to Vancouver. If you butcher the cattle in Edmonton and ship it to Vancouver as dressed beef, it costs $1.39 a hundredweight. It costs $2.90 a hundredweight to ship livestock from Prince Albert to Toronto; but if you butcher the cattle in Prince Albert and ship it as dressed beef to Toronto, it costs $3.40. What is even worse, the cheapest way of sending a carload of steel from Hamilton to Calgary is to ship it from Hamilton to Vancouver and then back to Calgary. The rate from Hamilton to Vancouver is $1.85 a hundred pounds, but from Hamilton to Calgary the rate is $2.65 a hundred pounds; yet Calgary is 700 miles closer to Hamilton than is Vancouver. If the Liberal government's legislation cures these problems it will be a great day for people in many parts of Canada.
I should now like to turn to another matter having to do with freight rates. The minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board reopened this matter when he said in a speech he made in Winnipeg last August that possibly it is time to review and adjust the Crowsnest pass rate agreement. Whenever anyone makes that suggestion, whether it is the hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt or an official of the CNR or the CPR, it only means one thing: the only way they will review and adjust the Crowsnest pass rates is upward. We have heard similar statements by the Alberta livestock association and the Palliser wheat growers. That would be selling out the grain growers of western Canada if we adjust the Crowsnest pass rates. The minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board and officials of the railway companies have said a good deal about the low Crowsnest pass rates, but none of these people has mentioned what the CPR received as part of the deal when the agreement was made.
Let me tell you a little bit about what the CPR received. They received $11,000 per mile, for a total of $3,630,000, to construct the rail line from Lethbridge, Alberta, to Nelson, British Columbia, through the Crowsnest pass and the Kettle valley. That represented about 35 per cent of the
March 7, 1974

cost. That is a real example of free enterprise getting welfare. That makes the people on unemployment insurance look like amateurs. The CPR also received nearly four million acres of land in 1897 when the Crowsnest pass legislation was passed in this House, including the mineral rights. They received six square miles of proven coal land from the province of British Columbia. The coal was there. Several tens of thousands of tons were being taken out of that area in 1897. In addition to that, they obtained a little deal to buy 33 miles of rail line, including mineral rights, some small smelters and mines in Trail and the surrounding area. Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company was established as a result of the Crowsnest pass agreement. In the last 60 years they have benefited to the order of some $300 million as part of the deal.
If the Canadian Pacific Railway is in fact losing money hauling grain-which I do not believe-as part of the deal, then it has been more than compensated through the profits from mineral operations and a host of other enterprises, as a direct result of what the people of Canada did in 1897. I hope the Minister of Agriculture will relate this to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. He would have a better chance having the Ten Commandments amended than changing the Crowsnest pass agreement unless and until any increase in the Crowsnest pass rates is included in an income stabilization plan. We will have to have the income stabilization plan first and then maybe we will talk about the Crowsnest pass rates.
Certainly if the Crowsnest pass agreement is to be done away with, we will take the right-of-way, the buildings, the rails, the mines, the smelters, the profits and give them back to the people of Canada. If the deal is to be cancelled, we will cancel the whole deal. If they want to back out of an agreement which they signed which says "in perpetuity"-which is a long time-and they want to back out of the freight rates part, they can do so but they will lose all the rest of it. I think the government of Canada could have a nice time with the hundreds of millions of dollars from the mines and smelters of that area, which could be used for the benefit of the people of Canada and to provide old age pensions at age 60 from the profits.
I should like to say a little more about rail transportation, particularly as it applies to the Canadian Pacific Railway. What this company received as a result of the Crowsnest pass agreement has more than compensated it for the grain rates. In fact, the Crowsnest pass agreement provided for a rate reduction in respect of a host of other products from eastern Canada. I have yet to find out how that disappeared from the agreement, because those rates have been raised many times. That is a small matter compared to what happened in 1881. As we know, Canadian Pacific Railway received 25 million "suitable acres of land". I shall come back to that in a moment. It also received $25 million in cash. We thought that was the end of it.
One might read the legislation and the agreement of 1881 which appears in chapter I of the Statutes of Canada, an act respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. There one will find that the CPR received many more things. They received 213 miles of railway that had already been constructed by the government of Canada
The Address-Mr. D. J. MacDonald between Selkirk and Emerson. The agreement also called for the government of Canada to construct and turn over to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company the lines required from Fort William to Selkirk and from Kamloops to Port Moody. There was not much left for the CPR to build. It received 25 million acres, including mineral rights, and $25 million in cash and some more. In the legislation it also received from the government and the people of Canada duty free entry for all the material required for the construction of that railway-the rails, the telegraphic equipment and everything else. Then they received massive exemptions in respect of property and land taxes. The legislation reads:
The Canadian Pacific Railway, and all stations and station grounds, workshops, buildings, yards and other property, rolling stock and appurtenances required and used for the construction and working thereof, and the capital stock of the company, shall be forever free from taxation by the Dominion, or by any province hereafter to be established, or by any municipal corporation therein; and the lands of the company, in the Northwest Territories, until they are either sold or occupied, shall also be free from such taxation for 20 years after the grant thereof from the Crown.
I read some of the debates of the House of Commons for that day. I find that one, the Hon. Edward Blake, had something to say. By the way, it turned out that the Conservatives offered so much and lost, and the Liberals came in and offered more for the Crowsnest pass agreement. The Conservatives offered $6,000 per mile, and the Liberals offered $11,000 per mile. In 1880 in the House of Commons, the Hon. Edward Blake had this to say about what the government of Canada was doing for the Canadian Pacific Railway Company:
The great mass of railways in this country have been constructed out of resources mostly provided by private individuals. Considerable sums have, from time to time, been given by way of aid or subsidy by the government towards the construction of some lines, but the main portion of the capital of these railway companies is private capital.
He went on to say:
-but the same considerations are not at all applicable to a case in which you say to some individuals: Gentlemen, we will give you as much and half as much again as is necessary to build this railway, and we will let you own it afterwards. It is not the work of private capital at all. These men will, for a little while, until they make some land sales, invest four or five millions which will be recouped to them within a very brief space of time, and then they will have this enterprise without having sunk a dollar of their own money in it, and will have millions of acres besides.
Mr. Speaker, that is some of the background and history of the Canadian Pacific.


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


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to join with other hon. members in congratulating the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. I think they both did a remarkable job and deserve great credit. I also wish to associate myself with the tributes paid to His Excellency the Governor General and Madame Leger. I wish them both a most happy and successfull mandate at Government House.
Ever since I have been in this House, Mr. Speaker, it has always been a pleasure for me to observe the dignity and

March 7, 1974
The Address-Mr. D. J. MacDonald the diplomacy with which you have carried out your very difficult duties. I am certainly happy that hon. members saw fit to re-elect you, and also the Deputy Speaker to preside over this new session. I offer you both my best wishes.
In my maiden speech in this House last year I said I was very honoured that the people of Cardigan elected me as their representative in Ottawa. It is now over a year since they gave me that privilege, and I must say that I find it more and more challenging and interesting to work on behalf of the people of Cardigan as time goes by. They have continued to show their complete support for whatever I have endeavoured to do for them. I think I can say in all fairness that they appreciate what has been done for them during the past 16 months. Needless to say, I look forward to many more months and years of working on behalf of those who elected me.
As hon. members know, last year marked the one hundredth anniversary of Prince Edward Island's entry into confederation. Although the seeds of confederation were planted in Charlottetown in 1864 and the dream became a reality in 1867, reluctant islanders waited another five years before finally joining confederation in 1873. Of course, we were extremely proud and happy to celebrate all three of those centennials with equal vigour and enthusiasm. In 1973, Canadians from all over the country joined islanders in celebrating their anniversary. The former Governor General and Mrs. Michener officially opened the celebrations on January 1, 1973. From then on it was a year of festivities and of various events to commemorate the historic occasion. We were particularly honoured that Her Majesty the Queen and Prince Philip could join with us in celebrating the centennial. This was certainly one of the highlights of an exciting year. For me the occasion was all the more memorable because Her Majesty spent a considerable amount of time in my riding of Cardigan.
We were also privileged to have the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the federal cabinet pay a visit to the island and hold a cabinet meeting in the historic Confederation Chamber at Province House. This was the first time the federal cabinet had met in Charlottetown since confederation. Needless to say, I was particularly proud to take part in that historic event. I wish to take advantage of this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to express, on behalf of all islanders, our most sincere thanks to all hon. members, and indeed to all Canadians who came to the island and joined with us in celebrating our memorable anniversary. I am sure that the hospitality and the friendliness with which you were greeted will prompt you to come again as often as possible.
Hon. members will recall that a comprehensive development plan for the island was signed in March, 1969. I will not go into the details of the plan as I am sure hon. members are familiar with it. However, I would like to point out that since the implementation of the plan, the number of people leaving the island has declined substantially to the point where we now have a real population growth on the island. This means that a whole new generation of young people can find interesting and challenging

opportunities on the island instead of having to move to other parts of Canada or to the United States.
I should also point out that the numerous DREE projects which have been, and continue to be, approved for the island are of tremendous help to our economic development. I think the decentralization program that the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson) is now carrying on for his department will make it still more effective.
Another point that I should like to mention about development is that although we are looking forward to a fairer degree of economic development which would continue to offer our younger generation better opportunities for work, at the same time we are also looking at the quality of development that we want for our island. I do not think we are prepared to have development simply for the sake of development. We are also extremely concerned with the over-all environment of the island. We are becoming more and more aware of the fact that our geographical location puts us in a rather privileged position today. We realize that people from big cities envy us, and we would certainly want to try to avoid some of the mistakes they have made and perhaps belatedly regret. In other words, we are looking for a certain quality of development which will help us enjoy a reasonable standard of living but at the same time will help us keep and develop those environmental qualities which we still have and which have become so precious today.
In the agricultural sector, some of the programs related to the development plan helped island farmers enjoy a particularly good year in 1973. I am pleased to note that the Speech from the Throne speaks of a number of measures which will continue to help the farmer produce in greater quantity and quality so that we can achieve stabilization of food prices. In that respect I think the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) has demonstrated great leadership and is moving in the right direction.
Island fishermen have also shared in this prosperity with good catches and increased earnings. The fishermen were extremely pleased with the compensation program for replacement of the gear they lost during a particularly severe storm. Some $617,000 was received by 845 fishermen on the island in compensation for their heavy losses. This was approximately two-thirds of the total losses, and the provincial government reimbursed the fishermen for the remainder.
Another very important fisheries development in P.E.I. is the^mall harbours development program. Results of the 1973-74 supplementary program can already be seen, and $335,000 was allocated to upgrade facilities at many of the island's small craft harbours. I am pleased to see that the Speech from the Throne refers to further "improvements in harbour facilities for fishing fleets." I think the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis) and the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Dube) have shown great understanding of the fishermen's needs in this regard.
Even before confederation transportation was a major problem in Prince Edward Island. One of the terms of confederation was that there would be a continuous link with the mainland. Because of this promise the federal government remains continually abreast of the problem of transportation. At the present time, two ice-breaker fer-
March 7, 1974

ries travel between Borden and Cape Tormentine, New Brunswick, in the winter, with four additional car ferries in the summer. This provides a superior year-round freight and passenger service between Wood Islands and Caribou, Nova Scotia. Planning is under way for more secure facilities at Wood Islands for the convenience of the travelling public, as well as improved berthing facilities. This construction should be completed by 1976. I am encouraged by the co-operative attitude of the Ministry of Transport in helping to alleviate transportation difficulties for islanders, and by the willingness to arrive at and ensure economic transportation access to markets in central and western Canada for island producers.
Turning to my Department of Veterans Affairs, I think I can say that we have had a most successful year from many points of view. The legislation enacted for Canada's veterans during the previous session of this parliament was far reaching and of vital importance. It incorporated some basic philosophies and principles which were proposed many years ago. It opened new doors for both veterans and their dependants to enjoy a richer and more secure way of life.
As hon. members are aware, there are three acts which govern the compensation paid to veterans and their dependants. These are the Pension Act, the War Veterans Allowance Act, and the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act. Last March, Bill C-148 was passed. It amended the War Veterans Allowance Act and the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act so that they assumed a completely new profile. In effect, this bill changed the qualification requirements for allowances from a means-tested program to a limited income-tested program. This was done by removing the 'imitations covering personal property. In the same bill, the rates and ceilings were adjusted upwards, which resulted in a 25 per cent increase for the single recipient and a 28 per cent increase for the married recipient. Of course, these amounts continue to increase each year as a result of previous legislation which provided for automatic annual increases based on the consumer price index.
In his remarks a few days ago, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) raised a question about the War Veterans Allowance Act, and particularly the fact that some veterans would be discriminated against. I simply wish to say to my hon. friend that every veteran in this country has received, and will continue to receive everything that is due him. Furthermore, I hope to be in a position very shortly to introduce legislation that will further amend the War Veterans Allowance Act so that benefits to veterans will be further enhanced.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Next week?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Last June, the Pension Act was amended by the passage of Bill C-202. Under the Pension Act, pensions are awarded, as a matter of right, for death and disability related to military service in wartime. The bill provided an immediate increase of 24 per cent in the basic rate but, more importantly, it tied the rate to the average salary of a composite group of
The Address-Mr. D. J. MacDonald employees in the public service. Now, for the first time, the disability pension rate has achieved parity with the current cost of living standard. This was probably one of the most significant single advances in the history of Canadian veterans' legislation in more than 50 years and I think the veterans' organizations of this country deserve great credit for the very important ocntribution they made in the preparation of this legislation.
Another aspect of the whole pension system to veterans that I should mention very briefly is the question of backlog. As hon. members know, the legislation passed by this House in 1971 opened the door to a deluge of pension applications from veterans. This situation has created a considerable backlog with which the commission has been struggling ever since. I am happy to report that since last year that backlog has been considerably reduced. Whereas a year ago it was over 9,000 applications, it is now down to 7,300. What is more significant and encouraging is the fact that the monthly output of decisions has almost doubled since last year. I think the Canadian Pension Commission, together with the pension review board and the bureau of pensions advocates deserve great credit for this increased efficiency. I am sure this trend will continue and that in the not too distant future we will have eliminated that backlog.
On the subject of veterans' hospitals, Mr. Speaker, I should like to mention that the government's policy of transferring hospitals to the jurisdiction of provinces is progressing quite well.


Duncan M. Beattie: Says who?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: I say that. Three hospitals have already been transferred and negotiations are well under way for the transfer of a few more. I have no time to argue; the clock is moving too fast, Mr. Speaker. Although some people would like to see the veterans' hospitals remain as they are now, we certainly feel that it is in the best interest of veterans to proceed with these transfers. Otherwise, we run the risk of having to operate geriatric institutions within a short number of years and this is certainly not in the best interest of our veterans' population, not to mention the fact that it is becoming increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to find well qualified professionals to look after our veterans.
The year 1974 will mark two important events for the veterans of this country. As hon. members know, this coming June will be the thirtieth anniversary of the landing of the allied troops in northern France, which resulted in the liberation of Europe and the end of the second world war within one year. The government will certainly take a very active part in those celebrations, and I will be making an announcement very shortly concerning the participation of Canada in those ceremonies.
This year will also mark the twenty-fifth biennial national convention of the Royal Canadian Legion. This very important gathering will take place in St. John's, Newfoundland, during the first week of June. I do not think I need repeat here the important contributions made by the Royal Canadian Legion on behalf of all those who served their country in wartime.
Mr. Speaker, the Veterans Land Act has been a most successful post-war rehabilitation program and for that
March 7, 1974

The address-Mr. D. J. MacDonald reason alone it is not surprising that representations have been made by members and by veterans organizations to extend the March 31, 1974, deadline for veterans to submit loan applications for the purchase of properties. In addition, some of the representations made have requested the reopening of the October 31, 1968, deadline for interested veterans to obtain a VLA certificate of qualification, that the loan ceiling for smallholding settlement purposes be increased and that the minimum acreage requirements be eliminated to enable veterans to purchase city-sized lots in urban areas. Notwithstanding the many occasions on which I have already done so, Mr. Speaker, I believe it is fundamental in the consideration of these requests to review the intent and purpose of the Veterans Land Act.


Duncan M. Beattie: You do not have much time.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: The Lord being good, I will make it. First and foremost, it was one of three alternative rehabilitation-


Mr. Horner (Crowfoot):: There is no question about the Lord being good. He is good. The Lord willing is the question.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: -programs enacted to assist veterans on their return to civilian life following wartime active service. Its purpose was to provide a measure of financial assistance to those veterans interested in settling on the land as full or part-time farmers, or in association with their occupation as commercial fishermen. For those veterans not interested in or who did not consider it practical to settle under the terms of the act, alternative benefits in the form of educational assistance or re-establishment credits were available.
I think it must be emphasized that the Veterans Land Act was a post-war rehabilitation measure and that almost 30 years have elapsed since the end of World War II, and 20 years in the case of the Korean conflict. I suggest it is difficult, within the normal sense of the words "rehabilitation in civilian life", to contend successfully that after these periods of time the words have any meaningful application. This is borne out by many of the individual letters I have received. Time and again reference is made to the fact that the veteran intends to retire in one, two, five or ten years' time and he would like to use the loan provisions of the act to acquire a retirement home. I am certain this was never contemplated when the legislation was enacted, nor when parliament gave unanimous consent in 1965 to the establishment of deadlines for phasing out VLA lending operations in a reasonable and orderly manner.
I stated earlier that, as the name implies, the Veterans Land Act was oriented toward agriculture to assist veterans interested in land utilization to acquire farmland for operation on a full or part-time farming basis. There is no question that the vast majority of the 130,000 veterans settled under those provisions of the act did utilize their properties for agricultural purposes, with the main body of those established as full-time farmers continuing to do so. This, however, is neither the purpose nor the indication today of veterans and others who want the act extended. Mr. Speaker, the desire today for an extension of VLA

lending operations coupled with an increase in the smallholding loan ceiling and elimination of the minimum acreage requirement is to provide assistance on favourable financial terms for the purchase of homes, including even condominium units, in urban areas.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What is wrong with that?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Similar representations have been made throughout the 30 years that the Veterans Land Act has been in operation. On all occasions, and notwithstanding modifications made from time to time in the minimum size regulations, successive governments have recognized and adhered to the basic concept and purpose of the act. I strongly suggest that to do otherwise now would be grossly unfair to the many thousands of veterans who were not interested in, or found it impractical to live on a half-acre of land or more and made alternative, less favourable financial arrangements for the purchase of urban properties.
In the same connection, Mr. Speaker, I should like to remind hon. members that on the recommendation of the Royal Canadian Legion part II of the Veterans Land Act was brought into being as far back as 1954 to provide assistance to those veterans interested in building their own homes on city-sized lots with National Housing Act mortgage financing. More than 4,500 veterans have used the provisions of part II in the 20 years they have been available.
It is acknowledged, of course, that the provision of suitable living accommodation necessarily has been an integral factor in the establishment of veterans under the Veterans-Land Act. Since the inception of operations, over 40,000 new homes have been constructed. This accomplishment has not, however, altered the fundamental purpose and orientation of the legislation, nor has it converted the program into a straight housing measure serving to duplicate or conflict with the provisions of the National Housing Act.
I remarked earlier that the Veterans Land Act was one of three alternative rehabilitation schemes. The university training program was concluded in the mid-fifties. The re-establishment credit benefits provided under the War Service Grants Act terminated October 31, 1968, which was also the final date for veterans interested in the possibility of settling under the Veterans Land Act to obtain a certificate of qualification. The periods in which these alternative benefits were available were considered to be adequate and appropriate, and it seems evident that the same opinion was held concerning the Veterans Land Act when in 1965 parliament gave unanimous approval to establishing March 31, 1974, as the final date for qualified veterans to submit loan applications for the purchase of properties.
Almost nine years have elapsed since that deadline was established. The terminal date has been well publicized. I am of the opinion, therefore, that veterans sincerely interested in obtaining VLA benefits for the purposes contemplated by the act have had ample time in which to do so. Virtually every veteran who obtained a VLA certificate of
March 7, 1974

qualification by the deadline of October 31, 1968, had already utilized the benefits alternative to those of the Veterans Land Act. In the circumstances, adherence to the lending deadline specified in the act will not represent a denial of benefits to any veteran.
On January 11 last, as reported at page 9281 of Hansard, I stated that if I had sufficient information to make me think the deadline date should be changed I would so recommend to the government. I want to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I have carefully considered all relevant
The Address-Mr. D. J. Macdonald representations and data, including that determined by the Royal Canadian Legion in the survey it conducted last December. I am unable to conclude that such a recommendation would be warranted or appropriate.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, may I call it ten o'clock?


Mr. Speaker:: It being after ten o'clock, this House stands adjourned until eleven o'clock tomorrow morning.
At 10.05 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Friday, March 8, 1974