1974-11-22

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill S-17, an act to amend the Explosives Act, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Administrator of the Government of Canada transmitting Supplementary Estimates (B) with regard to sums required for the public service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1975 and, pursuant to the provisions of the British North America Act, 1867, recommending those estimates to the House of Commons, was presented by Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board) and read by Mr. Speaker to the House.

[DOT] (mo)

Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to report on the World Food Conference which began slightly more than two weeks ago in Rome. Last Saturday the conference came to a close, and of the 123 countries represented and the more than 1,200 delegates attending, virtually none did not have impressed upon them the need for increased production by all farmers in the world. While many countries were called on to produce more food and help developing countries to do the same, Canada was among the few that had chosen to give a clear and significant mandate to their representatives at the conference.
Let me say a word about our representatives. Our delegation at Rome was well prepared and was one of the best there, if not the best. We had two federal cabinet ministers, a provincial cabinet minister, three parliamentary observers and representatives of the public service. They all took their responsibilities very seriously and worked hard to achieve positive results. Right here I would like to
set the record straight about one thing. Some people have alleged that our delegation was trying to filibuster in the committee dealing with trade. This is absolutely false. At no time did anyone on the Canadian delegation attempt any type of negative action at the conference. In point of fact, there were fairly extensive exchanges on the trade issue but these were between the delegates of the developing countries that held some very divergent views on the subject.
When my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen), made known our willingness to provide a more than proportionate share of the minimum world target for food aid and to more than double contributions to the world food program, there was a good deal of optimism that the turning point of the conference had been reached. The feeling of optimism was increased when Australia made a corresponding offer in response to the example set by Canada. If other countries had done the same, the World Food Conference would have been a greater success.
Everyone with a real interest in farmers and agriculture ought to have the chance to go to a meeting like the World Food Conference. It brings home just how important good farmers and productive, efficient agriculture really are. When I sat in on some of those meetings held in a big building that Mussolini had put up for the 1942 Olympic Games and waited for the translators to catch up to the speaker, or maybe listened to delegates from various countries arguing for 20 minutes whether the right word to use in a sentence was "scarce" or "limited", I had a chance to think about some of the countries that were represented there.
What really struck me was that there were no developed countries that did not have well developed agriculture as the strong foundation for the rest of their economy. If a country's agriculture was not healthy, you could be pretty sure that they were having other problems as well. You could see the same sort of thing with respect to the developing countries. You cannot just lump them all together under that name. Some of them who had not paid enough attention to their farmers and their needs were wishing they had. But you could tell that the countries that were really looking after their agriculture were also going to take off pretty quickly in the rest of their development.
To try to get anything done in those committees was something else again. They would start off with a pretty reasonable draft of a resolution and go at it until it looked like the turkey two days after Thanksgiving dinner. Sometimes I wondered if they would ever get any meat back on the bones. In spite of the difficulties, we did make progress. Our delegation met several times a day to discuss progress and problems in the committees. In this work we

November 22, 1974
World. Food Conference
were helped considerably by Canada's active participation in the preparatory committees.
I would just like to mention here that apart from official government delegation at Rome, Canada was fortunate in having very fine representation fron non-government organizations, or NGOs as they are called. Representatives from our delegation met with them frequently and the discussions were both cordial and useful for all of us. I have nothing but praise for them and the job they did on behalf of their respective organizations.
The facts of Canadian leadership at the conference are as follows: the Canadian food aid pledge helped to move Australia and the EEC into making specific food aid pledges and the United States to accept a ten million tons annual food aid target. Canada drafted the clause ensuring that the Agricultural Development Fund would come into effect when there were substantial new funds and the prospect of continuity. Canada was also one of the first western countries to accept the Agricultural Development Fund. Canada was the only country to pledge 20 per cent of its food aid through multilateral channels, including a 100 per cent increase in Canada's pledge to the world food program for 1975 and 1976.
Canada pushed for a universal exchange of information on crop prospects and inputs. Canada offered to earmark national grain reserves for world food security. Canada led in stressing the importance of fisheries and environmental concerns. Canada has pressed for effective followup to the World Food Conference using existing international agencies that have a proven record of producing results.
At no time did Canada forget the importance of the producer as the key contributor to an adequate food supply. All these are examples of Canadian initiative and leadership at the World Food Conference, but this list is certainly not complete.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: I was approached on many occasions by ministers of agriculture from developing countries who wanted to get bilateral development aid from Canada. They were looking for Canadian agricultural technology to use in their countries because they think Canada has the best technology and the most productive agriculture in the world. They also know that they can get help from Canada without political strings attached, if they are willing to make the effort to help themselves. It is still too early to make an adequate assessment of the World Food Conference. Nonetheless, I believe that there are real reasons for being optimistic. Perhaps the most important of these is that as a result of the conference many countries will start increasing their food production earlier than they would have.
Several resolutions were passed by the plenary session of the conference. However, the accepted wording of the resolutions was made on the basis of oral amendments, and final wordings of the resolutions are not yet available. Most important among the resolutions is the one to establish a fund to be called the international fund for agricultural development. The fund would finance agricultural and fisheries development projects in developing countries. Contributions to it would be on a voluntary basis.

The fact that the resolution's co-sponsors included oil producing nations such as Iran, Kuwait, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Venezuela may be regarded as a commitment by these countries to use some of their financial resources, and we hope they will, to support a multilateral program for agriculture and fisheries development.
The conference has asked the FAO and other concerned international organizations such as the International Wheat Council to make the arrangements necessary for the establishment of a global information and early warning system on food and agriculture. The objectives, policies and guidelines as set out in the text of the proposed FAO international undertaking on world food security were also endorsed by the conference. Governments of major exporting and importing nations have been invited to enter discussions on the feasibility of establishing grain reserves in appropriate locations. The Director General of the FAO has convened a meeting of representatives of interested countries for November 29 to look at the shortterm problems of the developing countries most seriously affected by current food shortages.
The arrangements for follow-up at the conference were covered in a complicated resolution that in effect sets up a world food council at the ministerial level that would report to the United Nations General Assembly through the Economic and Social Council. The World Food Council would serve to co-ordinate follow-up policies concerning food production, nutrition, food security, food trade and food aid. Membership of the World Food Council has yet to be determined, but its members will be nominated by the Economic and Social Council and elected by the United Nations General Assembly.
The conference did recommend, among other things, an FAO committee on world food security, an intergovernmental committee of the World Food Program, and that the board of directors of the international fund for agricultural development should submit periodic reports to the World Food Council. The conference also requested that international groups and organizations take leadership in following up the results of the conference. The conference did adopt a long declaration entitled "Declaration on the eradication of hunger". Its final wording is not yet available, but it is a document that contains the suggestions of many groups that were agreeable to others, and hence is perhaps weaker than we would have liked because of the need for consensus.
Canada's leadership and contribution to the conference is perhaps best summed up in a letter to the Secretary of State for External Affairs dated November 9, from Mr. Aquino, executive director of the World Food Program, as follows:
I would again like to express to you, and through you, also to the Secretary of State for Agriculture, the hon. Mr. Whelan, my own and my colleagues profound gratification for the excellent policy statement which you recently presented to the World Food Conference in Rome on behalf of the government and people of Canada. We in the World Food Program are deeply appreciative of the leading role CIDA has long taken and so clearly intends to continue to take in helping to "seek the elimination of hunger". Your moving speech and very practical undertakings and proposals are certainly most encouraging.
November 22, 1974

I was a proud Canadian before I went to the conference. I am an even prouder a Canadian after attending this conference.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Mt. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot): Mr. Speaker, I realize it is the custom, when responding to a statement such as we have just heard, for members of the opposition to thank the minister for sending them a copy of his remarks. Your Honour will recall that yesterday I rose on a question of privilege having to do with the minister's failure to make a statement yesterday. From the remarks he made in reply to my question of privilege, and from other information, I am confident the statement was available approximately 20 hours ago. At 10.30 this morning I got in touch with the minister's office. I did so again at 10.35. At 11 minutes to 11 I attended the minister's office and in his presence and the presence of his staff demanded a copy of his statement. I received the statement when I came into this chamber today.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Mr. Jarvis:: My office is located in the same building as the minister's, up four flights of stairs, and even if it meant the minister climbing those four flights of stairs, surely we could have received a copy. The minister speaks continually about co-operation in the interests of Canadian and world farmers. If this is any indication of the co-operation he proposes to extend to other nations to meet the world food crisis, then heaven help the world's hungry. The only sympathetic thing I can say is that I, too, would be ashamed to release this statement if I were the minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Herbert Jarvis: In his final article on the World Food Conference, Mr. James Rusk, writing in the Globe and Mail, summed it up by saying:
Politics won and food lost. The issues were political, the actions were political and the conclusions were political.
I do not point a finger at the minister, but this is my view of what happened at that conference. I have no way of judging whether the conference was a political success; but in terms of judging whether it was a success in solving the world food crisis, none of us in this house can claim that it was successful. With respect to the position taken by Canada and its participation, I say to the minister and to all hon. members that I was proud to be a Canadian on the second day of that conference. I was proud when the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) gave his statement. I think we all had reason to be proud at that particular point.
We went to the conference in the hope of offering leadership. I believe we did that, Mr. Speaker. Our commitment of food aid of one million tons a year for the next three years had two very obvious things to commend it: first, our commitment was expressed in terms of tons rather than dollars, which is what we had been requested to do; second, in comparison with other food exporters I think our tonnage commitment had everything to com-
World Food Conference
mend it. However, there is another yardstick. I do not refer only to the statistical fact that just three or four years ago the tonnage we delivered to the hungry nations far exceeded our Rome commitment: I emphasize that this three-year commitment does not begin until the next crop year. The Montreal Gazette, in an editorial on November 28 had this to say:
The Canadian contribution of one million tons for the next three years is disappointing when weighed against earlier contributions. Canadian refusal to assist with fertilizers is miserly when compared with the 150,000 metric tons given in 1970 and the fact that approximately 30 per cent of Canadian fertilizer production was exported to the United States in the 1973-74 season.
In the same vein, the Globe and Mail said this:
It is impressive only in that it stands out against the shameful background.
The yardstick that I refer to is measuring our assistance in terms of our capacity as Canadians to produce. Measured against that yardstick, no Canadian can take too much satisfaction. If we submit ourselves to that test, we have only to answer the question to read the minister's statement to this House on October 3, 1974, when he said, as reported at page 96 of Hansard:
I have said the farmers of this nation will increase their productivity by 50 per cent in five years if they are given a decent return for what they produce and a guarantee that they will receive the same as the rest of our society wants-
Submitting ourselves to that test of capacity, not one member of the House or one producer in this country can take too much satisfaction. In terms of emergency relief, I noted the question put to the Secretary of State for External Affairs on November 14, a day during which the conference was being held, and the figure of $50 million was thrown around helter-skelter. The only thing I know about this $50 million is that as a result of the conference in Rome there has been a reallocation within the CIDA program of $50 million. There is no new fund. It is no big deal.
May I deal now with what, in my opinion, was the most significant issue from the Canadian viewpoint. That was the necessity of assisting developing countries to increase their own food production. Canadians had every reason to believe that we in the Canadian delegation would offer real leadership. First of all, we looked to the speech of the Minister of Agriculture prior to his leaving for Rome and he indicated that this was our number one priority since we had the leadership and the expertise necessary to assist in this regard. I believe that the most important sentence of the address of the Secretary of State for External Affairs to the conference is as follows:
Canada emphatically supports the development of increased food production capacity by developing countries as the key to an anti-hungry strategy.
Similarly, in his speech in the House on November 15 when he listed seven points which he hoped would assist Canada to participate in fighting this crisis, he said, as reported at page 1376 of Hansard:
First, Canada is prepared to accord a high priority in its assistance program to the agricultural development of countries which are mobilizing their own resources to increase food production.
These have been hollow words. We did not exhibit any dramatic leadership in this area; in fact, we have demonstrated no real leadership at all. The conference itself did

November 22, 1974
World Food Conference
not come to grips with this issue. The future for agriculture in developing countries is little or no brighter as a result of the conference. The only ray of hope which the minister mentioned-and I hope it is a ray-is the agricultural development fund, which at this moment is unfunded. The only contribution that Canada makes, I repeat, is the reallocation of $50 million within the CIDA program.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) may wish to take exception to my criticism of this vital aspect of the Rome conference, but I can illustrate my point simply by saying this: if, as he has said repeatedly, we went to Rome expecting a conference on food production, why did Canada's delegation not include at least one person who represented the food producers of Canada? Ministers of the Crown do not produce food; members of parliament do not produce food; public servants do not produce food, and neither do international conferences.
The minister has bragged about-I share his pride in this respect-the tremendous talent available from farm organizations and producer groups in this country, yet not one of them was represented at the conference. Coincidentally, at this conference were two Canadians, Mr. Munro and Mr. Pigeon, both of whom represent producer groups in Canada. But they were there in an international capacity; they were not even invited to informal meetings held by the Canadian delegation until I made a point of seeking their presence at those meetings.
Unhappily, the world must conclude that the conference was not successful in respect of the key issue of food production in developing countries. Canadians must conclude either that we failed to provide leadership in this area or that whatever leadership we intended was not evident to other delegations. Whichever is the case, we must all regret our failure in this one area which we acknowledge to be the most important.
There are two matters I wish to discuss briefly. One is the presence in our delegation of senior members of the public service. It might be said by those more cynical than me that public servants really prove their mettle when they are dealing with ministers whose shortcomings are obvious in certain circumstances. I am not a cynic: I only say that within the framework of their instructions, the responsible public servants of the Department of Agriculture demonstrated an enthusiasm and determination for which I sincerely commend them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Herbert Jarvis: The other point concerns the members of the non-governmental organizations. I appreciate the minister's comments in his statement. But, unfortunately, that feeling was not unanimous within our delegation and in my opinion there was even the suggestion that their role for future conferences should be questioned. If that role- which to me is a vital and enthusiastic one-is questioned, it should be questioned in this House, and nowhere else, because I believe these people fulfilled a very useful function. I appreciate your restlessness, Mr. Speaker, but anyone who has been a parliamentary observer knows that his function defies job description. I am working off a

little of my frustration right now and hope you will bear with me.
My final point is an obvious one, and because it is so obvious we sometimes lose sight of it. We met in Rome because many people in this world are starving to death and many more are so undernourished that their chances of making a meaningful contribution to society are minimal or non-existent. This was why delegations from so many countries journeyed to Rome. Yet repeatedly at the conference, from our delegation and others I heard the desperately needy countries criticized in private because of the actions of their leaders. This criticism took the form of statements that country "A" was wasting money on expenditures for such things as armaments, money that otherwise could be used to provide more food for its people; country "B" was guilty of graft and corruption in dealing with food aid; country "C" had delegates at the conference who were riding around in Rolls-Royce cars while its people were starving.
All Canadians can take a personal affront at such action, particularly when we talk of countries who are recipients of our aid. All members of parliament can go to their respective ridings and be safe politically for not only criticizing such actions but, indeed, for justifying the withholding of aid because of such immorality. I sensed this personal feeling of effrontery every day at the conference. But what we ignore or forget is that it was not the starving child who was guilty of wasteful government expenditure, it was not the undernourished mother who was guilty of graft and corruption and it was not the worker, who is so underfed that he is non-productive, who is riding around in a Rolls-Royce. I suggest that all of us should resist the natural negative and politically expedient reaction of using such actions as reasons or excuses for withholding assistance. I suggest that these actions, albeit reprehensible, of needy countries should not provide the reason or excuse but, rather, should provide the challenge to us to make our aid more effective. Some 80 per cent of that aid is bilateral, so we can accept this worthy challenge.
In conclusion, may I say that Canadians share our disappointment that the World Food Conference failed to fulfill our aspirations for it. In a positive sense, however, I believe we should feel that the failures of the conference will add to the focus on and the urgency of the world food crisis. If nothing else, the focus on this crisis has provided us, as Canadians, with a dramatic challenge. The Gazette editoral to which I referred, under the heading "The hungry still unfed" states-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must ask the hon. member to please conclude his remarks.


William Herbert Jarvis: I have about three more sentences, Mr. Speaker. Quite clearly, the work which was started in Rome, like the work started at earlier UN conferences in Caracas and Bucharest this year, will have to be continued. There is, however, growing urgency in respect of the food crisis because of its immediacy and the inhumanity of failing to tackle it. That this government acknowledges and meets this challenge is the demand of our party and, I believe, the demand of our country.
November 22, 1974


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the House in advance for detaining it longer on this matter, but I think this conference was one of tremendous importance and significance. I, too, was a parliamentary observer and I hope the House will bear with me while I make a few remarks on the subject. This World Food Conference was, despite all the cynics and all the pessimists, an historic and significant occasion. It was, of course, dealing with a basic problem of humanity, the problem of food, which includes the age-old problem of malnutrition affecting millions of people, including 200 million children throughout the world. The conference was also dealing with the urgent and immediate problem of threatened starvation on a large scale in some parts of the world, and I mention Bangladesh, India and central Africa.
The conference was watched with hope and anxiety by the whole world. It was historic in the sense that it was the first time representatives of nations had gathered together to apply their minds to this problem. As Pope Paul VI put it in a striking address to the conference: "The food crisis is a crisis of civilization and solidarity." It would obviously be too soon to assess the results of the conference. They will depend on the follow-up and upon whether the nations of the world are prepared to give content to the resolutions they passed by providing the resources and machinery to make them work.
My view is that the conference had both successes and failures. An outstanding failure was in the area of trade. The resolution of the food problem of the world in the long run requires substantial increases in the purchasing power of the least developed countries. The resolution of the conference on this point was disappointingly vague. I want to make one thing clear; there seemed to be universal agreement that this problem could be solved. Nature has provided the means; the question is whether man can provide the wisdom to solve it. There is another observation I want to make, and that is that those who produce surpluses of food must not use those surpluses in an attempt to gain political advantage.
There were several aspects to the conference. The first dealt with the threat of starvation caused by the exhaustion of food reserves. I believe this immediate problem will be effectively tackled. But there is also the even more important, long-term problem of increasing food production, particularly in the developing world. The developing nations themselves have the immediate and primary responsibility for this task but through lack of capital and technology they cannot tackle it alone without massive assistance from the developed world.
A resolution was passed, as the minister told us in his statement, for the setting up of a fund for agricultural development. That was introduced by some of the OPEC nations and I regard it as one of the most encouraging features of the conference. I understand a follow-up conference is to take place on November 29 under the auspices of the Secretary General of FAO, with a view to putting reality into the proposals for this fund.
Above all, the third world of the developing nations must be put in a position where it is not the recipient of hand-outs but is enabled, through expanding trade, independently to expand its own agricultural production.
World Food Conference
What am I to say about the contribution of Canada in this regard? The minister has spoken in the usual glowing and customary terms of self-praise and it is hardly necessary for me to add very much to that. Although I am a member of the opposition and inclined to be critical, I think the specific proposals of the Canadian government to expand its food aid while emergency conditions persist, to base that food aid contribution on physical terms and not on dollars, and to commit an average of one million tons of food grains annually for the next three years, were constructive proposals and gave real leadership to the conference.
I was not so satisfied with the arrangements made by the conference, supported by Canada, in respect of world food security. In my view, it would have been far better to have created a world food bank with power to deal with speculation in foodstuffs and to stabilize food prices. Instead, what we got was a plan for national stockpiles of food grains, their use to be co-ordinated by some form of international organization. This is definitely a second-best program.
Another point I wish to mention is that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) in his speech to the conference spoke of Canada responding to countries which give high priority to developing efficient food production. Naturally, we must strive for efficiency but I warn against that being the only criterion: there is the danger that if this is done, the aid will be channelled to the wealthier producers, and this may enable them to drive small producers and landless labourers in developing countries off the land and into urban slums. That situation must be guarded against.
There is another aspect where I feel the Canadian contribution was totally inadequate. This is in respect of the drive of the third world for trade policies enabling them to expand their exports and thus to finance food production in their countries. Trade, aid and food production are intimately linked. Of course, detailed trade discussions could not take place at this conference; but it is equally true, in my judgment, that the third world was right in asking that consideration be given to the general direction to be taken on this whole vital question. In my view, the Canadian response initially was almost totally negative. The minister said it was a falsehood to say that they filibustered. They may not have filibustered, but I was there and I say that the initial attitude was almost entirely negative and a filibuster would have had the same sort of effect.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Andrew Brewin: However, I give the minister some credit. Later in the conference the attitude seemed to become more flexible. Perhaps I am giving him undue credit when I say he was responsible for that. I was extremely disturbed at the initial Canadian attitude in respect of this vitally important subject. We lined up with the wealthy, developed countries and said we would not even bother talking to the developing countries about the problems they thought were important. I must admit that that attitude changed. The final resolution was a weak compro-

November 22, 1974
World Food Conference
mise, but if the minister is responsible for changing it, in fairness I give him credit for it.
I conclude my remarks by saying that I agree with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) that the key to the world food problem lies primarily in the hands of the agricultural producers both in the developed and developing countries. They must be consulted, their security considered, and there must be a radical revision by the modern world of its attitude toward the importance of agriculture. Agriculture must not be subordinate to the interests of speculators or private interests which so often control markets for their own benefit. A totally new structure is required. All these matters will not be solved, as Pope Paul said, by automatic, technical solutions: fundamental human values must be taken into account. I believe that on the whole the Rome conference pointed in the right direction. It was a step forward, and with good will and hard work it can be turned into a highly significant step in the history of humanity.
I would like to add one footnote. I join the minister in his tribute to the Canadian group which was known as NGO, a non-governmental organization. I think the Canadian group made a valuable, informed and indeed intelligent, critical contribution. If they had not been there, I am sure the Canadian contribution would have been far less than it was.


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I have heard the statement by the Minister of Agriculture and I must say his comments were not exaggerated and I believe he is right when he says that Canada had a positive participation in that conference through its expert delegates and above all the proposals that were put forward.
Canada has been one of the most responsive countries in the past few years. It can do more and the aim of the conference was to find means of sharing the planet's food resources to meet the actual needs of hungry populations. The sight of starving people is in itself difficult to bear, but when you have suffered from hunger or seen your next of kin suffer from it in your own home, it is even worse. Then, I guess, you understand better the actual situation of those starving populations deprived of any means of developing their land to produce enough food to meet their needs.
Some hon. members have sometimes accused us, without any malice I am sure, of resenting Canada's assistance program to developing countries. Mr. Speaker, I would like to repeat that we favour Canada's help to developing countries, to countries whose populations are starving, but we would like to make sure that our help reaches its destination, that people who really need it are the first beneficiaries. We have been told that huge quantities of food products have been spoiled because they were stored in the wrong kind of warehouses. Our country had made an effort, but not every necessary step was taken. I don't know if that was done accidentally or on purpose, but at all events, we still have a long way to go before those products we send to starving people reach their destination. Of course Canada has huge resources of all kings and it can even produce more.

It is not only recently we have been maintaining that Canada should put its farm land to better use so as to produce sufficiently to meet the needs of the Canadian people and also help the needy countries.
I consider, Mr. Speaker, that it is a crime against humanity that thousands of farms lie abandoned and thousands of strong workers are forced into inactivity instead of working.
During the last weeks I have received numerous petitions coming from mothers in my riding asking me to press our government that our country might adopt a better food production policy. That is what I shall do at the next possible opportunity.
When my colleagues and I had the opportunity to travel in Belgium and Holland in September 1974, we witnessed that in these two countries all farm land is developed 100 per cent. There are people who understand the necessity of making use of all their production capabilities and if Canada wants to produce more efficiently, we will immediately have to adopt stronger measures to support our farmers.
It is not enough to say that we will give, that we will do our share. We must absolutely produce if we want our wishes to take on a concrete form.
Mr. Speaker, the scandalous increase in the price of chemical fertilizers will contribute to the discouragement of the farmers and I fear that 1975 production will suffer a rather shocking drop due to the fact that I have just mentioned. The horrendous increase in the cost of farm machinery is sufficient to further discourage the farmers.
In conclusion, I would like to say that if we want to, we can, and that should be the slogan of this Parliament. It is good to have the best of intentions, but acting efficiently is even better.
Besides producing, we should adopt a system insuring distribution even onto the tables of those who are in need.


SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (B) REFERENCE TO STANDING COMMITTEE
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by Mr. Chretien, pursuant to Standing Order 59:
That the Supplementary Estimates (B) tabled this day be referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as the House is aware, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald)
November 22, 1974

Abortion


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
wishes to make a statement today and to table a copy of the report of the National Energy Board. I think there is general agreement that for this purpose we should revert to motions today at five p.m., the reason being that it is not desirable to table this report and have the statement made while the markets are open.
Mr. Speaker:: I should comment to the House, if it is agreed and understood, that the Chair would not see the clock at five o'clock when reverting to motions. After the statement by the hon. Minister it is expected the customary replies would take place by spokesmen of each of the other parties. The Chair would then see the clock and adjourn the House on completion of such statements.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I have been informed by my office staff that copies of the statement I made today were distributed to the leaders of all parties and should have arrived in their offices maybe not as early as they should have, but possibly by 10.20 a.m.


Mr. Schumacher:: Why didn't you tell me that on the phone, then?


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, related to projected industrial development in northern and western Newfoundland which emphasizes the need for immediate support in communication facilities.
The lack of satisfactory progress by both Canadian National Telecommunications and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in providing adequate expected television and telephone service will deter prospective development. This prompts the need for action by the government of Canada to demand that both agencies fulfil their responsibilities to Canadians.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski):
That the matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion which contains some reference to elements of immediate necessity. It being proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43 it cannot be debated without unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


SUGGESTED INTERVENTION OF PRIME MINISTER ON BEHALF OF CERTAIN CHILEAN CHILDREN-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to ask leave of the House to put a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of testimony given by Neil McDermott, Secretary General of the International Commission of Jurists that the Chilean military junta is considering a scheme to send children of supporters of former president Salvador Allende to forced labour in rehabilitation camps, and in view of the Prime Minister's intervention on behalf of Valentyn Moroz, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes):
That this House instruct the Prime Minister to inform the Chilean junta that we in Canada consider such action to be contrary to all principles of decency and humanity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion being proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43 and containing elements of immediacy. It cannot be debated without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There not being unanimous consent, the motion cannot be debated at this time.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I rise to propose a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the renewed representations made to most members of the House, not only in person over the past few weeks but also by hundreds of telegrams and letters, urging the House to examine the abortion laws now freely in existence in this country, and in view of the fact that this is a matter dealing with life itself, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot (Mr. Jarvis):
That the government be instructed to form forthwith a committee comprised of members of this House to thoroughly investigate this entire area affording such organizations as the Alliance for Life and others, in fact, all segments of our society, the opportunity to express their views on a matter involving the very lives of thousands of unborn children,


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House has heard the terms of the motion. With due respect I would call the hon. member's attention to the provisions of Standing Order 43 which read as follows:
A motion may, in case of urgent and pressing necessity ...

November 22, 1974
Representation Act, 1974
The Chair can only assume that the use of the word "urgent" and in addition the words "pressing necessity" makes specific reference to the fact that a motion be not only important, as the subject matter of the motion is, but have an element of immediacy, of "urgent and pressing necessity". I am afraid, with due respect to the hon. member, that I am not able to see that the matter, while important, has any more urgency today than it did in the last parliament or that it will have in future parliaments. It is a matter of prominent and important concern to all members of the House but surely the fact of recent representations cannot take it out of the level of continuing concern and place upon it the element of urgent and pressing necessity as declared by the terms of the Standing Order. I, therefore, regret that I cannot put the motion.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, pursuant to Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that Canadian postal service has deteriorated to such an extent that businesses such as McConnell Nursery Co. have to curtail a major portion of their business because they cannot depend on the postal service to be reliable, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale):
That this House direct the operations of the Post Office to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications for immediate review, and implementation of the Samson, Belair, Riddel, Stead report on the Post Office that recommends the return of mail transportation to the more efficient private carriers.


Mr. Speaker:: The element of the collapse of the firm referred to gives, without further detail, at least some indication of immediacy. Accordingly, I must ask whether there is unanimous consent to adopt the motion being proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There not being unanimous consent, the motion cannot be debated at this time.


REPRESENTATION ACT, 1974 MEASURE TO PROVIDE FOR REPRESENTATION IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS AND ESTABLISH ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES COMMISSIONS
Mitchell William Sharp: for leave to introduce Bill C-36, to provide for representation in the House of Commons, to establish electoral boundaries commissions and to remove the temporary suspension of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.


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


Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. As Canadian housewives and Canadians generally pay what is probably the highest price in the world for sugar as a result of Canada's inflexibility and parsimonious attitude to producing countries during the 1973 sugar talks, will the minister assure the House that Canada will now take the lead in negotiating a new sugar agreement.


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, we shall be interested in negotiating a new sugar agreement if we can find the basis for a new sugar agreement which will provide for stability of supply for consuming nations and fair prices to producing nations. So far we have not been able to find that basis.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In order to avoid the confusion which arose during the 1973 sugar talks concerning Canada's unwillingness to negotiate a fair price for sugar, will the minister tell the House what price Canada is now offering sugar producing countries for their sugar?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, no active negotiations are going on at present. I indicated to the House that we have two preparatory groups which are ready to proceed, both with respect to questions concerning stability of supply and the question of price. We shall be prepared to sit down with producing nations as soon as they indicate to us that they are prepared to meet, as well. I should point out also that Canada is not alone in wishing to take part in these negotiations. Canada is but one of a number of consuming nations. A large number of under-developed countries are consuming nations and net importers of sugar rather than net exporters. They, too, have very important views on the price of sugar.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the statement of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, made in the

November 22, 1974

House on November 7, that he was waiting impatiently for the Minister of Agriculture's recommendations as to the possibility of increasing to a certain extent sugar production in Canada, has the minister conferred with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs about this? If so, what were the minister's recommendations? If not, will the minister please explain to the House his tardiness in this matter.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and I are always conferring about something. May I inform the hon. member that one reason the document in question was not sent to the hon. member for Perth-Wil-mot sooner is this: I was meeting representatives of the sugar beet producers of Canada in my office and we are actively working together in trying to solve this problem.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
George H. Whittaker: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of reports to the effect that sugar companies in the United States have increased profits by between 1,200 per cent and 2,000 per cent and as sugar costs the consumer in Canada almost one third more than it costs the consumer in the United States, let me ask, what in hell is going on with sugar prices in Canada.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Considering that 100,000 automotive workers in the United States have received word that they will be laid off immediately or very soon, and, consequently, as the industry has announced that it will lay off workers in Windsor, St. Thomas, Ajax and Oshawa, and that more lay-offs will follow in Canada, what has the minister's department done in terms of forecasting future lay-offs? Further, what plans has the department made in order to deal with these forthcoming, serious lay-offs in this industry?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, we have the matter under continuing study. I indicated that I participated recently in a number of meetings with members of the industry. As for the second part of the question, let me refer the hon. member to the statement made by the President of the United Auto Workers of America. He pointed out that Canadian economic policy seems to be much better designed to maintain a buoyant climate for the automobile industry in this country than is the case in his country.
Oral Questions


John Edward Broadbent: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The president of the UAW was comparing what they have down there with what we have, and I suppose in that context his recommendation was not bad. I do not want to be frivolous, although the minister has tried to suggest this is not a serious matter, as he usually does. May I ask the minister this: As it is estimated that one job in six or seven in Canada is related directly or indirectly to the automotive industry, what studies has the minister's department undertaken into the indirect effects of United States lay-offs which will affect employment not only in southern Ontario, but everywhere from St. John's to Vancouver? Has the minister's department determined what other industries will be affected if the inevitable lay-offs in the automotive industry take place? What has the minister done to counter the indirect effects?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, we do not accept the premise of the hon. member's question. We do not think there will be the large number of lay-offs to which he refers. I have said to him that we expect lay-offs of a short and periodic nature from time to time, as a result of the situation in the United States. Indeed, at present we are witnessing a number of lay-offs in companies supplying parts to U.S. automobile manufacturers but, according to indications, these will be of a relatively short duration. I do not anticipate, at present, massive lay-offs in Canada such as have taken place in the United States, or such as the premise or preamble to the hon. member's question suggest.


AUTOMOBILES-SUGGESTED REDUCTION OF DIFFERENTIAL IN PRICE BETWEEN CANADA AND UNITED STATES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a final supplementary question. Considering that consumers in Canada, automotive workers in Canada and in the United States and the American government have all been pressing the government of Canada to bring down the price of automobiles in Canada, which would be a method miles ahead of any other for generating employment in the industry in Canada, and considering that on the assembly line in Oshawa this morning two identical cars were produced, one to go the United States and one to be sold in Canada for $1,000 more than is charged in the United States for that car, the price differential being considerably greater than the 7 per cent or 8 per cent differential the minister has talked about, when is the minister finally going to do something to reduce the price differences in this industry?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, as I have assured the hon. member and indicated to this House recently, we have made real progress in narrowing these price differentials. I remind the hon. member that the Canadian market is strong, probably for two reasons, these being, first, the general economic climate of this country, and second, the fact that the price differential has been narrowing. I remind the hon. member that import today account for close to 15 per cent of the total market, whereas two years

November 22, 1974
Oral Questions
ago they accounted for close to 25 per cent. That is a reflection of the narrowing of the price difference.


John Edward Broadbent: With respect, it is not.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
A few day ago, a big and influential American magazine, which is very close to the American government, stated that if it were not for American industries, Canadians would be only trappers and dirt farmers. I should like to know whether the Prime Minister or some high official of the government has challenged the magazine and advised it that at one time the Canadians saved the United States and that even today, were it not for Canadian raw materials, several of our insignificant southern friends, such as the one who showed off in the Baron Magazine, would be starving like rats. Has the Prime Minister advised them of that?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: No, Mr. Speaker, we cannot waste our time replying to all the nonentities who have such erroneous opinions about Canada.



CONFLICT OF INTEREST


Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Water-loo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It arises from the statement of the Prime Minister that his government "believes that no higher standards should be demanded of anyone than of ministers themselves." In light of the fact that conflict of interest guidelines for civil servants require them to disclose apparent conflicts of interest while there is no requirement of disclosure on the part of cabinet ministers, can the Prime Minister tell the House why his government is insisting on more stringent rules governing the conduct of civil servants than those governing their political superiors?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I may have misunderstood the purport of the question, but there are, of course, guidelines requiring ministers to disclose conflicts of interest.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Apparently the Prime Minister forgets the statement he made to the House last year in which he said cabinet ministers could put their holdings in so called blind or frozen trusts, as did the Prime Minister. Is it the

policy of the government to allow civil servants to place their holdings in frozen trust, which remain secret from everyone except the individuals involved and their trustees at the same time as they are able to influence public policy that may directly enhance their holdings, as is the case with cabinet ministers?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, that is not the case with cabinet ministers nor will it be the case with civil servants who each have to report to the minister on the action they have taken to eradicate or eliminate any conflict of interest.


Henry Perrin Beatty: I suggest that perhaps the Prime Minister does not understand the regulations for cabinet ministers. In light of the fact the present regulations regarding ministers allow conflicts to continue hidden behind frozen or so-called blind trusts and no provision is made for the holdings of spouses and the reporting procedure has ministers accountable to a civil servant and not to an officer of the House, is the government giving consideration to replacing its guidelines with a system of full, true, plain and public disclosure of the assets and liabilities of all ministers, their spouses and dependent children, before an officer of the House?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member is obviously making a series of representations on what he thinks the conflict of interest guidelines should be. We have laid the guidelines before the House.


Henry Perrin Beatty: They are just a smoke screen.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We are prepared to defend them. If members opposite feel they do not go far enough, they in conscience can take their own action, as did the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi.


Henry Perrin Beatty: You campaigned on leadership.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If the hon. member feels he is in a conflict of interest situation, surely in his own conscience he should go further than he has.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Prime Minister. In view of the upcoming agreement between Ottawa and Quebec with regard to the recruitment of French-speaking immigrants to Quebec and Quebec's establishment of immigration bureaus in Portugal, Spain, Morocco, Portuguese Africa, Haiti and Latin America, will the Prime Minister indicate how this matter can be reconciled with the October 22 statement of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration whereby immigrants would be coming into Canada on the basis of job vacancies when the unemployment rate in Quebec is consistently higher than that of the national average?
November 22, 1974


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of all the offices that the hon. member alleges will be opened. Certainly, some that he named are not in French-speaking countries. However, the reconciliation will of course be made by the fact that all immigrants, no matter what their ethnic origin or linguistic group, will have to come under Canadian laws and regulations. The provinces are not in any position to exempt any immigrant from those laws and regulations.



AGREEMENT WITH QUEBEC-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE NO CHANGE MADE

Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: In view of the 1971 agreement between the government of Canada and the government of Quebec whereby the immigration bureaus of the province of Quebec could only interview prospective immigrants who had been referred to federal immigration officers, will the Prime Minister assure us that process will not be changed? I ask this question in view of the fact this agreement is now being re-negotiated.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I know of no plans to change that agreement. The whole object of the procedure referred to by the hon. member was precisely to ensure that the Quebec representatives would have facilities in proximation to the federal facilities so there would be no danger of confusing a prospective immigrant and he would know the overall situation, I repeat, I know of no plan to change that situation. I will take notice of the question on behalf of the Minister of Immigration in case there is something to add.


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a supplementary for the Prime Minister.
Given the importance, for the province of Quebec, of having a higher proportion of French-speaking immigrants, would the Prime Minister be prepared to give particular attention to that possibility?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am under the impression that we have never seen more clearly than today the division among the Conservatives on the question of bilingualism.



CONFLICT OF INTEREST


Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It may be supplementary to the question asked by the hon. member for Well-ington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo. A loophole in the Registered Home Owner Savings Plan has been identified whereby a husband can transfer the family home to his wife, save up to $10,000 tax free and then buy back part of the house. Department of Finance officials are aware of this loophole. I quote from an article that appeared in this morning's Gazette:
Oral Questions
Property transferred to a spouse remains her property in the event of a divorce-a possibility most individuals would not want to risk.
Can the Prime Minister indicate whether there is similar reasoning behind his view that spouses of cabinet ministers need not be subject to conflict of interest regulations?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



REQUEST THAT SUBJECT MATTER BE REFERRED TO A COMMITTEE

Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to continue on this question of the government's reluctance to come clean on the question of conflict of interest. I refer to the refusal yesterday of the government House leader, in reply to a question asked by the hon. member for Peace River, to indicate the time of reference to a committee of guidelines concerning conflict of interest. I ask the Prime Minister to now give us a date when there will be a reference to a committee on the conflict of interest question and give us a specific commitment that the terms of reference of that committee will be broad enough to allow consideration of the Lalonde affair and all potential conflicts, including spouses of ministers.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there is no reluctance on the government side to refer this to a committee. We indicated in the previous parliament we were doing this. In this parliament it is a matter of House leaders getting together, deciding when they will make the reference and what the terms will be. I, personally, am looking forward to the views expressed by opposition members in the matter of responsibility of spouses. I look forward to seeing what position they take insofar as the respect of the individuality of the spouse is concerned and whether they intend to withdraw from wives or husbands the right to act on their own in areas which come within the law.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question, which is on another subject, is addressed to the Prime Minister. When can we expect a definitive statement of policy in this House on the subject matter of last Monday's cabinet meeting, namely, the embargo by the United States against the importation of beef and hogs into that country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The note to the United States was tabled in the House and it was made clear that we are expecting a response from the United States. I imagine the next step will be to hold meetings of officials so that we can discuss that response,

November 22, 1974
Oral Questions
and perhaps place the matter before a meeting under the provisions of GATT.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: I am not talking about the response of the United States to the note. I am talking about the response in this House, or the opportunity afforded the opposition to make a response in this House to the policy of the government. It is a completely different matter.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We are very anxious indeed to have the views of the opposition on this as on other matters. Surely, the present debate on the budget is an occasion which will permit the hon. member and his colleagues to express their views on this question-they seem to be talking about everything else which is irrelevant.



COMBINES


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance.
Following the important stock exchange operation which was carried out yesterday and which saw the control over Price Company Limited, a Quebec-based firm, fall into the hands of Abitibi Paper Company Limited, a Toronto-based firm, does the minister intend to order an investigation into the methods used in this case which have been reportedly detrimental to a number of small investors who, for all practical purposes, have been swindled pure and simple.


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: I take notice of this question, later to give the hon. member a more complete reply.



SARNIA-MONTREAL PIPELINE-DATE INTERPROVINCIAL FIRST RAISED QUESTION OF SUPPLY-GOVERNMENT INTENTIONS WITH REGARD TO CONSTRUCTION

Mr. John Fraser (Vancouver South):: My question is for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. I hope he will consider this one to be relevant. It refers to the Sarnia-Montreal pipeline. The minister of energy admitted to the House only last Thursday that the Interprovincial Pipe Line Company has become concerned lest there might not be adequate reserves to supply the line in early 1980's. Since the construction of this pipeline has been government policy for more than a year now, it seems strange that such concern should not have been raised until some time last month. Can the Prime Minister tell us, in the absence of his colleague, the date on which this concern by Interprovincial or others first came to the attention of the cabinet or of himself?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I cannot mention the exact date, but I will gladly take note of the question on behalf of the minister.


John Allen Fraser: Just to try to keep the question relevant, and to put it in very plain English, or the other official language-and this should be a question the right hon. gentleman can answer without referring to the minister of energy-may I ask whether the government is still committed to the pipeline project? Is there a timetable for its completion, and, if so, what is it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I shall take note of that question, too.



FINANCE


Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance in the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the fact that in British Columbia private gas companies have the right to shut off all natural gas at the wellhead rather than be forced to operate at a loss, as would be the clear effect of motion No. 9 in the Ways and Means motions we are, considering, would the minister advise us whether he is urging that the price of natural gas in the Pacific Northwest be renegotiated in order to make marketing arrangements in British Columbia viable? Or is he willing to see the British Columbia Petroleum Corporation collapse?


John Napier Turner: I do not
accept the preamble. I do not even accept the conclusion from the preamble on the basis the hon. gentleman has put it.



POSSIBLE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION RAISED BY WAYS AND MEANS MOTION NO. 9-SUGGESTED REFERENCE TO SUPREME COURT

Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Aside from the question whether the preamble is acceptable or not, would the minister agree that motion No. 9 in the Ways and Means motions brings up a constitutional question and might interfere with traditional rights under the British North America Act, and that it certainly destroys whatever marketing arrangements for natural gas exist in British Columbia at the present time? Would the minister urge the Prime Minister to call a conference of first ministers in this country before the legislation involving the Ways and Means motion is presented to this House so that one of the most serious federal-provincial confrontations which could ever occur in this country might be avoided?


John Napier Turner: That is up to the Prime Minister, but I would not urge it at this stage.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: In view of the very serious constitutional issue which arises both with regard to the question of royalty deductions and to the question of fair market

November 22, 1974

value in assessing the income of private oil and gas companies, would the minister at least consider making a constitutional reference to the Supreme Court of Canada on this subject so that before a confrontation takes place we may be in possession of a definite decision as to whether the minister is acting constitutionally in connection with the budget now before the House?
Mr- Turner (Ottawa-Carleton): I cannot see that there is anything in the British North America Act which would apply to royalties being deductible for income tax purposes.



POSSIBLE IMPOSITION OF IMPORT QUOTAS ON EGGS FROM UNITED STATES

Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, or his parliamentary secretary, or for the Minister of Agriculture. I should like to know, from whoever answers my question, whether the Canadian government will be placing import controls on eggs coming into Canada from the United States as from Monday.


Mr. Gaston Clermont (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I take notice of this question and will refer it to the minister.



AGRICULTURE


Jack Burnett Murta: Since it seems apparent that this is what will happen-that the price of Ontario eggs will be going up on Monday, and the only way in which this can take place would be by preventing eggs coming into Canada from the United States, I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he will be making a statement as to the pattern of trade relations which is developing between Canada and the United States? Will he make such a statement during the early part of next week, possibly on Monday?


Eugene Whelan: Definitely not on Monday, because I shall be meeting with the provincial ministers of agriculture to discuss this very problem. I want to make it clear that there will not necessarily be any statement made.
Oral Questions FINANCE



DATES OF MEETINGS AND NAMES OF VARIOUS GROUPS


Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Given the fact that in the budget he stresses that cost-push inflation is still a serious problem and that he proposes to deal with it by meeting with representatives of various sectors of the economy, can he tell us the specific dates of these contemplated meetings and name the specific groups he proposes to meet in connection with these consultations?


John Napier Turner: Not today, Mr. Speaker. Consultations are proceeding between the Prime Minister and other ministers and various groups on an informal basis. In due course a statement will be made in the House.


James McPhail Gillies: Can the Minister of Finance tell us whether or not part of the terms of reference of John Young is to declare an incomes policy for Canada?


John Napier Turner: The answer is, no.



POSSIBLE SHORTAGE OF OIL-SUGGESTED SHELVING OF PETROLEUM ADMINISTRATION ACT AND BUDGET PROPOSAL ON OIL ROYALTIES

Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In view of the prospect envisaged by the National Energy Board that Canada's self-sufficiency in oil may not be long maintained, and that shortages may arise within seven years even if exports to the United States are cut, would the Prime Minister consider shelving the Petroleum Administration Act as well as the proposal put forward in the budget speech dealing with royalties and other disincentives to the production of oil in this country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice.
# (1230)


Paul Yewchuk: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Prime Minister indicate whether, in view of these reports of insufficiency in the near future, he intends to put before the House some new and extraordinary measures to encourage an accelerated rate of production of petroleum products in this country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member can wait and see.


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Peace River is rising on a question of privilege.
1574

November 22, 1974
Oral Questions


Gerald William Baldwin: I see the Prime Minister about to go, but it has been brought to my attention that during the course of a legitimate exchange on the question of conflict of interest a short time ago, the Prime Minister made a derogatory remark about an hon. member on this side. He pointed across the Chamber and called him a name which is quite improper and unparliamentary. The right hon. gentleman is nodding his head. If that is the case he should stand up and tell the House what he did say and who the hon. member was.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Surely, in questions of conduct or language and their proper usage and respect for parliamentary custom the Chair can only take notice of remarks that are on the record. I was not able to hear the remark referred to, and unless the Chair heard it at the time I could not pass judgment on it.


Mr. Alexander:: Stand up like a man and show that leadership.


Mr. Hees:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Prince Edward-Ixast-ings on the question of privilege.


George Harris Hees: I hope that the right hon. gentleman will get up and say what he called the hon. member on this side and withdraw the taunt. If there is any doubt about what was said, I heard it three times and would be glad to repeat it.


Mr. Speaker:: The Prime Minister is rising on the question of privilege.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman is referring to the hon. member who asked me a question relating to divorce in my family, I would gladly repeat to him what I said. If he wants to step outside I will tell it to him to his face.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: On the question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Calgary Centre on the question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Resign.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, first off I want to say that I deeply regret that the Prime Minister or anybody on that side of the House took the interpretation of my remarks that he did. I would invite hon. members to examine Hansard. I can assure the House that my points- and hopefully one does not have to attest to the validity of the position by making some declaration or oath-in raising the question were twofold. First, I thought the reply by the official of the Department of Finance that the threat or risk of divorce was sufficient deterrent to anyone making use of that loophole was a ridiculous basis upon which to make law in this country. Secondly, I also wanted to re-emphasize, along with other members on this side, a point that my leader emphasized earlier this week

and one, about which we feel very strongly, namely that guidelines on conflict of interest which require semi-disclosure in the form of a blind trust on the part of cabinet ministers, but no disclosure in terms of the spouses of cabinet ministers, are in fact no disclosure at all.
Contrary to reflecting on the family life of any cabinet minister, we are operating on the assumption that their families are of such a make-up that they could make use of this loophole in the conflict of interest guidelines. I repeat that I regret the Prime Minister did not see fit to remain and hear these remarks. There was no intention whatever, in anything that I have said or I am sure anything in what my colleagues have said, to reflect upon the personal life of any member of this House. But that does not get away from the fact that it is important for the people of Canada to have the assurance that there is no conflict of interest on the part of cabinet ministers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Réal Caouette: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Temiscamingue rising on a question of privilege?


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order or a question of privilege, it does not matter. I think that we are wasting precious time in the House discussing conflicts of interests. Nobody in Canada, I think, would allow a minister representing the government to travel at the expense of a private company. However, I will point out to my Progressive Conservative friends that when they were in power, we learned that ministers of the Crown flew to Boston football or baseball games in government planes. This was unauthorized.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. With the greatest respect, the question at issue is not the subject of conflict of interest and guidelines related thereto, except in so far as these relate to the question of privilege that has been raised. I think it might be appropriate to get back to the original question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), and again by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees), which was based on an alleged remark made by the right hon. Prime Minister.
I have heard hon. members in discussion of this question. One of them was the right hon. Prime Minister who made reference to a remark about divorce. Accordingly, I allowed the hon. member for Calgary Centre the opportunity to explain what his remark meant in his own terms. In any case, the only relevancy of the question of conflict of interest in that context was as an explanation of the hon. member's reference to divorce, so far as it related to the alleged question of privilege.
With regard to the question of privilege, again I say I have benefitted from the contribution of hon. members to the question of privilege, which basically arises from something alleged to have been said sotto voce by the Prime Minister. It is not on the record, the Chair was not able to hear it, and accordingly I am not in any position at

November 22, 1974
this time to rule on it. It may come to light in some other way if there is an actual and formal complaint by a member who was aggrieved or offended by the remark itself. Since I do not have it before me at this time, I would hope that hon. members might now busy themselves by concluding the remaining five minutes of the question period.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, Your Honour has disposed of the question of privilege. I would rise on a point of order. Accepting the invitation of the Prime Minister, and in order that this matter may be brought out before the public as it should be, I right now indicate my willingness to meet with the government House leader to arrange terms of reference so that this House can have a full public and independent inquiry into the facts.



HOUSING


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs.
As the United Nations have agreed to the Canadian proposal for an international conference on human establishments in Vancouver, in June 1976, is the minister in a position to advise us as to whether Canada has since received a favourable reply from the provincial governments and from private institutions expressing a wish to participate in it by advocating worthwhile projects?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I could hardly hear the question because of the side talk. As I understand the question by the hon. member for Abitibi, let me say there has been a great deal of interest by the provinces, non-government organizations and municipalities in the United Nations Conference on Human Settlement in Vancouver in 1976, known as "Habitat '76". The demonstration projects are only incidentally related to that conference. It is an ongoing program for five years and there has been considerable interest. We are having regular meetings. There is an excellent and progressive advisory committee which receives these submissions and we hope to have an announcement in the not too distant future on the initial projects that have been approved.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, my question was to be addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who seems to have had too much of Parliament and has withdrawn.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member raising a point of order?
Oral Questions


Gérard Laprise: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have been rising three times to put a supplementary to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs and I have not yet been recognized. I wonder why other hon. members are being recognized for supplementaries while I am unable to obtain the same attention.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I raised the question of privilege and, in my opinion, it has priority over any other issue.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Veterans Affairs-


Gérard Laprise: My question of privilege is this, Mr. Speaker. A moment ago I raised on a point of order and I asked you to make a decision on this point. I am now asking you to make a decision.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will realize that it is always within the discretion of the Chair to allow or disallow supplementary questions in some instances, particularly late in the question period when there are many members who have not had an opportunity to ask a question, and when the Chair is endeavouring to get around to as many members as possible. The nature of the question of the hon. member for Abitibi invited a general response and an indication of developments that may take place a considerable time in the future. Having received a complete answer to that, it is within the discretion of the Chair to suggest that the hon. member ought not to be granted the opportunity to pose a question supplementary to the one he has asked and has had answered, but that other hon. members ought to have an opportunity. That has always been the discretion of the Chair, and that does not constitute a point of order or question of privilege.
[DOT] * *



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in view of the many references made on November 5 and November 6 during the recent debate on the Veterans Land Act to the possibility of introducing veterans' housing legislation, which would be even better than the provisions of the Veterans Land Act, could the Minister of Veterans Affairs now say whether such legislation will be introduced in the near future?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as was indicated by myself and also
28543-3 iVi

November 22, 1974
Oral Questions
by my colleague, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, this proposal is still under study, and I feel good progress is being made.



SURVEY OF VETERANS HOUSES IN NEWFOUNDLAND- POSSIBILITY OF ASSISTANCE FOR IMPROVEMENTS

Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. As a result of a survey conducted by the provincial command of the Canadian Legion of Newfoundland, looking into the substandard quality of many veterans' homes, would the minister indicate whether he has received the results of that survey, and if he is going to advance any program to provide recipients of war veterans' allowances and other veterans with government assistance to improve the substandard quality of their homes?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have received the first part of that survey, which I note is in parts and is not yet completed. When it is completed and has been fully studied by my department, if there is policy to be derived from it, there will be an announcement in due course.


Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, my question was for the Secretary of State for External Affairs, but in his absence perhaps I might direct it to his parliamentary secretary. I wonder if I could have the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


An hon. Member:: 

AGRICULTURE


Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture who has announced his discovery of the great demand on the productive capacity of our farmers, and has announced his intention of increasing that capacity by 50 per cent over five years. Will he tell the House today what the government will do to assist the cattle industry in Canada over the next few years, and particularly what it will do to help that industry get over the coming winter, thereby preserving and industry so vital to the farm sector?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very plain and clear that the hon. member is taking what I said at least partially out of context. I said that if our farmers were given the incentive-stabilization, etc.-they will increase their productivity 50 per cent in five years, and we are going to bring forward plans for stabilization, etc., to help all sectors.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, in light of the minister's planned meeting on Monday with provincial agricultural ministers, will he tell the House today if he is prepared to brief those ministers in respect of a formula which would
give the cattle industry the cash advances necessary to get it through this winter so that cattle farmers will not have to sell off their breed cows?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the main purpose of that meeting to be held with the provincial ministers on Monday is to discuss the egg marketing problem we are facing in Canada at the present time, and the follow-up meeting we are to hold with them in July. They have appointed an ongoing committee of provincial and federal representatives to study the situation and make a report. There is no doubt in my mind that other topics will possibly be put forward, and the one the hon. member has mentioned will perhaps, be one of those topics for discussion.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, November 21, consideration of the motion of Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton) that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Stanfield (p. 1502).
Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I should first like to congratulate the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) on what I sincerely believe is the best economic budget we have ever had in that it is reasonable, sensible and of benefit to all Canadians. Certainly, the reductions in income tax will be of benefit to all Canadians, as will the reduction in the tax on building materials which amounts to a saving of $650 on the purchase of a home. I should also like to refer to the $500 grant to those purchasing new, moderately priced homes within the next year. I think this provision should have gone a little further and made the grant available to individuals purchasing their first home who, because of limited income, must of necessity purchase an older home. I think they, too, should have the benefit of this $500 grant.
I am receiving a great many representations from people on low incomes who want to purchase a home for the first time but can only afford an older home. Surely they should be given some consideration by the government in respect of this proposed grant. To this end, I hope the Minister of Finance, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson) and the cabinet as a whole will give consideration to this matter and will come up with a proposal as soon as possible.
I have congratulated the minister. It is not often that I rise and give out congratulations, but today I will speak of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) who represents Winnipeg South. I would be in favour of main-

November 22, 1974

taining the number of armed forces personnel at the target of approximately 82,500. I know the minister is making representations to the cabinet to this end, and also to obtain a sufficiently large budget to provide our armed forces with the proper, necessary equipment for training, for peacekeeping activities, for NORAD and NATO, for aid to civilian authorities, and so on. I believe the Minister of National Defence has done a tremendous job in making these representations to the cabinet. The minister has also done a great job in bringing industry to western Canada, at the risk, in many instances, of being criticized. He has put his job on the line and his head on the block. The Minister of National Defence is very sincere in what he is doing; and with reference to pork-barrelling in certain areas, there is certainly less of it in western Canada, especially in Manitoba and Winnipeg.
I would like to refer to some things the minister might have done. With regard to the 12,697 pairs of snowshoes which are being purchased in Ontario at a cost of over $100,000 more than if they were purchased in Winnipeg at the retail price, I compliment the Winnipeg Free Press for bringing this matter to the attention of the public. I am certain that the fact they were not bought in western Canada is not the fault of the minister. I shall now refer to some things that the minister has done to the benefit of western Canada-and there is no doubt that the west needs a lot more help. Since we have been debating the budget, the opposition have made frequent references to the fact that very few Liberal members are from western Canada. It was said yesterday by opposition members- and I listened very carefully-that this government does not pay enough attention to western Canadians and this is the reason so few Liberals represent that part of the country.
I say to you, Madam Speaker, that the voice of the Minister of National Defence and the voice of all western Canadians is clearly heard and listened to. I suggest that without doubt western Canada would receive its fair share even if there were no Conservatives representing it in this House nor, for that matter, any Liberals. As I have said, there are very few of us; however, I think the number is unimportant. What has the Minister of National Defence done to benefit western Canada? Let me give a few examples. The Arctic trading centre in northern Manitoba at Churchill means that the expenditures of the Canadian forces personnel living permanently in Churchill, in addition to the expenditures of hundreds of personnel sent there from time to time for training, will help to strengthen the economy of northern Manitoba. This trading centre was opened in response to requests from the town of Churchill and the people living in the area, as well as requests from members on this side of the House.
Throughout the province there was during the past year a substantially increased expenditure by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. Within the last year, 41 incentive grants have been made to encourage small business activities. More than 1,450 jobs have been created in Manitoba as a result of federal government grants. I am not referring to the year 1974 but, rather, to the period ending December, 1973. For example, there was the decision to build a defence research establishment in Winnipeg, another project which was brought to Winnipeg by the Minister of National Defence. This will mean more
The Budget-Mr. J.-P. Guay
jobs for university graduates in Manitoba because the variety of skills and trades related to this research project will provide more employment. Although there are seven defence research establishments throughout Canada, employing more than 2,000 people, there has never been such an establishment in Manitoba throughout the 107 years of Canada's history. This is also to the credit of the minister from the province of Manitoba.
With regard to protection of the north, increased activity and interest in the north will be created by the decision made to have Canadian naval crews undertake some of their training at Hudson Bay and Manitoba's port of Churchill. I am glad to be a member of parliament from that area. Canada is a three-ocean country and Canadian sailors should be as familiar with Arctic waters as they are with the Atlantic Ocean and the Pacific Ocean. The Minister of National Defence can be credited with establishing the training base in the northern port of Churchill.
The minister has done many other things to benefit western Canada, Manitoba in particular. To name but a few more, there is the Boeing aircraft plant in Manitoba, the fresh water research institute at the university of Manitoba, built at a cost of some $8 million, the new federal building on Main Street and major renovations at Lower Fort Garry. Let me also point out that part of the Royal Canadian Mint was moved to Winnipeg, where all coins in circulation in Canada will be minted. These are certainly assets for western Canadians and we thank the minister for them. He made an all-out effort to show Canadians that no matter whether they support this government or not, they are not forgotten. The mint in Winnipeg will also be minting coins for many other countries. [Translation]
In addition, Madam Speaker, I would like to put on record in Hansard the various subventions my constituency and particularly the great number of French Canadians who live in it, have received. I am referring to the subventions allocated to the official languages program in the constituency of Saint-Boniface, from 1969 to 1974.
Madam Speaker, may I call it one o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, at one o'clock, when the House took recess, I was just starting to enumerate the subsidies to language training in my riding of Saint-Boniface. As you know, the city of Saint-Boniface itself, and not the riding, has a population of 50,000, although the two other cities in my riding, Transcona and St. Vital have a population of respectively about 26,000 and 39,000. Saint-Boniface, has the most important group of French Canadians in the west, and that is where we got subsidies under the terms of the language program.

November 22, 1974
The Budget-Mr. J.-P. Guay
I should like to take this opportunity to put them on record. Very briefly, I will say that the SFM received, from 1969 to 1974, $562,000 for Social animation, $120,000 for support, $29,340 for publicity and $81,930 for support and activities. The Cercle Moliere received $6,500 for publicity, and $99,300 for support and activities. As you know, Cercle Moliere is well known through Canada. The choir "Les Intrepides" got $7,250 for broadcasting and $7,300 for its operations. The "100 Nons" received $5,950 for broadcasting and $35,050 for operations. The Saint-Boniface cultural Centre received $150,000 for support and administration for the period 1969 to 1973. This is a federal-provincial program. Furthermore, the cultural centre also received another $75,000 in 1973 for operations and activities.
Another organization sponsored by SFM, "Manico-pains", received $2,000 for operations, "Melo-Mani". $15,000 the "Gais Manitobains", $6,320 also for operations and the "Mini-franglais", $10,000 for operations and rapprochement which gives a total of $1,213,540 and this does not include grants under Local Initiatives Programs. And there are many other things I am not talking about.
I would like to add that the Pedagogical Institute at St. Boniface College, which is located in a new building, received, once again with the provincial government's help, $1 million in 1972-73 towards the construction and operation of this building and another $95,000 for operations, which makes up 25 per cent of the cost, the balance being paid by the provincial government. The library of this college also received another grant of $25,000.
Mr. Speaker, I am mentioning these things because I believe it is important to get them on the record not only for the organizations which received these amounts but also that other people in my riding might know what is happening.
I would also like to mention the fact that insofar as the Secretary of State is concerned, for the year 1974-75 ending March 31, franco-manitoban SFM expenses will total about $301,800. That means that the cultural centre will receive, for 1974-75, a share of $100,000, social animation, $107,000, French-English relationships, $21,800, youth, $18,000, broadcasting, $25,000, special projects, $10,000 and I am not mentioning other grants totalling $20,000.
I thought those things deserved to be mentioned along with the others.
I would also like to mention federal participation of up to 90 per cent towards construction of senior citizens' housing. As you are aware, these are arrangements between the federal government and the provincial government, under which the federal government always lends 90 per cent of the amounts required to build these houses. We have the same situation with other programs we set up with the province. The people who live in those buildings are inclined to believe that it is the provincial government that gives those things to them, and not the federal government. I think we must stress our participation in these programs and openly tell the aged that the federal government lends 90 per cent of the amounts, that it set up the program New Horizons for the Aged and that it deserves credit for that.
(Mr Guay (St. Boniface).]
I submit that the federal government is not being given enough credit for programs resulting in the building of homes including those for senior citizens. The people of Canada ought to know that we, the federal government, through Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation make available 90 per cent of the funds in this area. By far the greatest proportion of the cost of these homes is borne by the federal government through grants and other payments, and not by provincial governments. Of course, the federal government has provided substantially increased financial assistance for housing of all kinds, including low-cost housing, senior citizens' homes, and so on. For example, in one year the federal government provided $94 million for housing programs in Manitoba. These facts are well worth noting.
I see that the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie) is present. What I am about to mention I think will interest him. I am referring to an article, by Frances Russell, carried in the Winnipeg Free Press of November 18 last. The headline is, "Fired on from all sides". The article refers to the efforts of the Minister of National Defence to have Air Canada establish an overhaul base in Winnipeg. It speaks of Air Canada building its own $15 million hangar to be used for overhaul work of its own and other aircraft. The target was the creation of 800 jobs. I have spoken to the Minister of National Defence about this, and I will say that when he makes a promise he always fulfils it. I have discussed the matter with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and have been assured that this promise will be fulfilled. Actually, the Prime Minister made the statement on behalf of the Minister of National Defence. So I wish to reassure my constituents that this promise will be carried out and it will be of significant benefit to all Manitobans.
I now refer to my own bill, Bill C-139, which was presented in the previous parliament. The same proposal is now before this House but the number of the bill has been changed. I believe that members on all sides supported my previous bill and I hope they will wholeheartedly support my present proposal. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Mar-chand) and his officials support my proposal. I believe it would have been carried if the election had not intervened. Of course, what is proposed can be carried out in many different ways. Although the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) established the Hall commission to look into various aspects of railway workers' pensions, and although that commission is doing a good job and I see nothing wrong with it, I believe its establishment was a holding tactic because it will be a long time before the commission makes its recommendations.
That is why I have brought forward my own proposal. The government may consider the advisability of implementing it, or of doing the same thing through order in council so that railroad workers will not remain orphans, as they now are, and will be given the same benefits as are accorded to employees of other Crown corporations such as Air Canada. The employees of other Crown corporations have available to them superior pensions. I believe railway workers and railroad pensioners should be given pension benefits at least as good as those given to
November 22, 1974

employees of other government agencies. There should be parity of pensions. I believe my solution would not cost the government any more money than it is already supplying to the CNR. The time has come for all employees in the public service and in Crown corporations to be treated alike.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) is known for his courage in defending people of his constituency. The remarks he made today show that he has courage in defending the minister from Manitoba. That minister needs all the defence he can get because, when the chips are down, if he cannot fulfil what he has promised he must resign from the cabinet. I hope the hon. member for St. Boniface will be on his side when that fight takes place.
Ordinarily, budget speeches try to deal with subjects which the House should face. But the present speech does not face the facts of life; it does not really deal with international monetary affairs. The entire world, including Canada, is wondering whether western nations are not plunging headlong into another ten-year depression. One would expect the budget to tell us how the government plans to head off a depression in this country, but it does no such thing. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) does not seem to be aware that there are no models, no precedents to follow in the current situation. Domestic monetary and fiscal policies in Canada are still based on the concepts of the 1930s, on the concepts of Lord Keynes. Those concepts are obsolete. For example, we face shortages of internationally-traded commodities.
If we were doing our duty in this House, this debate would be centred on the necessity to develop models to grapple with the new situations which have arisen. This budget is, in a narrow sense, simply the old establishment bunch handing out a few goodies here and there. When one adds it all up, it means that you take $2 billion from the suckers-the taxpayers-because of growing inflation, and hand them back a quarter of it. Instead of dealing with the problem of inflation, particularly with regard to trade, we find our country aligning itself with resource-deficient nations of the world, especially those within GATT. We see them turning down all the efforts of the newly-developing nations to organize themselves and get a fair price for their products. We take the side of the fat-cats in a walled city handing out a few crumbs at the gates.
I could go on listing all the things a budget debate should include, but they would have to take second place to the real issue of this budget. The real issue is that this government is, unilaterally, changing the constitution of Canada. By unilateral action it is ignoring the efforts of many people over the past 20 years to find a way of bringing the constitution home and finding a way to amend it by consultation with all Canadians. The government is plunging ahead on a unilateral course that can only be described as a declaration of open war on the provinces of this country.
This is a federal state. This federal state is unique. There are not many federal states in the world and the one
The Budget-Hon. A. Hamilton
we have is unique because it seems to be working better than any other federal state. I do not intend to make a long analysis of the federal system of the United States, Malaysia, Australia or any other country that has the system. I am simply saying ours has worked reasonably well for 107 years. It is an example to the world that people of different regions and different ethnic backgrounds can get along together.
This situation is being challenged. The excuse for the challenge is that there is supposed to be a shortage of oil and gas in the world. When the parliament of 1972 met, on behalf of the official opposition and with the support of the NDP I proposed to the resource minister of this country that because the world shortage of certain resource commodities, particularly energy, offered Canada one of the greatest opportunities in its history, we should develop an industrial strategy that would bring industry here on a comparative advantage basis. I proposed that all parties should pull together and help to develop not only a national energy policy but a national resource policy, and from that an industrial strategy with all the nations of the world, as a result of which everybody would benefit.
I thought that offer was accepted. We were told to wait until July, when the government would bring out its two-volume report on energy. We were told, on that basis, that we could have consultations with industry, with the provinces and the various parties in parliament, and we would evolve such a policy. However, all that fell apart on September 4, 1973, with the panic actions of the government trying to convince Canadians that the Liberal Party was the party for the consumers. The only thing of substance they had to offer was a voluntary agreement to keep the price of oil at $4 a barrel. Later that month the government brought in the export tax. They said that half of the tax would go to the producing province and half to the federal government. In November they brought on the phony oil crisis. Here were we, a nation surplus in oil, being told we must tighten our belts in order to survive. The minister said we would be short 200,000 barrels a day. I said at that time it was a shocking revelation that would increase tensions in our federal system.
The minister was so desperate in trying to make himself the Grinch who stole Christmas that he even advised Canadians to sleep two in a bed and pull down the blinds. That is how scared he wanted to make the Canadian people. In my innocence, I thought we always slept two in a bed and always pulled down the blinds. That was a phony crisis.
What was the position of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition during this period? One, consultation with the owners of these resources so they would work in co-operation for the national good. Two, to give a cushion to consumers so they would not be harmed by the rapid rise in oil and gas prices. Three, to work on a program of staging price increases that would be fair to consumers and to producers, and in harmony with the facts of economic life. Since all this staging and cushioning would be carried out as a subsidy from producing provinces, we asked that there be a quid pro quo for the producing producer. We asked the government to accept the fact that the provinces are now subsidizing us at the rate of $3 billion a year, and

November 22, 1974
The Budget-Hon. A. Hamilton
we should see that they got something in return so they would not mind continuing the generosity.
All parties supported a one-price system, (a) to help individuals, and (b) to bring industry into this country because we can produce things more cheaply with our great reserves of energy. Finally, after a lot of pressure the government gave in: they held a conference of ministers in January and a conference of first ministers in March, 1974.
In this House all parties said, after the wild panic of the fall, that statesmanship had been restored to Canada. We congratulated everybody for being able, after consultation, to bring us together. However, within hours of that agreement the government introduced into this House the petroleum administration bill of last session, Bill C-18, which constituted a breach of the agreement that had been made. They broke their word to the ten governments within hours of having given it. That can be seen in the evidence given before the committee on energy, mines and resources.
In this parliament the government brought in a revised version of the petroleum administration bill: they included natural gas, which was not part of the agreement, and the oil sands, which was not part of the agreement. They broke another agreement made by the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald), and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) when they assured industry that if they would put a billion dollars into the tar sands the government would not impose price controls on this resource. This bill breaks this agreement of the two ministers and the Prime Minister.
As I read this petroleum administration bill I see there is no staging formula as promised in the agreement, and no terminal date. The government wants a permanent situation. There is no quid pro quo to show we are asking two provinces to subsidize every Canadian to the extent of $3 billion a year. Above all, there was no consultation. The government said, in effect, "If you do not agree, we will enforce it; we will put in our own agreement."
The budget of May 6, the parent of this one, added the coup de grace. It said in effect, "Not only are we breaking the agreement we make with you, but we are going to break the constitution; we are going to say that the property to the people in the provinces, provincial resources, is no longer protected by the British North America Act," which states that resources belong to the provinces, and that one government cannot tax another government. The federal government said, "We shall breach sections 109 and 125 of the B.N.A. Act and declare that provincial royalties on all the resources in a province are non-deductible." The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) went on to refine that doctrine. In the election campaign he said, and I paraphrase, "We accept the fact that a royalty is the constitutional property of the people of a province, being their share of ownership, but it is only constitutional if it is a little royalty. If the royalty becomes really big, it is not constitutional."
As one of my hon. friends is quick to observe, this is like saying that a female can be partially pregnant or a little pregnant. In fact, it is all or nothing. I suggest that the war on the province which started on May 6 is now the issue

which must be resolved, not only by this parliament but by the legislatures of every province in Canada as well as by the people of Canada generally. The budget of November 18 will be known as "the war on the provinces budget." Certainly, there are a few olive branches in it to industry and to the provincial governments. The government said, in effect,: "We'll reduce our share of the profits by two points and the provinces should do likewise." If the provinces match pro rata the two points which the federal government drops, the tax will have been lessened by four points. So if the provincial government is taking 60 per cent of the profits of an industry, and the federal government takes 30 per cent, adding up to 90 per cent, then on this new olive branch theory we shall be asking industry to put up with 84 per cent.
Anyone with any knowledge of the industry knows that people who put up billions of dollars to develop these resources are unlikely to be able to operate on the basis of 84 per cent if they cannot operate when 90 per cent of their profits are being taken away from them. However, I do not want to become too involved in the details of the subject because it leads us away from the main issue. The main issue is this: the federal government is determined to establish control over provincial resources; it is determined to establish a price control system on a permanent basis; it is determined to control the supply of all resources from beginning to end. I am not talking about oil alone; I am talking about every resource, including coal, hydro, asbestos and all the minerals within a province. This is open war on the provinces. Just 107 years after the constitution was written, the federal government declares its intention to control the supply and price of provincial resources, and I refer to every aspect of provincial resources, including land.
The second thing which is obvious about the budget is that the government is amending the constitution unilaterally. All the phony conferences which have been held over the years, asking for opinions, are to be disregarded. My hon. friend, the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), who is rarely moved to strong words, called this treachery and deceit. I endorse the language he used. It is a planned conspiracy to change the constitution and to centralize the control of resources by bureaucrats here in Ottawa.
I have been as patient as I can hope to be with the hon. member for Rosedale who holds the energy, mines and resources portfolio. I know how difficult it is to learn all the details of this involved industry. I thought in the beginning, when I was watching him two years ago, that I was just dealing with an amateur. Then I realized that in spite of all the hard work he has done to learn all the gobbledygook-in fact, he reminds me of a computer; you push the button and get the answer-and despite all the programmed answers he has been giving, he has been blundering around, rushing this way and that way. I can only describe him by recalling a situation I encountered as a young lad. A man was walking along the street with his head away out. The farmer I worked for commented: "Here's my head; my heels are coming." In the case of the minister it is, "Here's my mouth; my brains are coming."
I do not intend to go into this matter in detail, but the Prime Minister as this parliament unfolds, will be known
November 22, 1974

as the Bronfman boy. I will say no more than that. The Minister of Finance is no longer just the nice guy, regurgitating what has been fed to him; now he has demonstrated to us that he is like a willow tree that bends in the wind in order to stay in the cabinet. He knows enough about federal systems around the world to understand the need for constant consultation. When the powers of one jurisdiction conflict with those of another, or when they overlap, there must be consultation if the system is to survive. That is why I declare this budget to be a war on the provinces. It is out to destroy the constitution and to set up centralized power. The government is choosing the course of confrontation with the ten provinces rather than the traditional approach through consultation.
My mind goes back to the years of the government led by my right hon. friend from Prince Albert (Mr. Diefen-baker). I remember the then minister of labour, Michael Starr, when putting together a winter works program which was clearly outside the jurisdiction of the federal parliament, saying to the municipalities, "This is how we will help you. If you want us to help you, first you must get permission from your province." No province refused the municipalities. In this way thousands of people were employed during those years of unemployment.
I can recall the same minister's work in the field of education, which is entirely outside the jurisdiction of this parliament. He went to the provincial ministers of education setting out details of the manner in which he was ready to co-operate if permission was obtained from their provinces, and we were the first government which really helped in the educational field. Take the roads to resources program: the federal government has nothing to do with building roads in the provinces, yet those roads were built with provincial consent. The ARDA program affected an area almost entirely within provincial jurisdiction, but every province accepted it. I remember the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale), then minister of resources, setting up the machinery to bring an important consultative group into being; he was the minister who established the council of resource ministers, a technique for constant consultation.
I could go on and on, but I think I have made my point. All I can say is that the battle is joined. British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan will be fighting. Soon, Ontario and Quebec will join them. Hon. members have read the words of an ex-minister of the Crown, Mr. Kierans.Even that great centralizer, Mr. Lynch, believes in consultation now. I know the provinces will unite. They have to unite. Instead of being a confrontation between one big boy and one or two little boys, it will be a contest between one big boy and a lot of others. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have had the opportunity to make these comments. On another occasion I look forward to making some suggestions for dealing with this situation which I trust will be interesting to hon. members.


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to take part in the budget debate, because until now very few speeches have dealt with the budget proper. I believe an attempt is made
The Budget-Mr. Chretien
to divert attention by introducing the problem of federal-provincial relations on the resource issue. I believe the budget has been extremely well received, since it includes provision by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) for the transfer to the taxpayer, under various forms, of almost $800 million to help increase its purchasing power and allow him to face the current situation.
I would like to say a few words in this resource debate, because it is apparently suggested the federal government wants to take over resources. It is a fact that resources are under provincial jurisdiction, and we are fully aware of and in total agreement with that fact. Interprovincial and international trade however is the responsibility of the federal government. The federal government acted to fulfill its responsibility to make sure the development of resources benefit all Canadians. If anyone suggests the Minister of Finance and this government will not negotiate I would invite him to read the budget speech. The Minister of Finance made provision in his budget, following representations by provinces, for a partial withdrawal on the propositions put forward in April. But I hope the provinces will also understand their responsibilities. We agree that the oil industry, because of present difficulties, needs some extra liquidities at this time to keep on with its exploration work. We therefore hope the provinces will do as much as does the federal government to accommodate the industry, and this in my opinion will solve the problem. Actually, the province of Alberta wants to try to take the opportunity provided by the Minister of Finance who stepped back to give more cash flow to the oil industry. Alberta would like to take one more bite in revenues from-


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: Who closed the door? [English]


James McPhail Gillies: The federal government has no constitutional right to be there in the first place.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: We have constitutional rights in interprovincial and international affairs: that is clear from the constitution. At the federal-provincial conference we reached agreement with the premiers of the ten provinces to supply oil across the border. It is clear that the industry should also make some contribution to the coffers of the national government. What is happening at the moment is that the provinces are trying to obtain big settlements for their economies and isolate themselves from the federal tax collector so that they do not share in the responsibility of running this country.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: That is a distortion.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: If we, as the federal government, do not have the right to tax the resource industry, what industry do we have the right to tax? Tell me what is written in the constitution which says that the government shall tax one industry but not another?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: You are taxing the royalties.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1'he royalties are royalties no more.
1582

November 22, 1974
The Budget-Mr. Chretien


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the minister, but I would remind hon. members that we are not in the proceedings of a committee of the whole. [English]
We are not in committee of the whole, where we ask questions from one side of the Chamber to the other. The minister should be allowed to make his remarks without too much interference, and if time is available at the end, I am sure he will accept questions.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I had a speech all ready, dealing with expenditures and so on, but I am a little fed up when the story is put that way and we do not tell the other side of the story to the people of Canada. It is the duty of this government to make sure there is equality in this land. If we were to tax Quebec in this way, I would make exactly the same speech that I am making today. Members of parliament have the right to discuss government business, but they should also make sure that the wealth of this nation belongs to everyone. I should like the hon. member from Ontario to rise and tell other members from Ontario that for years and years they paid a high price for oil and gas in order to protect the market for Alberta. But who speaks of that now?


Walter David Baker: That is another
distortion.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I am very pleased to speak about this matter, but not as a Quebecker. I am speaking as a man. For four years the people of Kingston paid a lot of money for their oil in order to help Alberta develop its resources. Now, because the Arabs have increased their oil prices, these people would like to sock it to the people of Kingston. If the hon. lady does not want to defend the people of Kingston, I will defend them. This is why we have confederation. When times are tough in some parts of Canada, it is the responsibility of other parts of Canada to help. I resent this, and I would have the same resentment if Quebec had done the same thing. I should like Quebec and New Brunswick to be in the fortunate position of giving money to Saskatchewan or Alberta because of unforeseen new wealth.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: You do not know anything about the oil industry.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I know everyone regards me as an easterner, but my grandparents on my mother's side lived in Alberta and I know that when times were tough for them they were very happy to have some help from the federal government in order to survive. I know that, not because I was told but because it is part of our family history. This is why we have confederation. I do not like hon. members not looking at both sides of the argument.
We see, in Canada, socialists in Saskatchewan trying to set up Crown corporations to isolate the resource industry from federal taxation. I do not accept that kind of socialism which does not spread wealth across the land. When hon. members rise in the House and talk about the poor, they should consider this particular aspect and then tell the government of Saskatchewan not to use this kind of

scheme to hide profitable provincial industries from the tax collector of Canada.
I was not prepared to speak about this topic, Mr. Speaker, and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) is well able to defend himself. He made a very good speech, and I am glad to see him back in the House. I am sure the government of Alberta will start to think things over. We have moved in the right direction. There were many meetings between the two levels of government, and the budget is a move in the right direction. In the tax field we have moved back to make some money available to industry; and if the government of Alberta wants to find the liquidity needed for industry in the province to expand, they should do likewise.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: You took that away in May; don't forget that.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: That is how I see the problem, and I always like to speak my mind. That is why I think I should give hon. members a break, because apparently when I speak my mind they get excited. I will take my text and just read it in the traditional way. I have always felt that this issue should not be only one-sided, and I hope members will understand that.
The last time I spoke at length about government expenditures was when the House was in committee of the whole considering the first supplementary estimates for this year. At that time I tried, in the briefest possible terms, to explain the content of government expenditures as they had developed and as reflected in the estimates presented to the House up to that time. That very day I was given some encouragement to believe that an understanding about the nature of government expenditures had begun to penetrate the understanding of a number of members opposite because the comments made were, in the main, constructive and sensible. Unfortunately, the comments of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) were an exception. He proceeded to classify the total budget expenditure indiscriminately as a rip-off and spoke of expenditures as being out of control, playing again the same old theme he has played on so many occasions over the years.
However, my message must have done some good because I note that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), in his remarks on the budget earlier this week, generally spared us the usual expressions of horror about government expenditures. The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), when he followed and spoke on behalf of his party, was similarly restrained. I am not in the least accepting what they said about the subjects they raised, hut at least we heard no easy generalizations about waste, extravagance and about cutting expenditures. Therefore, I am encouraged that the attempts I have made, and those of my predecessor in this ministry, to inform our colleagues opposite about the composition of government expenditures are beginning to be successful.
This morning I tabled a second set of supplementary estimates for the year. I want now to anticipate some of the questions that may arise, and to place the estimates figures in clear relationship with the figures used by the
November 22, 1974

Minister of Finance in his budget. This second set of supplementary estimates is very large-$1,749 million. They are larger than any previous supplementaries for one circumstances which also dominated the budget speech: this circumstance is, of course, inflation.
Almost three-quarters of the supplementaries, that is $1,200 million, are related in some way to inflationary pressures either in the way of new costs created by inflation or in the way of increased expenditures the government has decided upon to soften the impact of inflation for some groups of Canadians. These latter expenditures should be recognized as a continuation of the government's well established policy of selective countermeasures, where we see they are most called for, to deflect the full brunt of the very real distress that rapidly increasing prices can cause.
Let me give three or four examples. The government has doubled the provisions made for subsidies on manufacturing milk and cream from the $125 million in the main estimates. These supplementaries add another $125 million. In the same item in the estimates, which takes the form of a payment into the agricultural stabilization account, there is also included the money needed for the premium quality beef program which operated until August, 1974, and has now been replaced by a price stabilization program. There are $202 million in additional payments to the provinces under the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act attributable to increased tax yields in certain provinces, which are in turn attributable in great part to the effects of inflation.
There is an item of $118 million to compensate the railways for their having frozen the level of freight rates throughout this year. The additional contributions to the provinces under shared-cost programs affecting hospital insurance and university education total $125 million because hospitals and universities have higher costs to meet. We have no control over those costs; they just send us the bill.
I wonder, in passing, if hon. members opposite would stop their tirade about federal-provincial relations long enough to take note of the fact that much of the federal government's expenditure at this time, and at any time, is made up of payments to the provinces. They should stop to see how well this fact squares with their charges of centralization and betrayal. One might expect even an opposition at the federal level to adopt a more responsible line.
Another portion of the supplementaries is related to economic development and supply, such as $18 million more in capital subsidies for the construction of commercial and fishing vessels and $20 million for a loan toward the completion of the heavy water plant at Glace Bay. That is the plant started by the Leader of the Opposition when he was premier of the province, and he forgets that he put some salt in the water rather than using clear water. There was also $50 million in loans to the CNR, and $19 million for hydro projects in the north by the Northern Canada Power Commission. We have, as well, additional social measures including $30 million for Indian economic development and other needs of our Indian and Innuit population, and about $90 million related to the Local Initiatives Program for this and the past season.
The Budget-Mr. O'Sullivan

Up till now, Mr. Speaker, government estimates total $24,516 million. In view of the usual difference in expenditures-indeed, experience has shown that about 2 per cent of all the credits are not used-I expect that real expenditures as concerns estimates submitted up till now will total about $23.9 billion.
The Minister of Finance set the total expenses to be incurred during this fiscal year at $24,850 million. Excluding serious unanticipated requirements, this means that we are once again expecting to submit supplementary estimates for expenditures of approximately $900 million. The largest item in these estimates will apply to oil import compensations which would be paid under the act yet to be passed by Parliament.
The Minister of Finance included a few tables in his speech of last Monday. One of these tables shows the budget expenditures for 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1975-76, that is the real expenditures for the first year, and of course expected expenditures for the other two. The figures and increased percentage from one year to the next are as follows: in 1973-74, budget expenditures amounted to $20,040 million, or an increase of 24.3 per cent over the previous year, increase which is mostly due to the new family allowances. In 1974-75, expected budget expenditures amount to $24,850 million, or an increase of 24 per cent over 1973-74. In 1975-76, Mr. Speaker, budget expenditures are expected to be $28,750 million, which means an increase of about 15 per cent over 1974-75.
In this respect, it is most important to understand that the increase is largely due to inflation and to one of the inflation related measures. I am talking about compensations for oil imports. This item alone will increase by $1 billion the expenditures of the current fiscal year over those of last year. This sum subtracted, there has been an increase of only 19 per cent between the real expenditures for 1973-74 and estimates for 1974-75.
I do not intend to keep at this at length, even though I have other notes. I just want to say in concluding that next year, we want to reduce new expenditure to a minimum. Of course, the expenditure will rise because 56 per cent of the budget is related to outlays which leave us no choice at all, such as the automatic indexation of old age security and family allowances, or equalization payments over which we have no control.
I can assure hon. members we are determined to contain the level of expenditure next year, as much as it will be possible so as not to further feed inflation and create a situation whereby government expenditures could cause additional problems for Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, I am glad I had this opportunity of making those few comments. I have not finished my speech because I should have liked to give an ad lib outline of my views on federal-provincial relations and the problem of provinces which make exaggerated claims on the new wealth discovered within their boundaries.


Mr.   Sean@: Mr. Speaker, in considering the budget presented in the House
1584

November 22, 1974
The Budget-Mr. O'Sullivan
last Monday a time honoured phrase keeps coming to mind, caveat emptor. I say so, Mr. Speaker, for upon cursory examination the budget seems to be a rather impressive piece of work. It looks good. And, when presented by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), with his customary style and aplomb, it sounds good. There is no doubt that it contains some worthwhile measures, but any member of parliament who has watched how this government operates cannot help but react with some concern, and caution the Canadian taxpayer to beware before buying without reservation the minister's fourth attempt at a budget.
Like the minister, I do not claim to be an economist and, like the minister, my instinctive reaction is to think of the constituents whom I am honoured to represent and to ask how this budget will affect the labourers of east Hamilton, the merchants in Ancaster, and the young couple in Stoney Creek who dream of owning their own home.
There seems little point in asking how this document will affect the farmers in Glanbrook and other parts of my riding because in this budget they seem to have been forgotten, left out in the Ottawa cold.
At the same time I share with other members of the House a responsibility to consider the impact the budget will have on Canadians everywhere, particularly upon Canadians who, like the people of Hamilton-Wentworth, still subscribe to the belief upon which this nation was founded and has prospered, who still believe that a man should get what he works for and that he should work for what he gets.
In considering this budget we must recognize that the foundations of our society have been shaken by a crippling wave of inflation. Indeed, we are now being made aware of the very real possibility of a serious recession. One might accept the design of this expansionary budget to prevent already high levels of unemployment from reaching disastrous proportions. However, if the government lays claim to virtues in combating unemployment, it must also accept the blame for contributing to it.
Thousands of jobs go begging in Hamilton today, including high paying jobs at the steel companies. Among the reasons are government policies which discourage incentive and make it more inviting for some simply not to work. The cost to Canadians of the Unemployment Insurance Commission remains at over $2 billion, yet this government still refuses to have an independent inquiry to clear up the mess and clear away the waste. One can only conclude that the government is indifferent to such waste, or it is afraid of an inquiry.
It would appear that the minister continues to embrace the outdated tradeoff between unemployment and inflation. Surely this simplistic concept has been discredited, and it is no longer reasonable to ask Canadians to accept higher and higher rates of inflation in another attempt by the minister to keep unemployment at levels the government considers tolerable.
In an economy as complex as ours it becomes imperative that the twin scourges of unemployment and inflation be attacked jointly and decisively. Anything less is an admission of the inability of the government to cope with the problems it was given a mandate to solve.

We of the Progressive Conservative Party have long called for cuts in the tax bills of Canadians, made possible chiefly through a re-alignment of federal spending priorities and elimination of government waste. And so, while we welcome the minister's announcement of a cut, however small, in personal income tax, we view with alarm the fact that the federal government's budget continues to increase at alarming rates and itself feeds inflation.
Canadians are becoming even more concerned at the tremendous size and expense of government without experiencing any commensurate tangible benefits. In welcoming the small cut in taxes the Canadian taxpayer should not lose sight of the fact that what he is receiving is not a gift but just a bit more of the money he worked so hard to earn.
It is analagous to the Minister of Finance taking a $10 bill which has fallen from someone's pocket, then turning around and giving back $2-apparently out of the goodness of his heart. The poor luck fellow would think he had just met a very kind and generous man, until he discovered that he was missing his $10. Then he would realize he had just met Canada's finance minister.
Clearly these tax cuts could have been more meaningful if only the government would practice in its own spending the kind of restraint it asks of workers in setting wage demands, and of companies in setting their prices. One need only go through the spending estimates of almost every government department to find examples of duplication and waste. While there have been some very worthwhile projects, we still hear examples of thousands of tax dollars going to highly questionable LIP and OFY projects. One must not forget the Company of Young Canadians, even though the government would like to, Mr. Speaker. Recently we learned that External Affairs granted over $300,000 to a terrorist group in Africa. One wonders, in view of Canada's shameful abstention at the United Nations, whether similar aid will soon be granted to the murderous Palestinian Liberation Organization.
The government could also be more responsible in deciding where money should be spent. We recently heard the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) admit that our armed forces can no longer afford to patrol Canada's north to watch for Soviet incursion into our territory. The government continually downgrades our involvement in NATO, using budgetary restraints as an excuse. Canadians would not begrudge the careful use of their tax dollars to ensure the morale of our armed forces, to protect Canada's sovereignty, and to honour our commitments to international peace and freedom.
In this debate there has been much discussion about Canada's resources and Canada's future. I think we would all agree that, in terms of her future, Canada's greatest resource is the potential of young Canadians. If that resource is to be developed fully we must offer all young Canadians, regardless of their financial background, equality of opportunity to acquire an education and useful skills.
Although education falls within provincial jurisdiction, the federal government long ago recognized the need for it to assist in this important field. Since costs of vocational
November 22, 1974

schools, colleges and universities are increasing tremendously I would simply like to reiterate the words of another hon. member who sits in this chamber, and who said:
I hope that some day we will move toward a gradual reduction and an eventual abolition of student fees at all levels ... I am not suggesting that we should subsidize the small part of the population that may have the talent or initiative to obtain a university education. I hope that in the whole realm of technical and vocational education, as well as university education, we would move gradually toward the elimination of student fees.
I endorse those words which appear on pages 6616 and 6617 of Hansard for June 20, 1966, and were spoken by the then member for St. Lawrence-St. George. Today he sits in this House as the member for Ottawa-Carleton, and on the treasury benches as the Minister of Finance. Now that he is in a position to do so, I hope he will act upon his own worthwhile suggestion.


James McPhail Gillies: Don't count on it!


Mr. O'Sullivan:: Mr. Speaker, an area in which the minister has taken some positive action is with regard to the housing crisis. For several years my party has called for the elimination of the 11 per cent federal tax on building materials. The minister took a step in the right direction by reducing this tax, but as the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) pointed out, the collection of a 5 per cent tax still requires as big a bureaucracy.
Additional bureaucrats will be required to administer the grants of $500 to each purchaser of a new home, so long as it is "moderately priced". In setting its standards of what constitutes moderate pricing, I would hope that the government will bear in mind the astronomical increases in housing costs in recent years, especially in southern Ontario, and I would suggest that the limit be set just slightly below the going rates to encourage developers to bring down the prices of their units to the acceptable level. Ultimately, however, I think we have to forgo such patchwork measures in favour of a wholesale review of housing financing.
As pointed out by Dr. James Johnston, an economist and publisher of the Cobourg Sentinel-Star, it is simply no longer fair to ask potential homeowners to compete for loanable funds from the same sources as giant corporations, which can meet high interest rates and even charge them against taxes. In finding a way truly to assist Canadian families in housing, we can start on the road to the desirable situation of having double income families by choice and not out of sheer economic necessity.
To this point, Mr. Speaker, my remarks have dealt with a few of the technical aspects of government economic policy. It has become a tradition to look upon a budget as some kind of a periodic report of revenue and expenditure of government. I strongly feel it should go beyond that and truly be a statement of social purpose as well.
That is why the highlight of this budget, for me, was the recognition by the Minister of Finance of Canada's obligation to do everything possible to combat the world food crisis. My concerns about this terrible and continuing tragedy were outlined when I spoke earlier this week in the debate on Bill C-10. So, at this time I simply wish to commend the minister, in a very sincere and non-partisan
The Budget-Mr. T. C. Douglas
way, for reflecting the feelings of all of us and for undertaking a commitment to our brothers and sisters in mankind who look to us for help.
May that statement by the minister also start a tradition of making the budget a commentary on the social, as well as the financial policies of a government. We cannot separate productivity from the question of our qualify of life. We should not talk of consumption without speaking of conservation. We must not set out to create jobs without first deciding conditions of work.
We must recognize that the facts and figures side of a budget is not all that an economy is, or all that it should be. And one must remember that the gross national product measures neither our wisdom nor our courage, neither our integrity nor our compassion. So, Mr. Speaker, a budget should say more, not just about our national productivity but also about our national spirit.
I commend the Minister of Finance for the positive efforts contained in his budget. I hope he will accept my comments in the spirit with which they are offered, for although we have our differences about some of the budget provisions and other government policies, I believe he is doing his best at a most difficult time. For the sake of the people we all seek to serve, I wish him well.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Madam Speaker, if I had the time I should like to discuss several aspects of this budget, which I consider is designed to help those who have too little by giving tax concessions to those who have too much.
Since I only have a limited time, however, I propose to devote myself primarily to that portion of the budget which deals with resource taxation, the repercussions of which could cause great disunity in this country. I discuss this question as one who, throughout his political life, has been a firm advocate of a strong federal government. I would go further. The New Democratic Party has consistently supported the concept of a strong federal government clothed with the power necessary to deal effectively with social and economic problems. For instance, the New Democratic Party advocated and supported a two price system for oil, and a single price across Canada, in order to protect the Canadian people against the 400 per cent increase in international oil prices.
The New Democratic Party has supported Bill C-32 which is still before the committee of the whole of this House and which will become the Petroleum Administration Act. If this bill is passed it will provide that, in the event negotiations are not successful with the provinces, the government may establish a price in Canada for all oil and gas entering into interprovincial and international trade. On November 13 and 14 I argued in this House that the federal government must have that power if we are going to deal with the problem of energy supplies in this country. I must say, however, that the budget may cause us to re-examine our position if the federal government intends to use its powers in the ruthless manner which it is now displaying.
Canada needs a strong federal government in order to cope with the many problems of this country, and nowhere is this more necessary than in the field of energy where we are faced with a crisis in the years immediately ahead.

November 22, 1974
The Budget-Mr. T. C. Douglas
But we contend that the powers granted to the federal government should not be used to trample upon the legitimate rights of provincial governments, nor should those governments be tricked into agreements which are later repudiated.
I think the provincial governments acted in a statesmanlike manner at the First Ministers Conference which was held in Ottawa on March 27 last. On March 28 the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) paid tribute to the provincial premiers in the following terms, as recorded at page
933	of Hansard. He said that we had reached:
... An agreement... which stands as a tribute to the vitality of our Canadian community ... yesterday was a great day for federalism.
The Prime Minister went on to say, as recorded at page
934	of Hansard:
The national oil agreement I have just described would surely not have been possible without the good will and deep commitment to Canada of the premiers of Alberta and Saskatchewan.
I submit, Madam Speaker, that these tributes were well deserved.
What did the oil and gas producing provinces agree to do? They agreed to accept a price of $6.50 per barrel, when the Chicago price at that time was between $10 and $11 per barrel, and now it is much higher. Every barrel of oil sold in Alberta and Saskatchewan is being sold for $5 less than could be secured on the Chicago market, plus transportation. In other words, the provinces gave up over $2 billion. I am one who supported what they did. Considering the type of national emergency we faced then and which we still face, a price must be set to protect the Canadian people from exorbitant international oil prices. The provincial premiers agreed to this.
Further, they agreed to forgo the 50 per cent share of revenue from the export tax which they had received up until then. On the basis of the production of 1,200,000 barrels a day during the last 12 months, one can say that Alberta and Saskatchewan gave up some $800 million or $900 million from this source. Those were great concessions, and the Prime Minister was right in saying they were made possible only with the good will and deep commitment of the provincial governments concerned.
In return the Prime Minister committed the federal government first, to a just and reasonable price for this depleting resource; second, to assist the provinces in developing new oil resources; and, third, to help those provinces ensure alternative economic development. In order to carry out the commitment to assist the provinces in developing new oil resources the Prime Minister agreed, and so reported to this House, that the federal government would allow the oil producing provinces to set up capital funds for resource development, into which they could put their additional oil revenues, and that those funds would not be taken into consideration in determining equalization payments.
Let me put the Prime Minister's words on record. They are crystal clear. He said, as recorded at page 934 of Hansard for March 28:
The House may wish to note that Saskatchewan intends to place most of its added oil revenues in a capital fund for energy develop-

ment; Alberta proposes to handle a high proportion of its added revenues in the same manner ...
While the revenues taken into those capital funds would not be subject to equalization, the federal government will, of course, pay equalization respecting any oil revenues that go into general funds.
That was the commitment. Nobody expected that revenues which went into the general account would not be taken into consideration in determining equalization payments. But there was the clear understanding that if a province chose to set up a contingency fund, a depreciation account to enable it to replace a resource which is depleting far more rapidly than most people realize, that fund would not be taken into account when the equalization formula is computed.
What happened, Madam Speaker? In the budget the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) says that one third of the additional oil revenues of those two provinces combined will be considered as revenues for equalization purposes. He is to do this by estimating the total amount which will be going into general revenue. But that is not in accordance with what the Prime Minister said on March 28, as I have quoted. He said that Saskatchewan proposes to put most of its revenue into the capital account. There was no mention then of lumping both provinces together, and there was no mention of roughly one third of the total amount which comes from additional oil revenue going into general revenue because Alberta proposes to put a larger amount into general revenue. Actually, Saskatchewan has carried out its part of the understanding to the letter. It has placed all its additional oil revenue, every nickel, into a capital account for resource development, because it needs millions of dollars if it is to develop heavy oil in the Cold Lake district.
The government is breaking its commitment. It is saying to Saskatchewan, "You will be lumped together with Alberta. We estimate that roughly one third of the total additional oil revenue of both provinces is going to general revenue and therefore you will lose, under the equalization formula, $40 million a year."
I submit that either the Prime Minister misled the provinces and the House when he reported to us on March 28, or the Minister of Finance has overruled the Prime Minister. The heir apparent is now telling the king what to do. This reminds me of what Shakespeare said:
Upon what meat doth this our Caesar feed,
That he is grown so great?
The provinces justifiably feel they have been tricked and betrayed. I submit, Madam Speaker, that this will not encourage federal-provincial cooperation. The west will feel that it is paying a heavy price for the majority it enabled the Liberal government to acquire in the last election.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The west does not provide the government's majority.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: But it
sent back enough members to enable the government to have its majority. The old arrogance is back. We can live with that. But welching on a solemn commitment is something which the Canadian people, including many Liberal supporters, will not condone.
November 22, 1974

Further, the government has shown its appreciation to the provincial governments for their cooperation by declaring that oil, gas and mineral royalties will not be deductible for income tax purposes by the producers of these commodities. For the first time in the history of Canada the federal government has said that royalties paid to a provincial government shall no longer be deductible for income tax purposes. This is utterly absurd. Why, Madam Speaker? First, royalties paid on freehold, say by the Canadian Pacific Railway or the Hudson's Bay Company, will be deductible, but royalties paid to a provincial government will not. I know of Canadian companies which own properties in other countries. The royalties they pay to foreign governments will be deductible, but royalties paid to a provincial government in Canada will not be, Madam Speaker.
If Imperial Oil Company spends $10 million in an advertising campaign to increase the consumption of gasoline, which we ought to be conserving, it can deduct that. However, if it pays $10 million in royalties to the oil producing provinces, that is not deductible. The argument made by the Minister of Finance, and made again this afternoon by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien), is that the government wants to share its resource revenues with all the people of Canada.
May I first point out that the federal government has other ways of taxing oil and gas companies. It could, if it wanted, impose an excess profits tax. On the contrary, it has reduced the tax rate and exempted the oil and gas companies from the 10 per cent surcharge. It could reduce the depreciation and depletion allowances. Instead, it has given them 100 per cent write-off for exploration and 30 per cent for development.
The sharing of oil revenues in all parts of Canada and treating everybody equally, is something which ought to be examined. I noticed a press release issued by Premier Blakeney of Saskatchewan the day before yesterday. May I quote a small part of it:
If Saskatchewan levies a royalty of $1 a barrel on Imperial Oil, we receive $1. However, for every $1 of provincial income tax paid by Imperial Oil, Saskatchewan's share is less than four cents. Imperial Oil is a large company, operating across Canada, and its provincial taxes are divided among the provinces according to a formula based on its wages and sales in each province-not its oil production.
So, for every dollar of provincial tax paid by Imperial Oil, Ontario gets about 30 cents, even British Columbia gets more than six cents. And Saskatchewan gets less than four cents.
When the government talks about everybody sharing equally in the taxes from the resource'industry, it seems that the tax structure which the government has built should be subject to re-examination. Moreover, Madam Speaker, are these royalties which are declared nondeductible on non-renewable resources to apply eventual-1 ly to renewable resources? On November 20 I asked the Minister of Finance a question with regard to royalties and stumpage duties. As recorded at page 1488 of Hansard, the minister answered in part:
If, of course, stumpage dues were to be converted from a flat, classical type of royalty payment into a disguised tax, we would need to look at that as well.
The Budget-Mr. T. C. Douglas
When is a royalty not a royalty? Answer: when the Minister of Finance says it is not a royalty. The Minister of Finance does not stop there in his bull in the china shop display of how not to get along with the provincial governments. In motion No. 9 of the ways and means resolutions we have a measure which will have the effect of either dismantling every provincial resource marketing agency or bankrupting the oil and gas companies operating in the provinces. British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan all have natural gas marketing agencies. Alberta has one handling methane and propane. The province of Saskatchewan has one handling petroleum. Let me give an example.
In the province of Saskatchewan, starting back 20 years ago, Saskatchewan Power Corporation was given authority not only to handle the production and distribution of electrical power, but also the transmission and retailing of natural gas. It buys gas from a producer at 16 cents per thousand cubic feet. It is sold to the people of Saskatchewan at no profit, as close to cost as possible.
Under the provisions of the No. 9 ways and means motion the government will have the right to say that the fair market value of that gas is not 16 cents, but 60 cents. The gas producing company will be required to pay its tax on the basis of having received 60 cents, or whatever other figure the government decides is fair market value, and not on the amount which it actually receives. In other words, what the Minister of Finance is seeking to do is to say that a provincial government cannot use a Crown corporation or marketing agency to give the people of that province the benefit of their resources at the lowest possible price. That is surely an infringement on the right of the provincial government.
The other day the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) said that this measure could force the provincial governments into nationalizing some of their industries. The NDP would certainly welcome that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: However, the Minister of Finance has already prepared a tactic to deal with that situation. Last Monday night at a press conference he said, and I quote:
Any province for its own ideological reasons that seeks to use this budget to nationalize industry and thereby capture revenues for themselves should think about it carefully, because then the federal Government will have to consider taxing Crown corporations.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. The time allotted to the hon. member has expired.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If I could have two minutes, Madam Speaker, I could finish this point.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Finance is saying that if a provincial government, with the consent and support of the citizens of that province, wants to set up a Crown corporation so that the benefits of developing its resources

November 22, 1974
The Budget-Mr. Mclsaac
will go to the people rather than to the private sector, then the Minister of Finance and the federal government will, if they think it right, tax that Crown corporation. Does the minister propose to tax Ontario Hydro, Quebec Hydro and the government telephone companies of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta? These are the things that come to the fore.
In conclusion there is to be a meeting of the Minister of Finance and the provincial treasurers on December 9 and 10. I suggest to the government that this House not deal with Bill C-32, and with the bills arising out of the ways and means resolutions, until that meeting has taken place. Until the federal government and the provincial governments have had a chance to discuss this, and until the Minister of Finance has had an opportunity to be informed as to what the effects of this budget will be, we ought not to be asked to deal with that legislation. This is a vital matter.
This Liberal government, which for decades has paraded itself as being the party that can bring national unity to our country, is taking steps at the present time that will cause more disunity than I have seen since coming to this House some 39 years ago.


Mr. Cliff Mclsaac (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to be taking part in this debate. It is a particular privilege to follow the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) who, as he said, has 39 years experience in this House as well as in the parliament of Saskatchewan. His contribution not only to Saskatchewan but to this country is well known to all Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: It is with a great deal of pride and humility that I make my first formal contribution to this debate. I wish to take advantage of the latitude normally accorded in the budget debate to discuss some of the aspirations, feelings and concerns of the people of my constituency, Battleford-Kindersley. I want to discuss some of their areas of concern and tell hon. members something about the nature of my constituency.
It is a large area in total acreage, primarily agricultural, and varying from good grain land in the southern part to grain land, grass land and excellent cattle country in the northern part of the constituency. Surprisingly enough, over half of my constituents live not on the farms but in urban centres such as North Battleford, and Battleford where 15,000 people live, Battleford, the City of Lloydmin-ster and some of the best towns in the west, like Unity, Rosetown, Kindersley, Wilkie, Kerrobert and Macklin.
During the course of the July 8 election campaign, along with my opponents and, I am sure, most other members on both sides of this chamber, I knocked on hundreds of doors and spoke with hundreds of people. I have been active in campaigns before, Madam Speaker, but this one was different. I want to tell you in what way it was different. First, regard! '~5 of their previous voting habits, people in my part of Saskatchewan did not want an election. They saw no need to be going into an election campaign. They

had just come through a tough, long winter and it had been a wet, late spring; farm work was weeks behind. To a large extent they blamed members of the New Democratic Party, and to a lesser degree members of the Conservative Party for bringing on an election.
I would point out, though, that while they did not want an election, people were happy to speak to me as a candidate-I am sure this applied to any other candidate who knocked on their doors. I have never had a better personal response regardless of how people voted in the past. I make this point in order to demonstrate the genuine interest and concern with regard to federal issues of Canadians in my province.
They are concerned about agricultural programs and policies which may, perhaps, affect them more directly than others. They are concerned about industrial development in Saskatchewan. They are concerned about such matters as local processing of agricultural products instead of this work being done at either end of the country or somewhere in between. They are concerned about the rising cost of farming, the rising costs of doing business generally, and they are concerned about the difficulty of getting manpower, whether to help on the farm or to help in the operation of a small service station. They are annoyed to think that some individuals can, and do, quit their jobs and draw unemployment insurance benefits while farmers and small business operators work double shifts to keep their operations going.
Saskatchewan people believe in working hard. They are not enthused with programs and policies which result in people being able to get along adequately by working only when they wish, or by working very little. Like most other Canadians my constituents believe that governments, both federal and provincial, are spending too much money. Mind you, at the same time when it comes to any cutbacks they believe, as do most Canadians, that such cuts should be made somewhere else. But inflation was and continues to be the cause of deep concern to my constituents.
The phrase "western alienation" has been bandied about in western Canada, in Saskatchewan and, indeed, in this chamber during recent years. The cause of western alienation is not easy to define. Indeed the definition of the phrase varies depending on the person to whom one is speaking. It means different things to different people. In some ways it is the east versus the west theme which we have been hearing for years. Ottawa is a long way from Battleford, Kindersley and Meadow Lake, and those places are further still from Montreal and Quebec City. This in itself is part of the problem-the geography of Canada itself. I mention these concerns felt by my constituents, I mention the reactions of voters in the campaign, and I mention this feeling of western alienation in order to give some picture of the thinking of my constituents before I discuss the resource taxation measures proposed in the budget.
This week we are hearing loud screams of agony from Mr. Blakeney, leader of the NDP government in Saskatchewan. On Wednesday we heard the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) criticize the budget in this House on the ground that it threatens confederation. Well, I have an oil industry in my constituency. There is a very considerable potash industry in Saskatchewan. Though
November 22, 1974

there are no potash mines in Battleford-Kindersley, the first mine to be sunk in Saskatchewan was sunk outside Unity; it never reached the potash but the know-how gained in the course of that operation led to the success of half a dozen other mines in the province. So resources and resource taxation are important to me and to my constituents.
I believe the provinces have every right to royalties from the resource industries. On the other hand I disagree with the concept now being advanced by provinces such as Alberta and Saskatchewan under which the term "royalty" includes not only rental rates in respect of resources but every cent of the profits of resource industries. The hon. member who spoke before me referred to Saskatchewan and the stand it had taken.
Let us consider the attitude adopted by Mr. Blakeney and the NDP government of Saskatchewan. What have they done to encourage resource development in the province? Last year they introduced Bill 42 in the Saskatchewan legislature, a measure which enables the provincial government to take 100 per cent of the selling price of a barrel of oil over and above the figure of $3.60, I think it was.


John Edward Broadbent: Hear, hear!


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: The NDP members opposite applaud.


John Edward Broadbent: Additional profit.


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: There were other measures passed which amounted to complete confiscation of the mineral rights of the province.


John Edward Broadbent: Rubbish!


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: It is not rubbish. If the temporary leader of the NDP would go to Saskatchewan he would find out for himself. That Bill No. 42 effectively killed any further development of oil, gas or potash resources in Saskatchewan. Here is the proof. In January, 1974, 17 permits were issued to drill oil wells in Saskatchewan. A year earlier, in January, 1973, 86 permits were issued. Bill 42 killed exploration in Saskatchewan long before the budget of May 6, and even longer before the budget of November 18. The NDP government in Saskatchewan made similar moves affecting the forest industry and the potash industry. The potash industry is the latest to be affected.
The most recent action taken by the provincial government effectively ended any possible hope of companies getting other than a nominal return, as decided by the NDP government, on their investment. New taxes of $87 million are projected for 1975.
But Mr. Blakeney says he still wants the 46 per cent of the money he is now spending that comes from Ottawa. Keep that coming-he wants that too. Of the $1 billion that the province budgeted for last year, over $400,000 came direct from the federal treasury. Mr. Blakeney says "Don't touch that. We still like those large equalization grants". Incidentally, in the last number of years, through federal-provincial negotiations ar J conferences, the equalization grant payable to Saskatchewan has grown from
The Budget-Mr. Mclsaac
about $10 million in 1968 to almost $150 million last year, due to revisions of the formula and developments arising from these conferences. They still demand their share of medicare and education grants, and they still take the additional federal money added to equalization a couple of years ago for school board spending in the province of Saskatchewan and seven other provinces.
So I ask hon. members opposite who have been crying about this budget threatening confederation, who is threatening the resource industry? Who is being greedy and taking high handed actions which are killing further exploration and development? I cannot accuse the province of Alberta entirely because they did not take 100 per cent of the profit, only 65 per cent. But who changed the rules in resource industry taxation? Who made the first move? Not this government.


Walter David Baker: You had to throw the second stone, did you?


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: Who is threatening confederation? Who is bleeding the resource industries dry in the province of Saskatchewan? Again I say it is not the federal government.
I am not happy with the situation in which the resource industries find themselves-far from it, Madam Speaker. I have communities like Lloydminster, Coleville and Kind-ersley that are dependent upon a healthy oil industry. Neither am I happy with the combination of moves by both the federal and provincial governments which are resulting in shutdowns of a number of wells in that particular area. I have made representations to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) to seek a better break on the export tax on Lloydminster heavy crude, which is not exactly a choice grade of crude, and I hope that this particular issue can be resolved so that oil continues to be in production and jobs in the industry in my part of the country are filled.
I may say also, Madam Speaker, that there is a definite feeling in western Canada, and certainly in my part of Saskatchewan, that the western provinces can stand some increases in revenue for the next one or two years or so, in short, some "catch-up" time if you like, to make up for some of the slack years of the past. Therefore, I urge the federal ministers responsible for energy, mines and resources and finance to keep this thought in mind as they deal with the rapidly changing issues of energy and resources today.
I spoke earlier of some of the feelings of my constituents. They want their fair share of the good things of this country, and they do not want more than their fair share. But they consider a fair share to be something more than they have been getting during the first 100 odd years of confederation. Above all, I want to say they are still Canadians first and foremost. They want one strong Canada, not ten strong states, with a weak central government.
In this respect I regret very much the narrow tone of the remarks made yesterday in this debate by the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk). I think any member opposite who speaks as he did is doing his province and his country a disservice in this regard. He contributes not to Canadian unity and understanding, but

November 22, 1974
The Budget-Mr. Cossitt
instead to disunity and misunderstanding. I think there is plenty of room for honest differences of political opinion between provinces and parties, but these need not result in continuing this divisive approach of the Tories and the parochial approach of the NDP.
I think the budget represents a fair compromise by the federal government on the proposals on resource revenue put forward on May 6-the tax abatement, the 100 per cent write-off for exploration costs-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That was not in the
May budget.


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: No, it was not, and that is what I am saying. This present budget is an improvement. The next move is up to the provinces. How far will the provinces go in pushing their demands, even at the expense of changing confederation? Which industries are next? I suspect that the NDP government of Saskatchewan will move in and take over windfall profits of farmers next. That would be a very logical move for that province to make. If the governments of the provinces continue in this direction, they will very definitely change confederation and weaken the national government in this country in so doing. I am concerned to see that the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources continue negotiations and, indeed, if need be enter into further trade-offs to maintain national unity
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, this budget had the general approval of the electorate on July 8. The tax relief measures for middle and low income Canadians were approved by Canadians on July 8. One of the provisions which was very popular during the election campaign was the exclusion of the first $1,000 of interest from income tax, and many other provisions in that budget received the approval of the people at that time. I am glad to see those measures brought back with the budget, and indeed other measures that will result in tax breaks for the average Canadian citizen. When one looks at this budget and the changes in direction it has taken since the May 6 presentation, it clearly demonstrates how responsive is this government to changing circumstances.


Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: the Prime Minister, and the script includes the bigot label for those who dare speak out against that silence.
Without any doubt, the real bigots in Canada today are those who sit in the front benches of this government; the Prime Minister and those who follow him blindly, apparently willing politically to manipulate this country on the basis of race and language for some questionable and peculiar purposes.


An hon. Member:: It is not very questionable


Thomas Charles Cossitt: This government, whose leader has spoken often and righteously of the need for national unity, is in reality moving along a most dangerous path that leads inevitably to the destruction of national unity, a path which the Prime Minister's predecessors from Quebec, those great men Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Louis St. Laurent, would never have followed, and a path I am certain is unacceptable to the great majority of Canadians, including those living in the province of Quebec.
In the midst of this stands that dithering dilettante, Commissioner of Official Languages, Keith Spicer, in theory a servant of parliament but in practice a tool of this government. He has consistently displayed a one-sided approach to the implementation of bilingualism, flitting about the country snickering and giggling his way from soiree to soiree, coining ridiculous phrases like "West-mount Rhodesians".
Two incidents instigated by Spicer and his office in my area of Ontario serve as examples of the reprehensible methods used by this government and its supporters in implementing bilingualism. The first occurred at Prescott, Ontario, when Spicer sent one of his investigators over the International Bridge to the United States with instructions to return immediately to Canada posing as a Frenchspeaking tourist coming home from a trip with a half empty bottle of wine in his car.
This sneaky individual with his phony story was apparently attempting to trap unilingual Canada Customs officers into errors that would incriminate them in the guise of supposedly conducting an investigation of the port's bilingual facility. This member of Spicer's staff, or perhaps I should say Spicer's gestapo, even stole a scratch pad from the office counter when the customs officers were not looking. He brought it back to Ottawa and gave it to Spicer. In due course Spicer complained to the Collector of Customs that the scratch pads being used by his staff were not bilingual.
Aside from its comic Dick Tracy aspects, this incident has a serious side. It illustrates the lengths this government is prepared to go in undermining public service morale by spying on conscientious employees, sneaking around in disreputable fashion attempting to create trouble for those who are unilingual, and all this disgraceful behaviour carried out in the name of national unity, and in the name of fairly implementing bilingualism.
This summer, just a month or two ago, at the Thousand Island Bridge at Lansdowne, Ontario, in my constituency, Guy Robitaille, Spicer's chief assistant, arrived at the border from the United States at one o'clock in the morning. Speaking perfect English he demanded to be spoken to in the French language. There was no officer on duty at
The Budget-Mr. Cossitt
that time who spoke French. Immediately he proceeded to raise a fuss and insisted that a bilingual Canada Customs officer who lived 10 miles away from the port of entry be called out of bed at one o'clock in the morning and forced to dress and drive back to work to answer questions that he had already asked in English.
Just how much is it costing taxpayers to finance these nonsensical methods of implementing bilingualism? How much is being spent on salaries to those who run around on orders from Keith Spicer playing funny little games with half empty bottles of wine? How much is being spent on language courses, not just for public servants, but for the wives of senior officials, one of whom was quoted in the press not so very long ago as saying she is learning French at government expense in order to get on better at cocktail parties?
I suggest, Madam Speaker, that the implementation of bilingualism should have a thorough examination by a committee of this House. The methods of implementation being used are staggering in cost, and it is shameful that so far they have managed to escape careful scrutiny.
If ever there was anything that clearly illustrates the need for careful scrutiny it is the statement made on the implementation of bilingualism by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) yesterday. The minister released a lot of figures but not one of those figures was the estimated total cost, and it is really not hard to understand why. It is because the estimated cost of what this government plans, added to the cost of what it has already done, is so high that the Canadian people in outrage would demand an investigation if they were given such information.
A year ago the government estimated 20,000 positions in the public service would be designated bilingual. Now the minister admits that the total has reached 53,600, and that is only so far. What will it be a year from today, and what will it be two years from now?
The minister says a further 19,000, mostly Anglophone public servants, will be required to learn a second language, but for the sake of the government's skin he wisely does not say how much the schools and teachers will cost Canadians. Without doubt, the wastage of public funds runs into the millions of dollars.
We are told those age 60 and over will not be required to become bilingual. Why age 60, which in reality is the retirement age for many? Why not age 50, or for that matter why at any age in certain specific cases? Again I think of my own constituency where several years ago this government dragooned Canada Customs officers into French language courses, only to find that they soon forgot what they learned because their jobs furnished no necessity for using a second language. The taxpayers, of course, in the meantime footed the unknown bill and, magnified all across the country, we can imagine how much it has cost.
This government has turned the implementation of bilingualism into a sacred cow, supposedly on a pedestal above the right of democratic criticism, an expensive sacred cow costing Canadian taxpayers millions of dollars a year. Why should it not be examined and why should it not be criticized? Why should there be anything wrong

November 22, 1974
The Budget-Mr. Cossitt
with pointing out gross errors and ulterior motives of this government in handling the implementation of bilingualism? Most important of all, why should one hesitate to speak out against a government whose policies are so potentially damaging and ruinous to the future of Canada?
This leads me to what I think is a very peculiar situation. When persons in French-speaking Canada rightfully and proudly point to their culture and to their heritage, when they call for preservation of their traditions, this is viewed in the eyes of those who control the government as "standing up for their rights". But when persons in English-speaking Canada rightfully and proudly point to their cultures and their heritages, and call for the preservation of their traditions, in the eyes of the government this is apparently "bigotry". What kind of nonsense is this?


Mr. Drury:: I challenge that.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: The minister says that he challenges it. The information he has given, and the information his successor now gives, lead me not to have much faith in what he says. What kind of nonsense is it? For what purposes does this government attempt to con all those Canadians whose ancestry is British, German, Dutch, American, Italian, or whatever, into believing that they are bigots and persons against national unity if they so much as utter a peep in support of the contributions made by their backgrounds and traditions to the development of Canada?
I often wonder if the Prime Minister realizes that he would not be sitting in this Canadian House of Commons if it were not for the fact that there was previously a British House of Commons that made all this possible. Perhaps the attitude of the Prime Minister on this subject is accounted for by his obvious disdain and impatience for parliament and the democratic process.
Since this government assumed office there has been a steady attempt to erode our democratic processes and to downgrade and ultimately destroy many traditions on which the institutions of this country are founded.
One needs only to remember that the Prime Minister once declared that members of the opposition were a "bunch of nobodies". What a demonstration of appreciation that was for the democratic process! One needs only to remember that the Prime Minister once told a group of working people outside this building to go and eat dung when all they were doing was exercising their democratic right to protest. What an understanding he displayed of our traditional freedom to dissent!
One needs only to remember that supreme act of hypocrisy after the government's near defeat in 1972 when the Prime Minister, who had long turned his back on the British connection, suddenly in desperation rushed off to London for tea at Buckingham Palace in an attempt to save his political skin.
For years this government has neglected our NATO friends while the Prime Minister did such things as tiptoe through the Orient to sit at the feet of Chairman Mao. Today this government still neglects our friends in Europe, despite the attempt to make it look otherwise by

the Prime Minister's recent unimpressive and not very successful afterthought visit to Brussels.
Not long ago Ivan Head, that strange ogre of the Prime Minister's office, spoke of our "new left wing foreign policy" in a move that was an all too obvious flying of a kite to see how far they could go and get away with it. But the reaction showed that there are more people than they realized in this country who know what is going on. The Prime Minister quickly pulled in his horns, reverted to his role of Prince Charming, and declared that it was all some kind of misunderstanding or misinterpretation. In other words, it is a case of holding up the con game for a while until no one is looking and then moving quickly forward with a new episode of legerdemain.
When it comes to government sleight of hand, there is no better example than its attempt sneakily to change the capital of this country. If it is government policy to change the capital from Ottawa to Ottawa-Hull, then why does the government not honestly admit it and propose an amendment to the British North America Act? But no, instead it follows the course of a sneak. Its illegal approach to this matter was clearly revealed several months ago in one of its own publications entitled "Canada's New Capital". I will quote a few words from this pamphlet:
Ottawa is the capital of Canada. Right? Wrong. It used to be that staid, musty old Ottawa was known as the nation's capital. Technically, it still is. But let's drop the technicalities ...
Aside from the fact that the publication of this insidious nonsense cost the Canadian taxpayers $18,000 for 20,000 copies, it is also an excellent example of a typical episode in this government's well planned con game.
Undoubtedly the next episode will be a further attempt to downgrade the effectiveness of a democratic opposition, and a good hint of what is to come was in the Speech from the Throne when we were told that the government would seek "as a matter of urgency" the "necessary reforms of parliamentary rules".
The key words used foretell what lies ahead. They are the words "matter of urgency" and "necessary", urgent and necessary to tamper further with the rules of this House because of the government's impatience with the democratic process.
How much easier it would be if the cabinet and the Prime Minister were not obliged to come here daily to provide answers to elected representatives of the people. How much easier it would be to run this country whatever way they want if the oral question period was abolished and it was required that all questions be submitted in advance.	,
This government is motivated by a kind of dictatorial complex. Call it of the right or of the left, it makes no difference. It is a government in the hands of a clique whose interests, I believe, ire not synonymous with the best interests of Canada's national unity.
If this was a truly democratic government, surely someone on the front bench opposite would have risen to denounce the words of the Quebec minister of justice spoken earlier this week when he threatened Quebec's English speaking minority by saying that Quebec anglo-

phones are heading for "big disaster" and that he was giving them a "sympathetic warning". He declared:
If the anglophones of Quebec are not ready to accept a minimum measure like Bill 22, they will inevitably provoke a confrontation and reaction that would further the cause of separatism.
There it is, the myth, the lie, the fraud, peddled by this government and its friends. If anyone speaks out in the name of common sense, or stands up for national unity and an end to the fractionalizing of Canada on a racial basis, they are at once a provoker of separatism.
If Canada some day does split apart-and certainly the ignored west, the forgotten Maritimes, and the neglected areas of eastern Ontario, have every justification to think of possible separation-if Canada someday splits into pieces and God hope it never does, this government will go down in history as the author and the instrument of that destruction.
May I say in conclusion, Madam Speaker, that the time is overdue for the great silent bulk of Canadians, nc matter what their mother tongue, to tell this government that we have had enough of its ill conceived, foolish, expensive and disastrous measures of implementing bilingualism; to tell the government that we all want to be just plain Canadians and not hyphenated Canadians, and that we are not prepared to witness the destruction of our country by policies of language and racial confrontation conducted by this government.


Mr. Claude-Andre Lachance (Lafontaine):: Madam Speaker, at the beginning of my first speech in the House, I would like to paraphrase one of the great men of the antiquity who, returning from a glorious conquest, had exclaimed; "Veni, vidi, vici". It remains indeed that the election of a member at 20 years of age is a victory for the people of a certain age who think that the young people are just good enough to carp about the respective merits of Das Kapital of Karl Marx or the small Red Book of Mao.
With the other members in this House, I would like, on the contrary, to try to give a new impetus to the legislative process and in that context, I wish to thank the electors of Lafontaine for their initiative and their courage, because courage is necessary to turn aside from the beaten track, especially in politics where ultra-conservatism is too often a maxim and the status quo a rule.
I remember a metaphor used by the hon. member for Hamilton-Mountain (Mr. MacFarlane) when he was talking about youth in this House. He was comparing youth to a sailboat with the wind of idealism as the motor and reason and common sense as the wheel. In the next few years, I hope to follow a line of conduct inspired from this ideal and it is with this in mind that I rise today to defend some principles which I hold to heart and which come from a certain understanding that I have of our society and the future that I anticipate for it.
Madam Speaker, every day, through the media or in the discussions that we have with other members, we hear about all kinds of problems which are all impossible to solve, including, I must admit, price increases and the various causes of inflation. Much has been said about this, and I am not surprised that the opposition with its legendary opportunism took advantage of this subject during the
The Budget-Mr. Lachance
last electoral campaign. In fact, the problem is much more social than economic or political, and that is what I shall try to prove further on. The fact is that the problem exists and that we have to try and solve it. On this subject, I must immediately give the following explanation; I agree little if at all with the temporary measures suggested by some of our economists who still try to analyze our problems on the basis of assumptions which no longer apply in 1974.
Even though very valid in its details, this budget applies to a temporary period, and I shall not dwell on the external causes of inflation but rather on what we must anticipate in the medium and the long term. To better understand the Canadian economic context, we must realize that Canada is one of the rare countries ready to enter fully a new era, that of a post-industrial society. Solutions developed in the last century no longer apply when it comes to understanding the mechanisms which will control tomorrow's society. The great economic cycles moving on sinusoidal curves are the characteristics of a transitory society undergoing radical changes: such is ours.
We went from the agrarian period to that of industry in the middle of the 19th Century; we are now stepping into that new era I spoke of a while ago, which will be dominated by the third and fourth sectors of our economy.
What then are the main characteristics of that postindustrial society? I quote Jean Fourastie, well known French economist, who wrote in his book "Le Grand Espoir du 20' siecle", and I quote:
By liberating man from tasks inanimate matter can perform for him, the machine must lead him to tasks he alone among created beings can perform: those of intellectual culture and moral perfecting.
We can already see the first effects of that evolution. The third sector, which resists technical progress, will eventually permeate our whole economy and the activities relating to advanced technology limited by its very success, and will absorb only a small part of the labour force. Again, I quote:
The service industries will remain unstable for a long time. Primary and secondary production, the financial value of which will be small though formidable because of its material size, will depend on relatively few workers; a large portion of the population will be made up of indirect workers. One or two hundred workers in a key sector can already threaten the economic system of a nation; in the third sector, a few hundred technicians will be able to deprive millions of human beings of electricity, transportation and food.
This implies the need for a State in a position to make the common good prevail. Inversely, the least hitch in the complex third sector, are oversight or a mistake in the tremendous effort of co-ordination, classification and planning, will result in serious consequences in primary and secondary production.
In fact, such a society is the end result of a process developed in the 19th century during the general industrialization campaign.
This new society overlooks a basic principle, namely "production for production's sake", which can only give rise to never-ending spiral:	price increases, salary
increases, and so on. As a matter of fact, what we must try to do is to make people understand and try ourselves to understand, that at some point, improved living conditions are not evaluated in terms of additional TV sets or tele-

November 22, 1974
The Budget-Mr. Lachance
phones for every member of a family, or else in terms of the size and horsepower of a car, but rather in terms of services provided to the people and particularly, the distribution of this affluence, of this opulence of which Galbraith speaks so rightly. Therefore, it is a completely new outlook. Can we draw any conclusions from it?
First of all, as a direct corollary, one must reason with the producers of goods for whom only the sales volume, therefore, the profits, is an indicator of social and economic progress. We must stop trying to adjust supply to demand and fight rather on a new front by adjusting demand to supply. I know that it may look simplistic but it is in fact the mentality of a whole nation that we must try to change.
We must first urge company directors to plan their production instead of giving priority as is the case now to development that I would term as of the "wildcat" sort. We must then change radically the attitude of the consumers themselves. I would like to illustrate briefly a few means of fulfilling those aspirations as related to the rationalizing of industry in Canada, and the setting up of an infrastructure for transportation to regionalize that industrial output. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Mar-chand) understood that priority, and he seems about to introduce a complete restructuration of the means of transportation in Canada.
The immediate effect of that action would be the creation of a planning board with a purely advisory function because I basically believe in the capacity of producers to adapt when it is in their interest. It would be up to that planning board to set up the priorities in the development of areas in line with the long term policies of the government. That already exists at the embryonary stage in the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, and I know that the new Federal Business Development Bank will provide advisory services for small and middle businesses.
Still about cost rationalization, a systematic effort should be made to promote the seeding and development of cooperation which has already proven to be an excellent way of serving the often conflicting, but always complementary interests of producers and consumers. Finally, for the consumers themselves, they should be honestly informed so they can learn for themselves the benefits of voluntary restriction.
I would like to say incidentally that it is sheer utopia to hope for a change of attitude in that area as long as the consumer will be the victim of propaganda-and I strongly stress that word-propaganda daily imposed on the consumer through often misleading advertising. I look upon a healthy capitalism where free competition would be effective and whose absolute weapon would be honest information on the true values of the products offered and not a daily and systematic hammering based on mass psychology.
I urge the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) to implement as soon as possible a really efficient code of ethics providing for, among other things, a drastic limitation of budgets allocated to advertising by Canadian companies. That would be a good short-term way to curb inflation, cutting 5 to 10 per cent off the production cost of item offered to consumers.

Finally, any proposal put forward could only be the prelude to the inevitable and long awaited-for final gesture of implementing a guaranteed annual income for all Canadians regardless of age or status. Let us now consider the total cost of government programs of a social nature with identical purposes. Here are some figures: program concerning senior citizens, old age pensions: $2.5 billion; guaranteed income supplement $950 million; pension annuities: $250 million; general social assistance to provinces: over $1 billion; special social assistance: $700 million; family allowances: almost $2 billion; unemployment insurance: $2,250 million. Which gives us an unbelievable total, the grand total of $11,360 million in transfer payments and other revenue support payments.
One can but deplore the administration red tape and daily frustrations citizens are faced with concerning the implementation of these programs, especially when these measures do not meet their hoped-for purpose, which is the case right now. Other mechanisms must be considered.
The guaranteed annual income concept has been gaining momentum these last few years. I quote the following from an article signed by Claude Lemelin which appeared in Le Devoir of November 21:
Within a year, Canada could be provided with a new Federal-provincial guaranteed income program which could replace the numerous income support programs already implemented by Ottawa and the provinces thanks to the progress reported by the Ministers responsible for Social Affairs from the country's 11 governments during the Conference held in the Nation's capital on the 19th and 20th of November.
During this conference three steps were outlined:
1.	A unique and monolithic system, guaranteeing a minimum income to any citizen whose revenues from other sources would not reach a given level, regardless of other socio-economic characteristics;
2.	A two-prong system, which would include first of all a guaranteed income program for workers whose income is inadequate, either because of the size of their families or the seasonal character of their job; and then a full-scale guaranteed income program for those who are either unemployable, unable to find a job or would meet some objective qualification requirements;
3.	A two-prong system identical to the preceding, except that the income guarantee would be provided through tax credits (cashable by non taxpayers) rather than through direct allowances from public funds.
In 1971, the Senate special committee report on poverty already proposed a great number of guaranteed annual income formulas among which I single the following: a negative income tax to be applied nationally on an uniform basis. I quote from the report:
The program would be financed and administered by the federal government which would make uniform cash payments to all economically underprivileged Canadian residents. The payments would depend upon the size and the needs of the family and they would determine a new minimum under which no family would be left alone.
To illustrate this, the poverty line as established in the report is about $7,000 for a family of four. I challenge anyone to claim that the full amount abovementioned is provided through current programmes.
In short and in order to prevent people from regarding me as a so-called "philosopher", I will say I dream of a Canada in which every citizen will have the opportunity of developing his talents and skills, without having to prostitute intellectually, in order to make a living for his family. I dream of a 21st century Canada, which will stop waging constitutional wars and set to work definitely so
November 22, 1974

that everyone may share its good fortune. I dream of a Canada in which we will decide to care for the aged, not by giving them mere pittance and letting under the constant threat of exploitation, but by setting up a rational home care and recreation system. That will be done by programs such as New Horizons and particularly by building homes which are in accordance with the aged and their needs.
Madam Speaker, the days of half-measures are over. The federal government must take the lead and the leadership in all fields with a socio-economic character. Experience has proven that we cannot rely on provincial programs concerning salary supplements. I can assure this House that I am not very proud when a pensioner comes to see me about pension indexation and says to me: "Your programs are all very nice, but why did the provincial government cut my income supplement by an amount equal and sometimes superior to the increase I received from the federal government?" What will be the impact of the new program which is supposed to be in force in 1975? Concerning spouses aged 60 or 65 now on their pension, what will happen when they receive these supplementary amounts? Will the provincial government definitely cut off their income supplement? In that case it is a joke. You cannot fool people that way all the time. We look like fools. No, we must rationalize programs, and the only way I think we can achieve that is by putting all these programs under one level of government, that is the federal government.
Madam Speaker, rebellion is threatening among the poor. It is not sufficient to close our eyes and pray. The time has come to take measures in that area.
In conclusion, let me quote the report of the special Senate committee on poverty, in which is stated the challenge we must face:
Measures must be taken now, if we want to prevent millions of Canadians from continuing to consider life only as a cruel and fierce struggle for survivance. We must set aside our social assistance and service policies and replace them by a program of revenue and financial assistance. We must give the defenseless the hope for a better future.
Madam Speaker, Galbraith wrote about production in his book The Affluent Society:
Furnishing an empty room is one thing. Piling up furniture until the whole place is ready to collapse is another. If the matter of production had been bound to fail, man would have remained doomed to his traditional fate. But if we fail to realize that we have found out the solution and immediately undertake the necessary task, we will be heading for an equally frightful tragedy.
Madam Speaker, I have a dream of happy Canadians. That has been the greatest hope of the 20th century and I have been elected to work at its realization.


Mr. Bert Cadieu (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that during the two years when I was absent from this House the government, in view of the situation it was facing, would change its thinking. I can see by what has been presented in the budget, and from what has gone on in the House during the present session, that it has not. I had especially hoped that after election night this country would be governed by a new government, and I am disap-
The Budget-Mr. Cadieu
pointed that the wisdom of the voters of the Meadow Lake constituency was not reflected in the election results in the majority of the constituencies in Canada, especially in the constituency of Ottawa-Carleton. If those voters had voted differently, the people of Canada might have been spared the disappointment of this budget.
Be that as it may, I am sure most people in Canada hoped that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) would show leadership and bring forward good ideas. Instead, he has simply added sugar to the same old stew-and with sugar being expensive, he did not add much. If he bought the meat right from the producer, he bought it dirt cheap. One can only say that the Minister of Finance is doing as his fellow ministers are doing, falling flat when faced with his "big moment".
It is difficult to move a truck which is stuck in a rut when a tire is flat. Well, the government is not even trying to move that truck. It thinks that if it leaves the truck there for the winter, the ground will freeze and it can drive the truck away, smiling. Let me tell you that many farmers who own trucks are not smiling, especially if there is livestock in the truck.
It appears that the Minister of Finance has forgotten that it was actually the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) who won the election for the government and enabled the minister to keep his job; yet the Minister of Finance, in the budget, hardly mentions anything in which the agricultural industry can show great interest. Certainly that omission does not speak of gratitude.
The Minister of Finance calls for restraint, yet it is evident from the budget figures, to an ordinary farmer or rancher like myself, that the government is suffering from diarrhoea of the purse and intends to cure it with a laxative.
I have seen many of the end results of this ailment, resulting from the way the government has spent so much of the taxpayers' money in a few areas. It is nothing short of deplorable that one quarter of the people in my area do not have television reception; for many the only method of transportation is by air. Unfortunately, most of the residents of my area do not have friends of the sort the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) has, Madam Speaker.
I have been told recently that television will not be available to the people of a vast area in the northwestern part of Saskatchewan comprising Canoe Narrows, Beau-val, Pinehouse, lie a la Crosse, Buffalo Narrows, Patuanak, Dillon, Portage la Loche and Tumor Lake, until 1976. In 1972 I was told it would be available in 1974. I wonder what I will be told in 1976.
We should bear in mind that lie a la Crosse is one of the oldest settlements in Saskatchewan. It was this government that destroyed the people's chance to have television reception in this area as long as nine years ago. The radar towers and equipment which were put there at no cost to this government were destroyed. The CBC has showed interest in this equipment. It was an asset with regard to bringing television to this vast area. The radar tower at Fort Black was reduced to scrap for no reason whatsoever.

November 22, 1974
The Budget-Mr. Cadieu
We realize what television would do for the people in this vast area during the long winter, particularly school children and senior citizens. Do I have to tell the people of that area that the government wants to forget them for another two years? This is going to be very bad news for the people in this part of my constituency.
It was this government that discontinued the Roads to Resources program. Large portions of this area, going into the Athabasca region and the great mining country around Uranium City, are as far away from an all-weather road as they were 10 years ago. This government dropped the Roads to Resources program which was set up by the Diefenbaker government. The area around Uranium City has created enough wealth that it should have had an all-weather road leading into it long ago.
I could go on at great length about the shortcomings of the government with regard to the north country. Unless some changes are made, this budget will be pretty slim picking for the people of that area.
There is a terrible problem in western Canada with regard to agriculture. We saw what happened a few years ago to the pork producers in the west. They were put out of business. Today the beef producers are in a deplorable situation. A lot of this has been caused by government meddling.
Only a few months ago the government was advocating that farmers diversify and go into beef cattle. I do not know where the government researchers were, but I know the predicament in which the western farmers find themselves today. We know what the beef producers are doing in eastern Canada. We saw an example of that not too long ago.
There have been many farm starts in my constituency. People were encouraged to go into beef cattle. In order to do this they borrowed money at a high rate of interest. Many who bought breeding stock last spring cannot get back one quarter of what they paid.
Are we to look forward to the same kind of situation for our grain producers? Just recently the minister in charge of the wheat board introduced a two-price system for wheat. Our party has advocated that for many years. We worked hard for a two-price system. However, today the government wants a two-price system with a maximum price for wheat consumed locally. It did not call in the producers or the farm organizations to discuss setting a price for a period of seven years. At the rate inflation is going in this country, I wonder whether $3.25 a bushel will be adequate in seven years. Who knows? Why would the government force through such a bill without first consulting those who are very much concerned? It is very injust. I think the opposition has forced the government to take another look at this. I think it will now call in the producers and farm organizations to discuss this bill. There are many such situations in western Canada. The people there will certainly not be happy with this budget.
We hear a lot today about rail line abandonment. In my area many lines have never been completed. If some of these lines had been completed, they would be on a paying basis. How can a rail line that has not been completed, pay? There is still a gap in the line, and now the government is talking about abandonment. This makes me think

of our forefathers who pioneered this country. They advocated the. .ail lines. However, even at this late state the lines have not been completed and, as I say, now the government is talking about abandonment.
Everyone in western Canada knows that grain can be moved much cheaper by rail than by truck. Therefore I do not know why the government is determined to go hog-wild into rail line abandonment. The people concerned should have some say about this.
There are many other items I could deal with, especially northern development. The government should take a close look at the Roads to Resources program. It should also provide television for these people I have mentioned. They are entitled to it. These people have spent the greatest part of their lives in that area. Surely they should have the right to television.
I took notice of what the minister had to say in his budget about housing. For years we have been asking for the removal of the sales tax on building materials and at a time when so many young people are in need of homes I do not understand why it should be retained, even in part. It is true the Minister of Finance has agreed to reduce it, but when one considers the expense of maintaining the bureaucracy needed to collect the tax at 5 per cent, it might have been far better to have abolished it altogether.
The whole budget is ill-conceived as far as I am concerned, speaking for the constituency of Meadow Lake.


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: Madam Speaker, on a point of order I do not know whether the House would like to continue to discuss this subject matter for another seven minutes or whether we might revert to motions at this point. The opposition spokesmen, unfortunately, are not here yet.


David Réal Caouette: Madam Speaker, I do not think it is worth taking the floor for five or seven minutes today. I therefore agree for the Minister to proceed with his statement.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, I merely wish to point out that the spokesmen on this issue for the Progressive Conservatives and for our party are not here at the moment. They are still studying the documents. Would it not be better to wait until they arrive?


Mr. Foster:: Keep it in neutral for five minutes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is a verse in the Bible which says that there was silence in heaven for the space of half an hour. Maybe we could have silence in this chamber for five minutes.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Réal Caouette: May I simply make a request, Madam Speaker. I am not taking the floor because I shall not be able to attend Monday's debate. However,
November 22, 1974

with your kind permission, I might leave the floor to my colleague, the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert), who could continue Monday.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased with the agreement voiced by my colleagues in this House.
Inasmuch as we are discussing a most important matter, that is the billions of dollars involved in the budget which has been brought before us, and in the light also of the very interesting and very serious remarks made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) in his budget speech, I should like to have the opportunity of reviewing the budget more completely in order to comment on it in a fair manner and to make suggestions which should improve our public sector financing system. Also I will be in a position to bring forward very concrete proposals for improving the situation of low income families which in my opinion, have not been dealt with properly in the budget speech of the Minister of Finance.
Madam Speaker, may I call it five o'clock? I could perhaps continue on Monday.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Shall we call it five o'clock?
There is no agreement.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Madam Speaker, since there does not seem to be agreement, I am willing to continue. Please tell me when it is five o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The hon. member for Bellechasse may continue.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: The budget presented by the Minister of Finance does contain interesting proposals. The tax reduction on building materials is an excellent measure, I believe, but that tax should have been removed completely. A mere 6 per cent reduction in the tax on building materials will not be enough to incite those who wish to build a home to avail themselves of this reduction, because financial institutions are less and less eager to lend money to young people. As for those who wish to build factories or plants, they are denied the necessary credits.
Last week, Madam Speaker, I witnessed an attempt on the part of three young men who got together to launch a business. Those young men had a good trade, good training and would certainly have been useful in their community, where they could have operated that kind of business, that kind of industry. The finance companies denied them the credits that were required to buy the land where they wished to build that factory. Now, we blame young people saying that they lack initiative, that they wish to take advantage of society without making their own contribution. They are being accused of all kinds of things of
Energy
which they are not responsible and they are being discouraged. They are deterred from their goal, which was to undertake something useful.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: I regret to have to interrupt the hon. member but it being five o'clock, the House will now revert to motions, according to the provisions of the special order passed earlier this day.
+ * *


GOVERNMENT ACTION TO CURTAIL OIL EXPORTS-TABLING OF NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD REPORT
Donald Stovel Macdonald: Madam Speaker, I should like to thank all hon. members for their courtesy in enabling us to adjust our procedures to the statement to be made.
In February, 1973, I announced that the National Energy Board would hold a public hearing "in order to provide opportunity for interested parties to be heard as to the appropriate methods for protecting the public interest in respect of oil exports over the longer term". After preparatory work, notice of the board's hearings with respect to this matter was given on July 5, 1973 and companies and interested groups were asked to file briefs with the board by October 15. Subsequently, the board held hearings in Calgary, Vancouver and Ottawa, terminating on May 2, 1974. '
The board, after carefully considering all submissions, testimony and argument presented, set out its findings in a report to me on the matter of the exportation of oil which it submitted under section 22 of the National Energy Board Act. Under section 23 of the act, reports of the board made under Part II may be made public with the approval of the minister and, having regard to the importance of this report, I decided that it should be made public so that all Canadians may be aware of the oil supply and demand outlook in Canada, and of the need to take further action with respect to oil exports.
The government accepts the board's finding that steps should be taken to reduce exports of oil with a view to providing additional protection for Canadian requirements. To this end the board intends to modify immediately its licensing procedure.
The government accepts the board's recommendation for a new export control system. However, in view of the impending requirements for the Montreal market, I intend to seek early consultation with the producing provinces with a view to reducing exports more sharply than under the board's recommended formula. The board allocated
250,000	barrels per day for the Montreal market from 1975 onward but proposed that these supplies be declared surplus to Canadian requirements-and therefore eligible for export-until the Montreal line comes onstream in 1976. I intend to discuss with the provinces the advisability of "shutting in" these supplies beginning in mid-1975, rather than considering them surplus to Canadian requirements for export purposes until the line is completed in 1976.

November 22, 1974
Energy
This would result in a reduction of exports to a level of about 650,000 barrels per day for the latter part of 1975, compared to an export level of some 800,000 barrels per day that would otherwise be in effect.

Evidence produced before the National Energy Board during its hearing and its appraisal of this evidence indicated an inevitable decline in producibility of indigenous crude oil commencing next year and continuing in the 1980's, when frontier oil and larger quantities of oil sands output are expected to become available.
Based on present supply and demand trends, there is a forecast deficiency in supply to the domestic market served by Canadian oil in early 1982 which would grow to
200,000	barrels a day by late 1983. In the face of this prospect the Board decided to adopt a new procedure to determine the level of oil exports, based on a formula by which the volume of crude oil available for export licensing during a given year will be related to oil producibility, demand for Canadian use, and a conservation expectation as estimated for that year. The volume of oil exports thus computed would be reduced by a factor which would become more severe as the estimated period of self sufficiency decreased.

The government decided against an immediate and complete discontinuance of oil exports because cessation of exports would provide for sufficient producibility for only a few months additional to that provided by the phased reduction of exports approved by the cabinet. That is, an immediate halt to exports would extend sufficient deliver-ability for about two and a half years while the government's decision to phase down exports in line with the board's recommendations will extend the period for about one and a half years. As I stated, it is my intention to seek consultations with the producing provinces with an aim to extending this period to two years by beginning the phase down of exports next year and in 1976.
An immediate halt to exports would be disruptive to Canadian-United States trade relations. It would deprive certain northern U.S. refineries and their communities of the Canadian crude oil on which they have traditionally relied.
In Canada a sudden and complete reduction of current exports would deprive industry of a major source of cash flow required to find the higher cost reserves of the frontier areas. It would also idle a portion of the capacity of producing facilities which have been financed over the past few years. There would be a major impact on the income of the oil producing provinces, on the oil service industries, and a major effect on Canada's foreign exchange.
In adopting its new procedure the board will identify the volume of allowable oil exports for a period of at least one year, but annual average levels .will be adjusted to account for immediate supply and demand factors by issuing monthly export licences, as at present. Hearings will be held periodically to receive evidence with respect to the potential producibility of Canadian oil, the domestic demand for indigenous feed stocks, and the effects of conservation on Canadian consumption and surplus.

While the board is forecasting that by 1982 there will not be enough crude oil production in Canada to meet the Canadian market demands which are now served by Canadian oil production, plus 250,000 barrels a day for Montreal, this outlook can be altered not only by the board's proposed export control formula but also by greater attention by all levels of government, and by all citizens, to conservation measures in the use of energy. The federal government will announce this winter a series of programs designed to conserve all forms of energy.
In 1960, when the federal government launched the national oil policy, the export level was about 100,000 barrels a day. By 1970 exports had risen to 670,000 barrels a day. The rapidly growing deficiency in the United States in the early years of this decade created a sharply increased demand for Canadian crude, and exports rose to the 1.1 million barrel a day level by 1973 when the government instituted export controls. This control system has enabled the government to reduce exports, which for 1974 have averaged 900,000 barrels per day.
By the 1980's we can expect a resurgence in production as the frontier areas and the oil sands are opened up. At the same time our capability in nuclear energy production will also become very significant. Thus the energy supply outlook for the long term is promising. The challenge before us is to maintain a high degree of self-sufficiency in the intervening years, and this new regime of oil export control I have announced today is designed to attain that objective.
If I may, Mr. Speaker, I should now like to table copies, in the two official language, of the report of the National Energy Board, "In the Matter of the Exportation of Oil".


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, the report by the National Energy Board entitled "The Matter of the Exportation of Oil" demonstrates to this institution that the National Energy Board can produce a very useful document whenever it is requested to do so. I welcome the National Energy Board back to its function as laid down in the act of 1959, namely, of advising the government and the people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I have read the report and I cannot help but compare it with the report we received from the government last July entitled, "A National Oil Policy for Canada". When I look at the charts in that volume on supply and the optimism and the expectations they represent, I get the impression that the figures we read in this report today are going to be much more useful to the government in planning future policy.
I cannot understand for the life of me, in view of what is in this report on the exportation of oil, presented to the House today, why the government kept it secret so long. It would have been just as useful two weeks ago, and we might have avoided a lot of the misery the members of this House had to endure this last two or three weeks. I think it will become clear in my remarks why that is so, Mr. Speaker.
I am not going to quote extensively from the report, but would like to refer to two short passages, the first one
November 22, 1974

dealing with supply in barrels per day. I want the House to listen to the conclusion reached by the National Energy Board after it heard all the submissions of industry and its own experts. It reads:
Various studies of geologically potential oil, gas and other resources leave little doubt that there are abundant deposits in widely scattered areas of Canada. The conversion of known resources, such as the oil sands and heavy oils, and inferred or potential resources, such as are expected in the frontier areas, into established reserves will require technological progress but, more importantly, will require favourable economic conditions for development, production and transportation. There is also a major problem in respect of timing. However, given sufficient lead-time and proper economic incentives, there is a good prospect that Canada could become self-sufficient in energy for a long period.
In view of that conclusion there is no need to terrorize the people of Canada into thinking that our future is opaque and dismal.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Would the hon. member please give me the page number from which he quoted?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Page 2-14.
Then again in chapter 5, page 15, speaking this time on the subject of exports, the report reads:
Given the size, nature and timing of a possible supply-demand intersection, as set out in section 4 of this report, the board is of a view that policies of all levels of government, of the financial community, and of the industry itself must be such as to ensure that adequate rates of return and cash flows are available.
That is the view of the board that we in parliament set up to advise us on the public interest in matters of energy. I repeat again, as the minister has stated in his own statement and as the report states, that Canada needs a continuation of imports into this country to keep our own economy healthy and to keep our energy situation healthy, particularly in the next 10 years. Also, if we are to achieve this type of situation where our industry is healthy, we will have to provide favourable economic conditions. The question is, how? I will come back to this in a moment.
But before I go into that I would like to talk about imports. On October 3 in the House I made a proposal to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) which he has promised to consider, that Canada should offer its hospitality to all countries of the world, both importers and exporters of oil, presumably some time next year, with the purpose of bringing a rule of law into world prices of oil, and also to give us the framework within which the countries of the world allocate supplies instead of this being done by international oil companies.
As I stated, the Prime Minister promised to consider that proposal. The reason I hesitated in asking if he has made a decision is that I requested the Arab nations in OPEC to make their representations to the Secretary ,of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) in Canada indicating to him, and hopefully through him to the Prime Minister, that the Arab nations consider this proposal in a favourable light. I have great hopes that even though we do not have ambassadorial strength in all the Arab countries, and even though our own nation does not go to see
Energy
the Arabs, that the Arab nations will come and see us, expressing a will to join in such an international undertaking.
An international commodity agreement should have been in place these last 50 years. Instead, we have had to rely on the good graces and efficiency of the international oil cartel to set our prices and allocate our supplies.
Secondly, in regard to favourable economic conditions, I do not think there is a person on either side of this House who, in his heart, does not know that there should be an end to this war on the provinces. We have to realize that provincial governments are the voice of the people of an area. You cannot go over them with unilateral actions, repudiating agreements not only with provincial premiers and provincial ministers, but with industry.
I suggest that if we are going to follow the recommendations in the exportation of oil document provided by the National Energy Board we should return to the traditional Canadian way of working out our federal system, namely, consulting with our provinces in the running of this country.
By consultation, Madam Speaker, I do not mean just the phasing down procedures which the minister has stated he is going to start in consultation with the producing provinces. I am not talking about that itty bitty little bit of technical detail. I am talking about the whole energy picture, and that includes price and the staging of price increases; it includes a cushion for the consumers. If there is injustice, or if extra sacrifice is demanded from the producer provinces greater than the ordinary Canadian should have to bear to maintain these national purposes, the principle of quid pro quo should still apply as it applied at the time of the drafting of the British North America Act without which there would be no agreement, and as it did in the Alberta and Saskatchewan Natural Resources Act of 1930. Without that agreement we would not have made the progress we did make in this country in the last 107 years.
In this whole energy picture we should consider the provinces on the question of exports, the question of imports and, above all, in the matter of taxation, which is the present quarrel. Pipelines should be brought to their attention. It is in our prerogative entirely, but they are providing the energy and we should consult with them.
Above all, in the final industrial strategy people who live in Ontario, in the industrial complex between Sarnia and the eastern townships of Quebec, know that other regions of this country want a chance to share in its wealth, not as a handout through a DREE grant but with their resources giving them comparative advantage. I would suggest that if you consult on this over-all energy picture it would be a tremendous day in the history of Canada.
In view of the minister's attitudes and his actions in the last two or three years, this means he will have to follow the precedent of an illustrious predecessor who was a leader of the Liberal Party. When William Lyon Mackenzie King sat on this side of the House he said he was prepared to "walk in the valley of humiliation". He survived.

November 22, 1974
Energy
I notice today, Madam Speaker, that in. response to a question by the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yew-chuk) the Prime Minister said that he was willing to reconsider the petroleum administration bill and the resource sections of the budget that have divided this House. I ask the Prime Minister, through the Minister of Energy (Mr. Macdonald) to give that matter his deepest consideration because, if we do not become flexible again, if we do not treat our provinces as provinces of Canada deserving of consideration, the end will be something most of us do not want to contemplate. I am putting it this way, in terms which can be understood. If we do not agree to create a favourable economic climate, it will be the consumer who will pay the price for our neglect.
Having said that, may I now comment on the proposed oil pipeline. I used to refer to it as the pipeline to Montreal, but now I prefer to speak of it as the pipeline from Montreal to Sarnia. This must be a two-way pipeline. It must be capable of moving oil in both directions if we are to do what the report recommends. We must utilize to the maximum any oil which we acquire on world markets. If the government cannot find a private corporation which is willing to build a pipeline because of uncertainties over guarantees, I think the government, in the interests of this country, must build it itself, even if the pipeline stays empty. It will be there to protect us. It will protect those in the centre of Canada. It will move oil to Sarnia, if necessary, or to Montreal and the eastern areas of the country.
Next I shall speak on the question of export. I think the recommendations of the report are sensible. They come down against cutting off exports completely and recommend, from the beginning, production of about 650,000 barrels a day, plus 250,000 for the Montreal market, giving an average rate of production of 900,000 barrels per day. That should show western producers that there is a future for them in the Canadian market. If the government goes ahead with its proposals, the market will be stable.
I know oil companies are concerned about price, and we hear talk of much confusion and despair. I know that many boards of directors are considering their programs for next year. If the government would only say, "We will consult with the provinces on taxation, sharing of rents, and so on," I think the industry would feel more confident.
On October 21 last I made a suggestion which, if adopted, will give a way out for the provinces, the industry and the federal government. I know my proposal will work because if it will give the federal government more money, provincial governments more money and the industry more money, it will be acceptable. I ask the government to look at that proposal, because I think that it would restore the confidence of the industry in this country. If that confidence is restored, Canada can look forward to a great future; but that future can only be realized if there is cooperation between senior governments.
I will not say much about conservation and the environment, as the report deals with these questions adequately. Incidentally, if the minister intends to turn lights off, I wish he would turn off the lights in the Pearson building.

They are on every night. We can live with the recommendations of the National Energy Board on that subject.
The report does not deal with alternative sources of energy. True, it mentions nuclear sources but does not mention renewable sources of energy. Our neighbour on the North American continent, the United States, is spending $20 billion in a 10-year program developing alternative sources of energy. It is spending at the rate of $2 billion per year. Of that $2 billion it is spending $60 million a year on a biomass program-the minister will tell the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) what that means. According to the information I have, Canada at present is spending about $200,000 a year in this field.
I feel I have dealt adequately with the report, Madam Speaker, to show that it is sufficient grounds for confidence. The report shows that we are justified in our confidence in the future of Canada, even though there is a difficult 10-year period ahead. Canada has before it great opportunities, and the report will do much to enable us to restore our confidence in ourselves. Certainly we must bring frontier oils and tar sand oils on stream between 1985 and 1990; it is a just a question of being sensible in the meantime. I hope the government will take advantage of this report, withdraw the petroleum administration bill and cancel those sections of the budget which would start a war between the federal government and the provinces.
If it does that it will be amazed at how the stock market will react on Monday and succeeding days, and we shall all be pleased at what we in this country can do, once we create a favourable economic climate. We need not despair, Madam Speaker.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Madam Speaker, I feel something like a passenger on the Titanic watching the captain re-arranging the seating after having struck the iceberg.
I have only had an opportunity to make a very hasty and cursory examination of this report. I think it is probably more realistic than some of the reports we have had from the National Energy Board. It is certainly much more realistic than some of the estimates that have been made by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources with respect to the life index of oil supplies in Canada. However, I would point out that they are still fairly optimistic and are still making assumptions which, in my opinion, are very dubious.
If I can summarize it quickly, they are suggesting that if we leave our exports to the United States at their present level and continue our present consumption and present imports, the life index of our conventional western oil is 7.3 years. If we cut off our exports as of January 1, 1975, our supplies will last 9.9 years before we will be in a position of non self-sufficiency. If we phase out the exports on a schedule which they have set, we will extend the life of the oil reserves of Canada to some 9.0 years.
I cannot for a moment understand why we should talk about phasing out exports to 1982. The minister said in his statement that he wants to reduce these exports more rapidly than the National Energy Board has suggested. However, as I take it from his statement, all he is proposing to do is have consultations with the provinces with a view to beginning, in the middle of July, to take the
November 22, 1974

250,000	barrels a day which would be going through the pipeline if the pipeline were there, and retaining that oil rather than making it available for export. That means we save 150,000 barrels a day until such time as the pipeline from Sarnia to Montreal is built. The minister hopefully suggested that that might be in 1976. That is not stepping up the reduction of exports very materially.
It should not be necessary to take seven years to phase out our exports to the United States. I agree with the minister that we cannot cut off those exports all at once. That would be unfair. I think it would call for the measures of retaliation. I have advocated for the past four or five years, and I have said it many times in this House, that we ought to give the Americans notice that we are going to phase them out over a period of three or four years. That would give them time to make arrangements for other sources of supply. I think that should be done. However, I see no reason why this phasing out process should be extended over a seven-year period.
The minister argues this will cause some dislocation in the United States. I want to point out to the minister that it will cause some dislocation in Canada if in 1982 we are not able to meet our own oil needs. Also, I think that three or four years would give the Americans ample time to prepare themselves for any dislocation.
Canadians tend to forget that the Americans have larger supplies of oil than we have and that the Americans import a smaller percentage of their oil requirements than we do.
In the 12 month period ending June 30 last, we exported 60 per cent of our oil production. That is ridiculous in a country which has only a few years of conventional oil supplies left.
I can see no reason why the period for phasing out exports cannot be reduced to three years or, at the most, to four years. The minister raises a question of great importance when he says this will cause hardship to the oil-producing provinces and to the oil industry. That is true, if we phase out exports and lack facilities for sending that oil to eastern Canada. The oil would have to be kept in the ground. But I would think the minister could work out a suitable policy.
I see no reason why payment cannot be made for oil in the ground. I remember that when we did not want to export some of the surplus supplies of natural gas from Saskatchewan, because we knew we would require them, we actually paid those same companies to keep the gas in the ground until we required it. And now, of course, we do require it and are very glad to have it available. I believe the provinces and the industry could be compensated until such time as we can take the oil out of the ground.
We are running close to the line. We shall face a critical situation in 1982. I think the margin allowed by the National Energy Board is too narrow. They are counting heavily on the tar sands coming into production from 1980 on, and they are estimating that the Canadian Oil Sands Company will be producing-it is, indeed, producing now-and that Syncrude will be operating at full capacity, which is dubious, and that Shell will be in production by that time. Shell has not even started. It is supposed to
Energy
start next year, or the year after, but there is no guarantee that it will. The whole report is based on the optimistic assumption that from 1980 on we shall be able to count on fairly large supplies of oil from the tar sands.
There is also the assumption that we shall be able to count on oil from the Arctic and from the east coast. But if one examines the report closely, and looks at the figures given by the different companies, one reaches the conclusion that supplies of oil from those two sources can hardly be expected before 1985-1990.
I am disappointed the minister has not told us what policies the government intends to follow to ensure these further supplies of oil when our present conventional supplies are exhausted or near exhaustion. He has delayed making a statement on this report; his statement was held over until the stock market was closed. I do not know why. All the minister is telling us is that the National Energy Board is proposing to phase out our exports over seven years, and that he intends to carry out a public relations campaign to persuade Canadians to preserve petroleum. There is certainly nothing startling about that. What we need to know are the government's policies with respect to ensuring an increase in supplies to meet the critical situation that the National Energy Board has anticipated around 1982.
The National Energy Board assumes, for instance, that in the tar sands one plant will be built every 18 months. That is at least $1 billion per plant, and with inflation we can probably add 50 per cent to that. Not only is it a financial problem, but we have yet to solve the environmental problem. A million barrels a day from the oil sands means that after the oil has been extracted you have to dispose of two million tons of loose oil sand. The environmental problems are tremendous and they have to be faced up to, now and in the future.
Arctic and frontier development will require large sums of money and manpower. What policies has the government to ensure that in only seven years we are going to have from the tar sands, and/or from the Arctic and east coast, adequate supplies of oil to meet the very critical situation that is almost upon us? I think that unless we can get some statements of policy it is very difficult for me to share the optimism either which the minister displays or which the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) indicated.
To sum up, Madam Speaker, I think this country is heading into a very critical energy crisis. I think we are in a race against time. I do not like to sound like Cassandra; the only feeling of justification for so doing comes from the fact that Cassandra was right.
As I say, we are heading into a very critical situation and we have only a few years in which, firstly, to conserve the oil we have by reducing our exports, and secondly, to enter into a crash program to develop the tar sands and, if possible, to get oil from the Arctic and the east coast. Keeping in mind that so far we have not discovered any oil of commercial quantity either in the Arctic or off the east coast, we may be leaning on a broken reed. Therefore, our best hope at the moment is to get oil from the tar sands. I have seen no indication of any program that will supply the large sums of money required for that purpose.

November 22, 1974
Energy
This is a race against time, and time in this instance is not on our side.


Gérard Laprise: Madam Speaker, the National Energy Board report just tabled by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) indicates to the people of Canada that we are on the verge of an energy crisis, an oil crisis more serious in nature than we were told in October of last year. The minister however concluded on an optimistic note.
I find that hard to follow. I remember at the beginning of the session in the fall of 1973, I asked the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources what were our reserves for eastern Canada, and whether there was danger of scarcity during the winter of 1973-74. At that time, the minister answered reserves were adequate and there was no danger whatsoever. Yet a few days later the minister said in a special debate that we were on the verge of a full energy crisis. This optimistic note by the minister now leaves me in doubt. And when I see that known Canadian reserves are adequate for 7.3 years only, even in the assumption of immediate curtailment of exports, this would give only a 2.6-year extension. There comes the immediate conclusion that we must take steps to find other sources of energy.
It is now mentioned in the province of Quebec that the investment in the hydroelectric project now under construction in my constituency will reach the $20 billion level. There is mention of investing some $80 billion in the exploitation of Albertan tar sands and Athabaska heavy oils. In other words, it will take hard cash to get heat. Madam Speaker, I suggest Canadians living now, as those
living in 1980 or 1990, will not be able to repay even the interests on the investments involved in the development of resources needed for industry and everyday life. This makes evident the difficulties we are facing in such undertakings. The multinational oil companies now use the slogan to which we were accustomed by finance companies: "Travel now, pay later".
Some oil companies have followed this pattern. Since last fall, they have been telling us: Pay now for the development which will have to come later. That is what we have been forced into. Prices of gas and home heating oil have increased. Now we have to face these difficulties. Even by taking immediate action in order to reduce exports to the United-States or, at least to phase them down, we will only solve part of the problem which finally will have to be faced: storing 250,000 barrels a day in the area of Montreal until the day when we can use the pipeline which is expected to be built by the fall of 1976. The laying of the pipeline has not started yet, and given the building problems of an undertaking of this kind I, very much doubt that it might be ready then.
Madam Speaker, one thing is sure: We now know what to expect and I believe that the government, with the agreement of the provincial governments, must take immediate action to promote further exploration, not only of oil, but of any form of energy which might be used by Canadians.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order. As it is past 5 o'clock p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday at 2 o'clock p.m., under standing order 2 (1).
At 5:46 p.m., the House adjourned pursuant to the special order passed earlier today.

Monday November 25, 1974