1975-07-04

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Cecil Smith (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Effective July 1, approximately 15 remote community airstrips in Northern Manitoba were removed from the operating certificates of scheduled air carriers. Suspension of this service is extremely detrimental to the social, economic, educational and medical advancement of the people, the communities, and northern Manitoba. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hastings (Mr. Ellis):
That the minister reverse his decision and allow the province of Manitoba time to bring these 15 airstrips up to the national standard.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The motion proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. It is prompted by the announcement yesterday by the Minister of Justice that section 613 of the Criminal Code will be amended in the government's omnibus bill, thereby preventing courts of appeal from superimposing guilty verdicts over jury acquittals and thereby acknowledging that this procedure is wrong in principle. In view of the fact that Dr. Henry Morgentaler remains imprisoned as a direct result of this procedure I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House directs the Minister of Justice to provide either immediate exceptional parole to Dr. Morgentaler or an appropriate pardon.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 cannot be presented without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the terms of Standing Order 43, I request unanimous consent of the House to discuss a very important and urgent matter.
As the intolerable fact is being brought to light that such companies as Kraft Food of Canada is importing huge quantities of powdered milk and cheese from the United States, and as the government tolerates that state of affairs which may within the next two years endanger the work performed by milk producer groups with a view to obtaining reasonable prices for their production, and also force the price down by at least $2 a hundredweight because of surpluses accumulated over the short term, which would shake the milk industry to the point of threatening a large number of producers with bankruptcy, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte):
That the House be allowed to discuss immediately that serious situation, whereby the indifference of the government and the protection given some private enterprises will strike a blow to the Canadian agriculture which already finds itself in an unstable and difficult position with a view to putting a stop immediately to those imports, so that Canadian producers can sell their production and be guaranteed at least current prices for their efforts beyond measure.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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

July 4, 1975
Oral Questions FINANCE


SUGGESTED DELAY IN IMPOSITION OF GASOLINE TAX-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to move an important motion of urgent necessity.
In view of the increasingly chaotic conditions which seem to have been created by the imminent raise in the price of an oil barrel and in view of the resentment of all Canadians following the decision of the government, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette):
That this House recommend to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) to delay for six months the enforcement of that measure, in order to examine the problem further.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, arising out of the statement made by the Minister of Justice yesterday that an amendment will be brought to the Criminal Code whereby henceforth appellate courts will not be permitted to substitute a judgment of guilty in place of a verdict of not guilty rendered by a jury-he mentioned the fact that it will be brought in along with some other criminal law amendments-and in view of the deeply aroused public opinion in connection with this matter as people realize the peril to the jury system which is now apparently realized by the minister and the government, even though earlier denied, I ask him whether he will bring in at once an amendment to repeal the particular section of the Criminal Code that permitted the action taken by the appellate court of Quebec and the Supreme Court.


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, it will be my intention to have it included in the Criminal Code amendments so that the House and the committee can carefully look at it, as they can other important measures proposed with regard to the Criminal Code. A significant concern has developed in the country with regard to the jury system, and that has been made clear in my brief

remarks yesterday. I believe it was largely a misplaced concern significantly aroused by people such as the right hon. gentleman who prefer to distort the situation rather than recognize how-


Mr. Woolliams:: What a dirty remark.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: That observation requires an answer. The minister has turned a complete somersault. A couple of weeks ago he said there was no foundation for my suggestion. Yesterday he spoke of red herrings. Yesterday's observation was a contemptuous statement that implicated the Chief Justice of Canada and the dissenting judges in the judgment rendered.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: While a change of front such as has taken place is welcome because repentance, no matter how late, is always worthy of commendation, I ask him, will he bring in the amendment now? I am sure the House will pass it without delay. Instead of waiting for an abundance of other amendments to the Code, let us face this problem now. Does he not realize how serious it is? Already something has taken place that he said would not take place, namely, an appeal against a second acquittal in another case.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman is persisting in a complete distortion of facts.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: There have been, and he knows there have been, many appeals from jury verdicts on points of law.


John George Diefenbaker: To substitute a verdict of guilty for not guilty, never.


Otto Emil Lang: At no point have I suggested that there would not be further appeals from jury verdicts on points of law, as provided in the law. When he says anything to the contrary, he is guilty of a distortion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: I emphasized yesterday that this was in the nature of a red herring, and that anyone who read the Supreme Court decision in this case would recognize that, as the court saw it, any possibility of substitution of a verdict was a very remote one indeed, one which would occur only in a very special case where really there was no question of fact involved about the person in question being guilty, and therefore there was no real threat to the jury system. However, I suppose I ought to realize that the right hon. gentleman is unhappy that his red herring has been swept from him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I am always willing to take advice from the Minister of Justice on law and juries. I know he never lost a trial, I realize that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
July 4, 1975


John George Diefenbaker: Instead of evading the simple question I asked, why does the minister not bring it in now instead of delaying, because there is a further case before the court now which certainly ought to be met by parliament.


Otto Emil Lang: I did indicate very straightforwardly at the beginning of my first answer-and I hope the right hon. gentleman will read Hansard and see that I did-that I thought this was the kind of section which, like other changes in the Criminal Code, deserved careful consideration by this House and by the committee with the rest of the amendments, and that was the procedure I was going to follow. I am delighted that the right hon. gentleman referred again to his long and distinguished career in jury trials in which he did not lose any cases. He should have stayed with jury trials and not entered politics.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Justice. I would like to congratulate him on bringing forward the amendment to Section 613, but in view of the fact that he is bringing it forward, in view of the acknowledgement that the procedure under which Dr. Morgentaler was jailed was wrong and in view of the minister's acknowledgement in bringing forward that amendment, will the minister now reconsider the position he has taken up to this point in refusing a pardon or in refusing exceptional parole for Dr. Morgentaler, in view of the admission that that change is necessary and that that is the reason Dr. Morgentaler sits in jail in Waterloo, Quebec?


Otto Emil Lang: I think the more important answer is that I am satisfied with the judgment of the court that in fact Dr. Morgentaler was guilty of the crime with which he was charged, a charge which is a serious crime in the eyes of this parliament and the law of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: In view of the fact that the court of appeal of Quebec is now faced with exactly the same situation and is also faced with-


Otto Emil Lang: Order.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I want to make it clear that the Minister of Justice is not Mr. Speaker.


Otto Emil Lang: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the Minister of Justice seeking the floor on a point of order?


Otto Emil Lang: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I recognize the normal rule about points of order, but I think it is important that the long standing rule-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Otto Emil Lang: -about not discussing in this place, cases which are before the courts should be rather rigidly enforced, because it puts all of us in great difficulty.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister was seeking the floor on a point of order. The matter is before the courts, but I have not heard the conclusion of the question.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I do hope that in future the Minister of Justice will respect the rules of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it abundantly clear that I am not commenting on the merits or issue with which the Court of Appeal has to deal. My question is still this: in view of the precedent that the court is faced with will the Minister of Justice bring forward the amendments to the Criminal Code now and not wait for the omnibus bill? He will have the support of the New Democratic Party in passing-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please! Order, please!


An hon. Member:: It's a representation.


An hon. Member:: They have no respect for the Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: It is clear that the hon. member for New Westminster is avoiding any difficulty about the matter being before the court, but it appears that he is doing a combination of two things that are equally out of order. First, he is asking a question to which the right hon. member for Prince Albert just received an answer-


John George Diefenbaker: I have not been answered yet!


Mr. Speaker:: -and secondly by making a representation in terms of the support of a party in the House.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: A supplementary question. Would the Minister of Justice therefore provide a reason to the House for his failure to bring forth the amendments now rather than wait for the omnibus bill?


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: No answer! [Translation]


Léonel Beaudoin: Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, for the information of the hon. member for New Westminster and the rest of the House, Dr. Morgentaler has been sent to the hospital of the campus of the University of Sherbrooke where he basks in the sun. He has therefore no problem.
7278

July 4, 1975
Oral Questions


FINANCE
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. As the Conference Board of Canada this morning estimates that there will be a 1.7 per cent increase in the consumer price index over the next 12 months as a result of the federal excise tax on gasoline and the increase in oil and gasoline prices, would the minister now concede that the ten cents per gallon tax proposed in his budget does in fact aggravate our inflation which the Conference Board states will be nearly 10 per cent this year? Is the minister now prepared to withdraw and reconsider this ill-conceived and ill-advised scheme?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: No, Mr. Speaker. In the budget speech I made it quite clear that we had to consider some of the adverse and short-term consequences in terms of purchasing power and in terms of the effect on the consumer price index of the rise in gas and oil prices and the imposition of the 10 cent tax on gasoline for personal use. Against that is the necessity to ensure the bringing in of necessary reserves in this country in the future. In so far as the imposition of the ten cent tax on gasoline is concerned, the reason for its imposition on gasoline for personal consumption only is to ensure that we maintain and pay for a single national price for oil, which is $8 across the country compared to an international price of roughly $12. It means that in terms of home heating oil, or oil for commercial and business use, we maintain a uniform lower price across Canada.


PROPOSED DELAY IN IMPLEMENTATION OF GASOLINE TAX TO PERMIT COLLECTION ARRANGEMENTS TO BE MADE
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A supplementary question. In view of the minister's obstinacy and as the Department of National Revenue machinery is obviously not in place nor are suitable forms available for the collection of the proposed ten cents per gallon excise tax which has already resulted in uncertainty and inequity, is consideration being given to hoisting this proposed tax measure for a minimum four month period to allow for the passage of legislation, the making of suitable regulations and the preparation of forms?


John Napier Turner: No, Mr. Speaker. It is anticipated, subject to approval of parliament, that refunds and other aspects of the gasoline tax will commence early in August.


Mr. Stanfield:: We won't bet on it.


REQUEST FOR STUDY OF MILES DRIVEN AND GASOLINE USED BY CANADIAN WORKERS COMPARED WITH WORKERS IN OTHER COUNTRIES
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A further supplementary. This tax unfortunately, falls on the working public. In his budgetary speech in an effort to justify the ten cent tax the minister referred to gasoline prices in certain oil-deficient nations of Europe and Japan. Would

the minister indicate if a study has been done comparing the number of miles driven and gasoline used by the average Canadian going to and from work with the number of miles driven and gasoline used by workers in Paris, Tokyo, London and Bonn, to whom the minister referred to justify his tax hike?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I would have to see if this can be done. I must also draw to the attention of the House that a good many workers in Europe and Japan, because of gasoline shortages, have had to adopt a pooling system and curtail personal use in order to conserve gasoline.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister and concerns a matter which has been raised several times in the House and was of public concern before April. As people abhor terrorism in the world, terrorism as exemplified by the tragic events which took place in Jerusalem this morning, has the government finally come to a conclusion with respect to admitting PLO representatives to the crime conference, which is to take place in Toronto in September?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I expect the government will make an announcement in that regard some time next week.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When making that announcement, if by any chance the government suffers from a terrible lapse of principle and allows these people into the country, would the Prime Minister indicate if consideration will be given to the tremendously increased security costs which will fall on the shoulders of the people of metropolitan Toronto and the province of Ontario?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the question is hypothetical in its form. I remind the hon. member that a minister of the Ontario government personally extended the invitation for the holding of the conference in Toronto.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: That was before the PLO became involved.


PROPOSED ACQUISITION OF PLUTONIUM SEPARATOR BY SOUTH KOREA-INQUIRY WHETHER QUESTION RAISED WITH SOUTH KOREA AND FRANCE
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Did the hon. gentleman specifically ask the authorities in South Korea whether that country is negotiating, with France, the acquisition of facilities for the recycling of spent uranium, with a view
July 4, 1975

to producing plutonium? The minister has been asked this question several times but never answered specifically. Will he be explicit this morning?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, yes, I can be explicit on this point. The discussions with the President of the Republic and the foreign minister dealt with the general political intentions of the government with respect to nuclear weapons. There was no discussion about particular items, but the president made a reference to a comment to the effect that he had instructed research to be undertaken into the weapons option. This he denied. However, I asked today our ambassador in Seoul to raise this matter with the foreign minister, and relate it to the general political commitment which was made by the President of the Republic, that no nuclear weapons option was planned or even conceivable for the Republic of Korea. I will await the response to that inquiry in order to deal specifically with the question.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question for clarification? Am I to understand that the minister is to ask the authorities in South Korea specifically whether they are negotiating for the acquisition of these facilities? Has the minister not taken notice of reports in reliable journals like Le Monde which say that France is trying to sell such facilities to South Korea? Has the minister not consulted with the French ambassador to Canada, to verify whether this is so, with a view to making a protest to France if this is the case.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, as to the point the Leader of the Opposition raised with respect to France, we have consulted with the government of France and will continue to consult that government about nuclear questions. I cannot tell him the nature of any consultations about the processing plant, proposed or otherwise, but I do join him in the expectation that if any such proposals were in sight, the French government would want to apply safeguards to any reprocessing plant.


PROPOSED SALE BY WEST GERMANY OF ENRICHED URANIUM AND RECYCLING FACILITIES TO BRAZIL-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister who has told us a number of times about his efforts to get countries to sign the non-proliferation agreement and about how high the Canadian safeguard standards are. Has he directed any of his ministers to make any approaches to the government of West Germany which, it is very reliably reported, is entering into a deal with Brazil, which has not signed the non-proliferation agreement, to supply that country with recycling facilities as well as enriched uranium facilities and the whole integrated nuclear package? Can the Prime Minister indicate to the House whether the government of Canada is taking any initiative to make its views known in West Germany with regard to that deal?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I dealt with this question, the very same one I am sure, about a week ago. I will gladly repeat my answer to
Oral Questions
the hon. gentleman. There has been no change in the intervening week since I answered the last time. I repeat that I did discuss this whole area very thoroughly with Chancellor Schmidt when I saw him earlier this year. I discussed with several European countries the matter of ratification of the NPT. I think it is fair to assume it was as a result of my visit to those several countries and the pressure that I made that EURATOM countries all ratified the NPT in time for the review conference in May. I hope that my visit had some beneficial effect in that regard.
With regard to other than European countries, the case of Brazil for instance, I did not raise that question specifically with Chancellor Schmidt. However, I did discuss with him the importance of countries with nuclear capacity like his to view with increasing alarm the danger of the spreading of nuclear weapons. I urged him to join with me, Prime Minister Palme and other heads of governments in translating that concern into upgrading standards for their countries just as Canada has unilaterally upgraded her standards.


HOUSING
Mr. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. In view of the resolution passed at the United Nations preparatory meeting at Teheran last week that Israel not be invited to the United Nations Human Settlement Conference in Vancouver, does the minister intend to accept the United Nations majority decision in this matter?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it was not a decision of the United Nations. It was a resolution of a preparatory conference on a regional basis. The invitation was extended by the United Nations. We are the host nation. Of course, it extends to all members of the United Nations.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your recognition. My question is for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the north central part of Canada deserves the same financial break that was given the other parts of Canada in connection with the Trans-Canada Highway some years ago, and in view of the fact that during the 1972 election campaign the Prime Minister came to Edmonton and expounded on the construction of the north central highway and other great highways from Edmonton, when will the federal government join with the four western provinces on a 50/50 basis to finance the Yellowhead Highway?
29S76-47'/2

July 4, 1975
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, that promise, of course, had nothing to do with the Yellowhead Highway.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Hon. members know that. Therefore, as usual, the premise is completely unrelated to the question.


Mr. Mazankowski:: You know a lot about it during election time.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I did not mention the Yellowhead Highway during the election campaign. The hon. member was too busy worrying about his seat to pay attention to what I was saying.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member talked about a 50/50 sharing agreement. I would point out to him that the government of Canada is negotiating with one province in a situation where we will pay a higher percentage than that for completion of a highway.


An hon. Member:: Which one is that?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will inquire as to the state of negotiations between Canada and that one particular province.


FISHERIES
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State (Fisheries). In view of the need for conservation in our salmon rivers and in view of the fact there is evidence of indiscriminate poaching in many rivers across this country, what action has the minister taken to increase the number of river guards and wardens over the present number since they are unable to cover all the rivers?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries)):: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid we will never be able to completely stop poaching, even if we multiply the fish wardens indefinitely. However, I hope this House will soon give us additional powers for the fisheries officers and stronger penalties for the courts to enforce for this type of activity which has nothing romantic to recommend it.


LOSS OF FISHING VESSEL ON WEST COAST-REQUEST FOR REPORT
Mr. Donald Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question was for the Minister of Transport, but since he is absent, I shall direct it to the Minister of State in charge of fisheries.
Is the minister willing to persuade the Minister of Transport to table in the House the findings of the investigation, now completed, on the sea disasters which resulted

in a number of losses in human life as well as the wrecks of fishing vessels on the Pacific coast in March and April of this year?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I shall have no problem persuading my colleague. In fact, he is already convinced. We were supposed to have lunch together on Wednesday precisely to discuss this report, but I had to remain in New Brunswick. However, I should see him early next week.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare in his capacity as minister responsible for the status of women. In view of the fact that yesterday the minister had an opportunity of meeting with representatives of the National Action Committee with respect to the status of women, and in view of their emphasis on the need for improved day care facilities across Canada, can the minister say whether the government is now giving consideration to national day care legislation?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, there is a very simple answer. Yesterday I had an excellent meeting with the representatives of the organization concerned. I indicated that obstacles to an extension of the federal contribution to day care facilities result from the Canada Assistance Plan as it now exists and I mentioned that it is the government's intention to introduce next year new legislation on social services which would make the federal contribution to social services provided by the provinces more flexible and day care would of course be included. But there will be no special law on day care; this will be part of the new legislation on social services.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in view of the answer just given by the minister, can he say whether legislation to amend the Canada Assistance Plan in this respect will be presented to parliament during the current session?


Marc Lalonde: Not during this session, Mr. Speaker, but as soon as possible, hopefully in early 1976.
July 4, 1975


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Solicitor General.
Is he still considering the request submitted by the Quebec Minister of Justice for monetary compensation- for the fact that Quebec has its own police force and, if so, can he tell us whether the government of that province is continuing to exert pressure in that respect?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not heard from the Quebec government recently on this. We have definitely refused their request to pay them any compensation for their police forces in the years past.


CRIMINAL CODE
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice a question. As shown this morning, it is the function of the Minister of Justice to prescribe penalties and amendments to the Code. As there has been misrepresentation as to the use of the Royal prerogative, is it now the intention of the government to bring in a bill completely to abolish capital punishment so as to add some credibility to the position of the Solicitor General?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we have not made a decision about specific legislation in this regard. The whole matter is receiving consideration.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Then, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is it the policy of the government to introduce a bill into this parliament to replace the present law governing capital punishment-since this is now de jure as well as de facto-and completely abolish capital punishment? I think the government owes that to the public and they also owe it to the people who have been found guilty of shooting police officers and guards and who are now waiting in the death rows of the penitentiaries of this country.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I cannot agree with the premise of the question. If we had done it de jure there would be no need for legislation, but I deny that.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Perhaps I can clear that up, Mr. Speaker. Is it the intention of the government to bring in a bill to abolish capital punishment, since they owe it not only to the public but to the people waiting on death row? Is the government going to present a bill, along with the amendments that the Minister of Justice discussed today in answer to the right hon. member for Prince Albert?
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the government's intentions will be made known to the House in the usual way.


CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. It is with reference to the long standing claims of the pre-retired coal miners of Cape Breton against the Cape Breton Development Corporation. The minister will recall that we received assurances, not only from himself but from the President of Devco, Mr. Tom Kent, that as soon as the wage contract between the coal miners of District 26 and Devco had been settled, we would meet once again to discuss the matter further. Is the hon. gentleman in a position today to suggest when this promised meeting will take place now that the miners have voted in favour of the new wage contract?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of this question. I tried to communicate with the President of Devco in the interim before the question period but was unable to do so. As far as I know, the benefits which apply to the pre-retired miners as a result of the new contract presumably will be paid in the normal way. As for the meeting to which the hon. member referred, I will certainly be prepared to discuss this as soon as I can with Mr. Kent and hold the meeting either here or in Cape Breton, if that would be more desirable. I also understand, incidentally, that there is a new organization being formed among some of the pre-retired miners, but I am not sure what its status is in relation to other spokesmen for that group.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Frank Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Is the minister in a position today to inform the House of the latest developments with regard to the difficulties which have arisen due to the efforts made by the Indian people in British Columbia to have their very special problems recognized and dealt with by his department?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, that is a very general question. We are receiving replies indicating that some Indian bands in B.C. are anxious to deal with us and continue to receive our services on the current basis, whereas others are indicating they would prefer to terminate the relationship, and we are working on this in the Vernon and Kamloops areas.
July 4, 1975

Oral Questions


Frank Oberle: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The problem I am referring to, of course, is the blockading of very vital road and transportation links in British Columbia. Has the minister made any effort together with the Province of British Columbia to attempt to find an interim solution to the native problem in B.C. which might result in the removal of these blockades in various locations which over the last few months have caused severe hardship to industries and individuals living in the northern and central areas of British Columbia?


J. Judd Buchanan: Basically, Mr. Speaker, what we have done has been to continue to urge the Province of British Columbia to accept its responsibility in the area of negotiating land claims with the Indian people. This is where the matter rests. The barricading of the roads, of course, is a problem for the attorney general of B.C.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Water-loo):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture of which I have given him notice. It arises from the fact that at the present time there are some 545 dairy herds in Ontario which have been quarantined because of the fear of possible infection from brucellosis, and that a constituent of mine had some 324 head destroyed because they were so infected. In the light of the fact that Bill C-28, which would raise compensation payments to market level, has been on the order paper since October 21 but has not been called for second reading and is not on the shopping list presented by the government House leader, may I ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he is giving consideration to increasing immediately compensation payments paid to farmers whose herds have to be destroyed because of brucellosis to the market level, or is consideration being given to calling immediately Bill C-28 and to paying the amended compensation rate to people who have had their herds destroyed since the bill was first introduced eight months ago?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the bill referred to by the hon. member has had full hearings in the Senate, as no doubt he is aware. If we were able to get unanimous consent, I would be fully prepared to recommend to the House leader that we proceed with it immediately, since it is an important bill. I believe it has had two hearings in the Senate; witnesses have appeared before the Senate agriculture committee and outlined their feelings about the bill.
With regard to the concern about the spread of brucellosis, the facts that I have show that brucellosis control is better than we thought, or at least as good as hoped. The gentleman referred to had seven herds of cattle totalling 1,064 head. Five of these herds are free. Some of the cattle were up for sale at the Waterloo sales yard and through our card-check system we discovered brucellosis; 40 of them had brucellosis. It was due to the surveillance of our inspection service that this discovery was made.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of State (Fisheries). In light of the reported comment by Mr. Yashima, a Japanese fish company executive, that Canadian fishing boats are too small, that fishing methods are old-fashioned and the ports are not really fishing ports at all, while Canadian fish is almost undetectable on the Tokyo market, the biggest in the world, is the minister planning any steps to assist the Canadian fishing industry to improve its markets in Japan; and did the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce take any steps when recently in Japan to improve our markets, and is he doing anything to overcome some of the other criticisms levelled at the Canadian fishing industry?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, the question of access to the Japanese market was discussed when my colleagues were in Japan. I also had occasion to discuss this very question with a parliamentary delegation that was here last week. I wonder if the author of the article would have been as critical if we had agreed to the joint ventures he suggested, and which we would not have agreed to unless they were to the advantage of our fishermen. At the moment, I do not see it that way.


DUMPING OF HERRING INTO LIVERPOOL HARBOUR-SUGGESTED SALTING OR SMOKING TO PRESERVE FOR FUTURE SALE
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, the minister raised the point about markets, and I do not question his attitude about joint ventures but agree with him in that regard. However, since some 45,000 pounds of herring from local fishing boats was dumped into Liverpool Harbour, Nova Scotia, a week ago, due to the lack of markets, although fishermen are willing to sell their catches at 3Vi cents a pound, I ask the minister whether he would immediately investigate this destruction of valuable food in the hope that steps will be taken for its preservation either through salting or smoking for future sale?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I certainly did not want to infer that the criticism came from the hon. member. I wanted to make clear that it was from the author of the article. As to the matter of herring, we are trying in the Bay of Fundy area, and also off Nova Scotia, to encourage the use of more herring as food. One of the problems is that the vessels in many cases were not designed to fish for food but for fishmeal. We now have a group working with the industry, and talking with the fishermen. Frankly it is one of the most disappointing things to have food wasted this way.
July 4, 1975



FINANCE


Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, it has been brought to my attention that the banks are not granting farm improvement loans according to the act, and this is apparently the result of instructions from some of the banks' head offices. Will the Minister of Finance check into the situation with a view to having the banks provide these loans in accordance with the act? I expect the same situation is also true in respect of loans for fishermen and small businessmen.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, it would be helpful if perhaps the hon. gentleman could give me specific instances, and I would undertake to look into them. I am sure no instructions on a general basis to that effect are being issued by the head offices of the banks.


An hon. Member:: Oh, but they are.


John Napier Turner: I will communicate with the banks, but I would appreciate some specific instances if the hon. gentleman has them.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment and has to do with a proposed refinery in the Surrey municipality. The local government has been faced with the difficult task of making a decision in respect of that refinery without the relevant and necessary information. I understand the minister's department has a report prepared and I would ask whether she would make that report available to the local government? To save time, perhaps I could pose my supplementary question now. Will the minister prepare legislation that will preclude this kind of dilemma from ever recurring for a local government, where the senior government imposes demands on the local government without providing the information it needs to make the decision?


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, as to the kind of legislation the hon. gentleman suggests I should initiate, I am afraid he is dealing with a matter which is not at all within my purview or, as a matter of fact, probably not at all within the purview of the federal government. As for the specific question on the site for the proposed refinery, I know that at the present time a few sites have been considered. When the decision is firm as to what site is to be retained, then I do have the authority at this time under the Fisheries Act, if such site is in the area of a stream, to ask the proponent and the provincial government to carry out a study of the effects
Oral Questions
on the environment. I will do that when I get the information and when I know that the proposal is firm.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, if it is not within the purview of the federal government to protect the environment in local areas, I would ask the minister within whose purview this comes?


Jeanne Sauvé: It is within the purview of the federal government inasmuch as fisheries are affected.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, as reported at page 7167 of Hansard of two days ago, I asked the Minister of Agriculture what timetable he had for concluding the signing of the CEMA agreement. In view of his answer on that day that he was meeting with the minister of the province that had not signed the agreement, I would ask the minister now what success he has had in obtaining that promised commitment? If he has not been successful, I would ask what the minister's timetable is now in order that a viable Canadian egg market can be developed so that our own producers can be protected?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the discussion took place with the Minister of Agriculture for Alberta yesterday and he has agreed to sign the agreement. This means that all the provinces have agreed and we will be making an announcement later this day, I hope, on what procedure we are going to follow.



FINANCE


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, as the excise tax on gasoline has already started hurting our tourist industry, the bulk of our 40 million visitors coming by car, has the Minister of Finance given any consideration to relieving foreign tourists from this tax or, alternatively, giving relief to our tourist establishments for the loss of business?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, that would be difficult to do in the terms proposed by the hon. gentleman.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, in light of the support price on skim milk powder placed by this government, I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture why

July 4, 1975
Oral Questions
we are charging it back to the individual farmer rather than taking it out of current account as governments in Europe are doing?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, this is done in accordance with the agreement we have with the producers and the provinces in respect of these payments. Even under the new dairy program the producers themselves accept the levy system for the products they are exporting.



OLYMPIC GAMES


Mr. D. M. Collenette (York East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the President of the Treasury Board whether he can confirm or deny the most disturbing report in yesterday's Toronto Star that thousands of politicians in this country will get free tickets to next year's Olympic Games in Montreal?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, all the tickets that will be available to members of Parliament, and MLA's will have to be paid for at the full amount.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Forty dollars a ticket, Mr. Minister.



ALLEGATION WHEAT BOARD PUTS EXPORT GRAIN IN NON-BOARD CATEGORY AND DISTRIBUTES TO EASTERN FARMERS BUT NOT WESTERN FARMERS

Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, I have a short question, and perhaps a final supplementary, for the minister responsible for the Wheat Board. It has been brought to my attention that a situation exists which seems quite discriminatory to western grain producers. The situation described to me is that in the eastern part of our country Wheat Board grains for export are turned over into the category of non-board grains and distributed to eastern farmers, whereas in the west this apparently cannot be done. Would the minister give me some clarification in respect of this allegation?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member would have to clarify the allegation. Off-board grain is available on the same basis to all Canadian buyers throughout the country, of course, with transportation from region to region. As far as Wheat Board grain is concerned, it, too, is offered by the Canadian Wheat Board on the same basis and at the same price.


Peter Elzinga: Mr. Speaker, since the minister has seen fit to clarify this somewhat, I wonder if he would also respond to a communication I sent him on April 4 regarding this specific problem?



OLYMPIC GAMES


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question relates to an event of about two weeks ago and perhaps now has become a supplementary. It concerns reports of free tickets to members of parliament. I direct the question to the President of the Treasury Board and I gave notice to his office. It arises from press reports of a couple of weeks back. Can the minister assure us that despite those press reports, no special privileges were given to members of parliament when Olympic tickets first went on sale to the public some weeks ago at Eaton's stores?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the situation is as follows: a number of tickets had been reserved for members of the federal and provincial assemblies if they wished to purchase them, but on the condition that they pay the full price for each ticket. As a result, they are receiving no special favours, and the tickets are priced as high as $40. I must say I have not met many members willing to pay $40 for a ticket.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Seventh report of Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs-Mr. Kaplan.

Mr. Alexander:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order in respect of government business. I understand the government is in a rush to bring forward the Unemployment Insurance Act amendments. I wonder whether the government House leader can give us an indication of when he expects first reading and, more importantly, when he anticipates second reading of this so-called important matter.


Mr. Sharp:: Mr. Speaker, I intended to rise on a point of order to give an indication of the government's-


An hon. Member:: Shopping list.


Mitchell William Sharp: -shopping list, as has been suggested. First of all, this afternoon at the conclusion of the debate, first reading will of course be given to the bills based upon the ways and means resolutions. It is my hope, also, that notice will be given today of at least the amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act and the Medical Care
July 4, 1975

Act so that those bills could be dealt with next week. However, on Tuesday it would be our intention to call the following bills: C-57, C-53, C-63 and C-50. The House will realize that these bills are in the final stages of either third reading or report stage, and it is our hope that on that long day from eleven o'clock in the morning until ten o'clock at night we could dispose of all those items. I do not think this is unreasonable; there has been a very long debate on all of them. That is the order in which they will be called.
On Thursday afternoon, following routine proceedings, we will call the final day of debate on the Petro-Can bill, C-8. There are extra hours on Thursday morning which will be devoted to other business. It has not yet been decided what the business will be on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, but the choice is between the Excise Tax Act amendments which we want to carry through to royal assent, and the amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act which we want to carry through to the completion of second reading.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I thank the government House Leader for his answer. I hope that by Tuesday the government will have made up its mind which item has priority, the Excise Tax Act or the Unemployment Insurance Act. We always know what we are doing on this side, but it is questionable on the other side.


Miss MacDonald:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I should like to ask the government House leader, in view of the fact that parliamentary leaders of Canadian delegations to important UN conferences frequently report to the House on their return from such conferences, if he could tell us whether we will receive a report from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Campbell) who led the Canadian delegation at the United Nations International Women's Year Conference in Mexico City.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am sure it will be a most interesting report. It is my recollection, however, that arrangements have been made for such reports to be made to the appropriate standing committee as the occasion may arise. However, if the House should quickly dispose of the items I have referred to, I am sure we could find time.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Yesterday, in response to a question I posed to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) concerning the price of farm machinery, fertilizer and chemicals, the minister suggested that I should read the Agriculture Canada publication "News and Features, No. 1632." I wish to indicate to the minister and to the House that at that time I had not seen the document. It has now been presented to me, I have read it, and I believe the report at page 5 puts my question into proper perspective. The section dealing with agricultural inputs reads:
A quick look at farm input costs of the past few years shatters any idea that the recent dramatic rise in agricultural income has put the Canadian farmer on easy street.
That, in effect, was the tenor of my question and puts it into proper perspective. I do not think the Minister of
World Food Council
Agriculture needed to be as glib as he was in his answer to me yesterday.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order may I say I did not intend to be glib; I just wanted the hon. member to have the facts because it would be good for any member of the House to read these statements. The facts are set out in respect of the cost of farm machinery. It is shown that because of free trade practically no farm machinery is manufactured in Canada now; 90 per cent is imported from the United States and other parts of the world. So if the hon. member is a great free trader he had better take that fact into consideration also.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, my point of order arises from the answer given to me earlier by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) in which, if he did not intentionally mislead the House, I think he unintentionally confused the House. The minister appeared to have the impression that the reason Bill C-28 had been delayed was that it originated in the Senate and was delayed at that stage. In fact, the Senate hearings took place during the last parliament, prior to the election. The bill died on the order paper and was reintroduced on October 21 last. It sat on the order paper, received only first reading, and in the last eight months it has not been called for second reading. It would still have to go through second reading, committee and third reading stages and the Senate.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member received a very direct answer to that question during the question period.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, my point of order relates to the question period also. It arises as a result of the answer the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Buchanan) gave to my question. He inadvertently left the impression with the House that the responsibility for settling land claims in Canada rests with the provinces and not with his department or the federal government. I would hope the House would give the minister an opportunity to correct his statement, in light of the difficulty which exists in British Columbia where not just additional claims are in dispute but there is also a dispute in respect of existing reservations.


AGRICULTURE
Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I should like to report on the World Food Council meeting which I attended in Rome last week. The House will recall that the council was set up by the General Assembly of the United Nations in response to a recommendation made by the World Food Conference last November.
The purpose of the council is to take an overview of the world food situation, to see that the measures proposed by the World Food Conference to come to grips with the food problem are implemented, and to recommend corrective action where that is not being done. The council has, of course, no statutory powers to impose its views on governments or on the various international agencies. What it
7286

July 4, 1975
World Food Council
can do, however, and what it is expected to do, is to use moral suasion in putting the necessary weight behind its judgments and recommendations.
In the course of its meetings, the council reviewed what has been done to carry forward the work of the World Food Conference. It identified a number of priority areas where more has to be done, and done quickly. The minimum food aid target of ten million tons a year is still short of fulfilment. Mechanisms to ensure greater food security through the holding of national stocks have yet to be put into place.
Meeting the urgent food needs of the most seriously affected developing countries is a problem so long as their ability to import food commercially is limited by the continuing strain on their balance of payments. There is also the problem of ensuring that the efforts of these and other developing countries to grow more food are not held back by shortages of fertilizers and pesticides. Finally, there is the international fund for agricultural development which is intended to give a major push to the efforts of developing countries and on which a good deal of preparation work still remains to be done. The council was able to consider all these matters, and we hope that its recommendations will result in forward movement.
This was the council's first meeting. It was not an easy meeting because there had not been time to arrive at agreement as to how the council should interpret its mandate and how it could best translate it into action. This, in our view, must now be the council's first priority and much of the Canadian contribution to this first meeting was designed to that end. The House will be pleased to know that the council's report to the General Assembly acknowledges the near doubling of Canadian food aid and the fact that, so far, Canada is the only country to have adopted the concept of forward planning of food aid. The report will also reflect many of our ideas as to how the operation of the council can be made more effective.
Mr. Speaker, I said that this was not an easy meeting. I have seen some press reports that speak of a clash between the developing and the developed countries that are members of the council. That is not my impression of what caused the difficulties we encountered. On the contrary, if there is disappointment with the performance of the council so far, it is a disappointment that we in the Canadian delegation share.
We hope that between now and the council's second session the necessary understandings will be reached to enable the council to function as it was intended to function, and to make the key contribution expected of it toward the feeding of the world's hungry people.
Mr. Speaker, with the permission of the House I wish to table, in both official languages, a copy of my statement along with statements which I made at the World Food Council on June 26 and June 27, 1975.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the minister shall have leave to table the documents?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I might say, before recognizing opposition spokesmen, that in the rules which we are operating in respect of statements on motions, discretion is given to the Chair regarding the length of any question period that is to follow a statement on motions. This, I must say, is the second of such statements which gave me the initial impression, at least, of being a non-controversial type of statement which would be adequately dealt with if opposition statements were made, and a question period was not required. However, while statements are being made by opposition spokesmen perhaps consideration will be given to this matter and representations made about posing questions, and I will hear them.


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his statement. However, I should point out to him that the statement from his office arrived only five minutes before the bells began to ring. I would ask the minister to look into that matter and perhaps change the practice, because it is rather important that we receive statements in good time.
If I can characterize how we view the statement in terms of the world food situation and the movement thus far to alleviate the difficulties which the World Food Conference was established to alleviate, I would say that the situation is still pretty bad. If there is anything characteristic in the minister's statement, it is that the progress thus far in terms of the work of the World Food Council, which I think every right-thinking member of the House and every right-thinking Canadian would support, has not been very good. The minister himself seems to be very disappointed about that and I want him to know it is a disappointment that we share.
I wish the minister had been more explicit in terms of the time-frame within which the mechanism to deal with this issue might be set up. The types of mechanism that were contemplated in terms of creating national stocks and holding national stocks were not dealt with adequately in the minister's statement. Perhaps a more thorough review of the statements that he is tabling will reveal more on this subject.
While we support this program, we do not want the minister to forget that while he was away at the council meeting the chairwoman of the Food Prices Review Board, on the day before he made his statement there, indicated that there was a requirement in our own country for a national, long-term policy. I hope the minister, in planning the international obligations of our country as a citizen of the world, will not forget the obligations that we have to our own people.
In conclusion, we very much regret that thus far this worth-while organization, which was developed with such hope to aid the unfortunate people of the world, has not made more progress. Also, the statement of the minister does not indicate any progress whatsoever in terms of the principle which he himself espoused, that being the requirement of our country, as well as of others, to help the underdeveloped nations begin the process of helping themselves. I say that with the greatest respect to the

July 4, 1975

minister, in no way depreciating his concern but, rather, indicating our own.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, first I should like to thank the minister for his statement. We received the statement in ample time. It seems to me that it came at about 10.30 a.m., so we are not complaining about the notice; it was reasonable so far as we are concerned.
I note with interest that the minister said at the meeting of the council that in November, 1974, Canada took the view that the best way to play its part in the World Food Conference was not to make eloquent speeches but to make specific commitments along the lines of the recommendations of the conference; and in fact a specific commitment was made at that time for one million tons of grain. Incidentally, that is less than Canada provided in 1971 or 1972, so that the commitment, while specific, still does not get far beyond rhetoric in terms of the amount.
The real problem in terms of the Third World is not aid. The Third World does not want to rely upon the charity of the developed world. What is needed, of course, is a whole new trading arrangement; yet that is not referred to in the statement the minister has provided and it is not referred to in the deliberations of the government's own conference, a report of which I examined this morning. It is vital that we as a country move away from the concept of aid: while our party agrees that it is desirable and necessary, we must come to the point where it is completely phased out. New trading arrangements must be made which will allow the Third World to rely upon its own commodities, and its own commodity prices must be set; otherwise the Third World will simply become more and more dependent upon the western industrialized world, which is exactly what is happening now.
It is interesting that John Dillon, the co-ordinator of GATT-FLY, in his study between 1950 and 1973 examined world commodity prices for Canada versus commodity prices in the Third World and found that products such as zinc ore went up 119 per cent, lumber was up 53 per cent and copper 107 per cent; but in the Third World, tea was down 63 per cent, coffee was down 29 per cent and jute 41 per cent. So that in terms of the capacity of the Third World to support itself without new trading arrangements we should be attacking this problem at its source and that is the direction in which we have to move. I hope the minister will get on to that wavelength and away from the idea that Canadian agriculture is some kind of bottomless pit which can support the increasing population of the world. Our farmers will do their part-they certainly have in the past-but the time must come when the Third World is no longer dependent upon the industrialized world for support.
It is interesting to note that at the World Food Conference no mention was made of population. As agonizing as it may be, the question of population must be dealt with before we get anywhere in terms of solving the problems of starvation in the world. I want briefly to quote Mr. R. Glenn Anderson who wrote the book "A Second Look at the Green Revolution". He said:
The question is not whether the presently-observed expansion of the human population will be cutailed-it will. What is of interest is the manner in which this curtailment will come about: will it be accom-
Publie Service Staff Relations
plished through the rational actions of man; or will it be left to nature to ultimately handle this explosion of growth as nature has handled such perturbations in the flow of life countless times before?
Canada should not impose its own standards of birth control on the Third World but it is a subject that should have been discussed at the Rome conference. However, it was deliberately avoided. Something else that was deliberately avoided at the Rome conference and the council meeting is the question of new trading relationships in the world. My information is that an official of IT & C stonewalled their own conference so that the subject did not come up for discussion.
As long as this country relies upon the principle of charity to solve the problems of the Third World, all we will be doing is prolonging the agony. It is our Christian duty to provide help to the Third World, but it is also our Christian duty to see that the Third World stands on its own feet once and for all, that new trading relationships are developed and new prices for Third World products are agreed to so that at last we can end this nonsense of half the world being rich and the other half poor.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for sending us a French copy of his statement. An astounding fact contained in this statement is that Canada was one of the few countries to do its part in feeding third world countries. I agree with the previous speaker. I was in India a few years ago. At that time, the Ford Foundation was providing aid by teaching the Indians how to harvest wheat. Much to my surprise, I was told that the Indian government did not agree with the Foundation that a country like the United States, for example, should voluntarily help the Indians with the harvesting of wheat. In his statement, the minister said that he finds it somewhat strange that some countries could not agree at the World Food Conference in Rome. From this statement, I therefore infer that Canada should seek primarily to provide technical aid, as the United States do, with a view to helping those people to sow and harvest and eventually to become self-supporting.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, in view of the nature of the minister's statement, and the fact that today is a short day, the official opposition will forgo any questions with respect to this statement.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Agreed.


PUBLIC SERVICE STAFF RELATIONS ACT, CANADA LABOUR CODE MEASURE TO ESTABLISH SECTOR BARGAINING IN PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-399, to amend the Public
29576 - 48 (4

July 4, 1975
Order Paper Questions
Service Staff Relations Act and the Canada Labour Code to provide for the establishment of sector bargaining.


An hon. Member:: Explain.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, an unprecedented number of man-days and productivity have been lost in this country due partially to the fragmentation of union power within the public service and the essential services. This fragmentation is having a drastic effect not only on our trade deficit but, indeed, on our ever-increasing cost of living, affecting our over-all problems of inflation. It is also obvious that government actions in this regard have been slow, if not non-existent. Therefore, I hope this bill will receive serious consideration.
The purpose of this bill is to require union groups in a single public service sector to bargain with Treasury Board simultaneously and to negotiate contracts which would run for three years and expire at the same time. This would assure the taxpaying public that each essential public service sector would be strike-free, except for the possibility of a walk-out every three years.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 1,909, 2,079, 2,485, 2,491, 2,570, 2,614, 2,615, 2,617, 2,626, 2,677, 2,678 and 2,700.
Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call starred question No. 2,627?
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Rynard: For the years 1973 and 1974, by province, how much money was spent on (a) beauty aids and cosmetics (b) alcoholic beverages (c) cigarettes and tobacco (d) food (e) shelter?


Mr. Gaston Clermont (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: (a, c, d and
e) Statistics Canada reports that the last published survey of retail commodities was conducted in 1969 to cover the year 1968. A similar survey is presently being conducted to cover the year 1974. The results of this survey giving the sales of various commodities by kind of business should be available by the end of the year 1975. (b) Sales of alcoholic beverages by value, fiscal year ended March 31, 1973 (latest figures available): (In thousands of dollars): Newfoundland, 57,359; Prince Edward Island, 12,527; Nova Scotia, 89,104; New Brunswick, 61,996; Quebec, 516,858;

Ontario, 884,145; Manitoba, 112,245; Saskatchewan, 94,342; Alberta, 203,812; British Columbia, 293,486; Yukon, 5,027; Northwest Territories, 7,496; Total, 2,31)8,397.
Note: Figures include sales by the liquor authorities in the various provinces as well as retail sales by wineries in Ontario and by breweries in Newfoundland, Quebec and Ontario. They do not represent the final retail selling price of alcoholic beverages as mark-ups by licencees are unknown and hence not included.


Mr. Marshall: What amount of funds has been allocated to each province under (a) Rural and Native Housing Programme (b) Neighbourhood Improvement Programme (c) Assisted Home Ownership Programme?


Barnett Jerome Danson: I am advised by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows: CMHC made initial allocations for 1975 for the following National Housing Act programmes, in total: Rural and Native Housing (Assisted Home Ownership, Federal/Provincial Housing and Residential Rehabilitation): loans, $49.2 million; grants, $8.9 million. Neighbourhood Improvement: loans, $26.5 million; grants, $50.5 million. Assisted Home Ownership: loans, $373.8 million. Funds for programmes under the National Housing Act are also allocated provincially, for the purposes of internal guidance and control subject, in certain cases, to formal agreements with provincial agencies. Such allocations are not published, since fluctuations in activity rising from changing demands for funds, among programmes and provinces, require that they be flexible.


Mr. Rondeau: 1.	Is Canada a member of Interpol and, if so (a) since what date (b) for what reason?
2.	Is there a document relating to the decision of Canada to become a member of Interpol and, if so (a) what is the document (b) where is the document?
3.	Was such documentation made unavailable to the public and. if so (a) on what date (b) for what reason (c) who was responsible for the decision?
4.	Does the government subsidize directly or indirectly the National Central Bureau of Interpol in Canada and, if so, through which department?
5.	What were the exchanges between Canada and Interpol (a) before 1939 (b) from 1939 to 1945 (c) since 1945?


William Warren Allmand: 1. Yes. (a) 1949; (b) To ensure and promote mutual assistance between Criminal Police authorities and to establish and develop institutions likely to contribute effectively to the prevention and suppression of ordinary crimes.
2.	Yes. (a) Approval by the Minister of Justice of a recommendation by the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police that Canada make application for membership, (b) Royal Canadian Mounted Police Headquarters.
3.	No. (a), (b) and (c): Not applicable.
July 4, 1975

4.	Yes. Ministry of the Solicitor General, Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
5.	(a) Nil. (b) Nil. (c) 81,872 (Statistics available from January 1, 1960, to March 31, 1974, only.)


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	Does Hilton receive a straight fee for operating the Hotel Vancouver and the Queen Elizabeth (Montreal) or does it share in the profits?
2.	Were tenders called for the operation of the hotels and (a) if not, for what reason was Hilton approached rather than a Canadian hotel chain (b) if so (i) who submitted tenders (ii) what was the amount of each bid?
3.	Did CN ask Hilton to operate all of its hotels and, if not, for what reason?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: The
Management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: 1. The contract with Hilton provides for a management fee that is computed as a percentage of profits.
2.	No. (a) As Mr. D. Gordon expressed to the Sessional Committee on Railways, Airlines and Shipping in 1958, the Queen Elizabeth Hotel was designed for the large convention market which is international. During its construction it became known to management that Hilton was considering entering the Montreal hotel business. Discussions led to an operating agreement between CN and the largest world-wide hotel chain, which brought with it direct access to the large convention market. At the same time Hilton committed themselves to compete in cities with CN Hotels only with CN's consent. In 1959 Hilton was considering the possibility of opening its own hotel in Vancouver, consequently Vancouver was excluded from the commitment. At the Hotel Vancouver, after CN had acquired CP's interest, CN negotiated an operating agreement with Hilton both because CN was very satisfied with the operation of the Queen Elizabeth Hotel and to avoid increased competition in Vancouver with the CN owned hotel, (b) Not applicable.
3.	The proposed arrangements for the formation of a Canadian company which would have owned or leased CN and other hotels provided for the operation of the hotels by Hilton. Discussion on this proposed arrangement has been terminated.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	What are the total costs included in the 1975-76 Estimates of the Department of National Defence for language training?
2.	How are such costs divided between (a) salaries of personnel receiving instruction (b) salaries of instructional staff (c) additional or supplementary services to be purchased from the Public Service Commission (d) other costs?
3.	Are such costs recorded separately for members of the Armed Forces?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: 1.	$26.1 million.
2. (a) $13.2 million, (b) and (c). Instructional staff and additional or supplementary services are all purchased
Order Paper Questions
from the Public Service Commission at a cost of $10.3 million for 1975/76. The breakdown of this sum is as follows: Cost of teaching staff, $7 million; Overhead charges which include fringe benefits, regional operational shared services, study division, training aids, text books etc, $3.3 million. Total $10.3 million, (d) Administration costs, $2.1 million; Temporary duty and removal costs, $0.5 million; Total $2.6 million.
3. Yes. The costs are recorded separately in the computerized Defence Services Program.


Mr. Forrestall: What is the minimum altitude that can be continuously maintained by the Boeing 707 for two hours and at such altitude (a) how many gallons of fuel would be consumed (b) what does this gallonage represent of the contemplated total gallon capacity?


James Armstrong Richardson: Three hundred feet above the sea surface is considered to be the practical minimum altitude for Boeing 707 operation spanning a two hour period. This limit is based on considerations of flight safety. Operation below 300 feet for shorter periods is possible if demanded by mission requirements, (a) Approximately 3,600 gallons of JP-4. (b) 15.7 per cent.


Mr. Forrestall: Has the government taken into consideration the possibility of Canada being successful at the Law of the Sea Conferences or of Canada taking unilateral action respecting extentions of its territorial or other claims to the waters to the extremes of the continental shelf, in its deliberations as to the ability of the DASH-7 performing any useful surveillance function whatsoever in replacing the Argus and, if so, does the government believe that the aircraft can be replaced with a short take-off and landing aircraft such as the DASH-7?


James Armstrong Richardson: Studies are being made of the effectiveness of the DASH-7 in performing surveillance functions. The DASH-7 physical and operational characteristics preclude its use in the long range patrol function.


Mr. Forrestall: Will the Minister of National Defence review the decision in answer to Question No. 2,403 requiring members of the CAF who had enlisted pre-unification to cease wearing badges of their former element/ser-vice to determine whether or not (a) this policy is in accord with the committments made by the Minister of National Defence and aides at the time of unification (b) there was in fact agreement on the part of those concerned to adopt this proposal (c) this policy of the Minister is in accord with the stated new objectives of the Department to reorganize itself along three separate commands to permit those serving, inter alia, to be more readily identifiable with their command (d) this policy is a useful alteration of previous courses (e) it is reversible and (i) if not, for what reason (ii) if so, on what date?


James Armstrong Richardson: (a) The policy is in accord with the commitment made by the Minister of National Defence at the time of unification, who in his address on the Canadian Forces

July 4, 1975
Order Paper Questions
Reorganization Act to the House of Commons on 7 December, 1966 (Hansard, 27th Parliament, 1st session Vol. X page 10835) stated as follows:
"Appropriate insignia will be used to designate the environmental specialties of the serviceman but final recommendations concerning these insignia and the insignia of rank have not yet been made."
(b) Yes. See paragraph 3 of Question No. 2403* (Hansard 134 page 5877). (c) Each command now has a distinctive identifying badge which is required to be worn by all its members on the right breast pocket. This policy was promulgated throughout the Forces in Dress Instruction issued 3 April, 1970. (d) This policy has been in effect since April 3, 1970 and was reiterated on March 22, 1973. (e) (i) and (ii). There is no current plan to reverse the policy outlined in the answer to Question 2403.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	As of April 30 each year 1971 to 1975, how many pounds of broilers were in storage in Canada?
2.	As of the same dates, how many pounds of turkey were in storage in Canada?


Gaston Clermont: Statistics Canada reports the following: 1. The number of pounds of broilers in storage in Canada at May 1: 1975, 8,925,000; 1974, 11,174,000; 1973, 9,633,000; 1972, 5,120,000; 1971, 9,154,000.
2 The number of pounds of turkeys in storage in Canada at May 1: 1975, 41,604,000; 1974, 38,942,000; 1973, 16,851,000; 1972, 20,292,000; 1971, 28,125,000.


Mr. Reynolds: Does the Department of National Defence use Ethylene Glycol and, if so (a) what is the cost per gallon (b) how much is used per year (c) for what purpose is it used (d) in what way is it disposed?


Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Yes. (a) $5.10; (b) 8,000 gallons; (c) It is used as a coolant in the radar equipment at Canadian Forces Stations; (d) It is disposed of by mixing it with used engine oil and, with the approval of the Department of the Environment, it is used to control dust on gravel roads.


Mr. Robinson: 1.	Does the government have any information on the development by Soviet scientists of an electric car that runs on alternating current rather than bulky storage batteries and, if so (a) is it a station wagon (b) does it operate at speeds of up to 50 miles an hour (c) does it carry half a ton (d) will it be put on the road this year as a small cargo truck (e) can the batteries used in the machine be charged at plug-and-sock-et devices mounted at roadside?
2.	Will the government give consideration to investigating such development in the interest of conserving oil and gas and reducing pollution from motor vehicles?


Gaston Clermont: 1. We have no details other than what was shown in the press reports about the Soviet electric car.
2. The department is investigating a number of developments with respect to current and future electric vehicle technology.


Mr. Robinson: Are battery electric vehicles now being provided in some parts of the world at the present time and, if so, is the government developing or providing any financial support for similar development?


Gaston Clermont: 1. Battery electric vehicles have been produced in several parts of the world including Europe, Japan, U.S.A. and Canada.
2. Financial assistance programs are available to companies requesting such assistance and meeting the criteria for the specific program assistance requested.


Mr. Herbert: Is there a possibility of a shortage by 1980 of spectrum space for land mobile services and, if so, will any relief be provided in order to remove any constraints to expansion in the industry caused by a spectrum shortage?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister of Communications):: In certain major urban areas if current methods of radio frequency management continue, the possibility of a shortage of spectrum space for land mobile services in certain parts of the spectrum by 1980 does exist. However, my Department is developing an improved Spectrum Management System which will alleviate this condition and in addition technology exists which will permit the use of frequencies in other portions of the spectrum for land mobile services.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, July 3, consideration of the motion of Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton) that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.
Mr. Claude-Andre Lachance (Lafontaine-Rosemont):: Canada as most countries in the western world is now facing difficult economic conditions and it is the duty of the government in such a troubled period to act quickly by advocating direct and persuasive steps to try as much as possible to lessen the evil effects of a generalized recession.
July 4, 1975

In that respect, last November the Minister of Finance introduced a budget featuring on the one hand various incentives to our foreign trade and on the other hand, various inflation fighting measures.
Now, as the Minister of Finance said in his recent budget speech, Canadians are now faced with the three problems of inflation, recession and energy. Considering how things have been evolving, and instead of resorting to old recipes, the government has introduced a new budget which, without claiming to be the panacea to the ills of our economy, nevertheless featured an appropriate balance of measures to set an example for the Canadian people and industry in general.
There are two appropriate words to qualify that budget: balance and insight.
Let us quickly review the characteristics of the present economic situation, and particularly inflation, in order to try and understand the remedies introduced in the June 23 budget.
What are the three elements of the present inflation?
First, there is the inflation that comes from without against which we cannot do much, except try and grow bananas in the Niagara peninsula, which I doubt would yield satisfactory results. In fact, there can be three causes to that inflation from without: straight inflation in supplying countries, the shortage of goods and services they offer and the reevaluation of foreign currencies in relation to the Canadian dollar. That last point has been particularly painful during the last two years. In any case, even price controls would fall far short of repressing external inflation, whatever its cause-shortages, straight inflation or reevaluation of commodities.
The second cause is rising prices fed by shortages, and I think hon. members are familiar with that problem of balance between supply and demand and its influence on the determination of prices. That situation has always existed and will always exist, but lately it has gained momentum and the panic reflex is reflected by the imposition of an artificial ceiling on prices. The consequence is an extension of the market imbalance, the effect of which was noticed in the United States. We can therefore be satisfied not to have adopted an over-all price and wage control policy in Canada. Furthermore, Canadian people understood it very well at the last electoral campaign.
Finally, there is domestic inflation, on which we can act directly or indirectly and whose multiple causes and dramatic effects have a common premise, the almost legendary lack of discipline on the part of Canadians about satisfying their needs and their wild desire to increase their individual standard of living.
For example, excessive salary demands resulted in an increase in before tax salaries which ran ahead of inflation; it even had a tendency to overreach the total growth of productivity and inflation, which resulted in higher cost prices.
In this area, the Minister of Finance made superhuman efforts in order to achieve a national consensus to show discipline about price and income increases in the Canadian economy. Unfortunately, he did not succeed and the only option left to him was to introduce a budget whose main theme is that of restraint in spending in the hope
The Budget-Mr. Lachance
that that example would have sensible effects on the whole of the economic activities of this country. Time will tell whether Canadians understood the message. Having said this, how do you cope with that inflation, unemployment and short supply with a budget?
Before doing so, the cyclical shifts of the economy must be understood, particularly short cycles, and in that respect I refer to a lecture by Senator Lamontagne on May 5, 1975.
Without going into the details of the cycles themselves, let us simply say that all economic phenomena do not undergo the same variations at the same time. So, for example, the GNP behaviour coincides with the cycle. Certain indices, such as the ratio between inventories and shipments, run ahead of it. Others, such as variations in prices and the rate of unemployment, trail it.
In turn, and this is very important from a political standpoint, prices and unemployment do not follow the cycle in the same pattern. Unemployment does not increase substantially at the beginning of the recession but it continues to increase during the recovery while prices show a converse behaviour. Their rate of increase continues to go down during the recovery and to go up during the first stages of the recession. This is when inflation becomes a major political problem, but the boom and the immediate cause of the inflationary thrust have already disappeared. Unemployment and prices therefore adjust slowly in relation to their cause itself, that is the cycles, and we must therefore be very careful not to analyze an economic perspective on the basis of effects rather than causes and to propose inappropriate remedies. As usual, the opposition has fallen into this trap, Mr. Speaker, but we and the rest of Canadians are used to this.
I would like to quote from page 13 of the talk given by Senator Lamontagne:
Meanwhile, the best educators indicate that the Canadian recession is already over. The general production index and the actual domestic product index, two very meaningful indicators, went up in February for the first time in several months. The relation between supplies and shipments is at its maximum. Automobile production has recovered: the slump in residential construction is over. I could give other indications of the recovery. However, this does not mean that the economy will suddenly start on an upward movement and that the unemployment rate will soon decrease. In fact, this rate remains high even during the recovery, which often forces the government to act even when it is too late.
Mr. Speaker, the seeds of recovery are there and, in bringing down the budget at this time, the government wanted essentially to enable the development factors already at work in the economy to exert all their influence and to give the example by voluntarily restricting our demands.
The controlling points in this restraint system are the budgetary and non-budgetary savings of more than $850 million, a limited growth in the civil service and aggressive conservation measures for Canadian oil and gas through a surtax of 10 cents a gallon.
In addition to that, a ceiling on a per capita rate of increase in federal involvement in medicare, amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act to create a desirable climate for work motivation, and the creation of jobs through business investments and direct employment grants. I especially welcome in passing the $285 million

July 4, 1975
The Budget-Mr. Lachance
earmarked for a new Local Initiatives Program spread over the next couple of years and operating from November to June, which will promote public works and projects at the municipal level.
But what I am mostly delighted about is the government emphasis on housing to meet the needs of Canadians over a long period of time. Indeed, according to the interpretation given by Judith Maxwell of C. D. Howe Institute, housing is both one of the driving forces of this recession and the great loser in the latter.
The CMHC, in addition to the current $1 billion, will be allotted more than $200 million to increase loans to limited dividend rental housing projects, to new home buyers, under the AHOP, and also to provincial or private non profit housing organizations.
Privately financed housing will receive a temporary grant increase. The yearly maximum will be raised from $600 to $1,200 until December 31, 1975 for new owner-occupied housing units; and until March 31, 1976, the maximum yearly grant will be $900 instead of $600 for new rental housing units. These measures in the budget, although excellent, are not adequate in my view to encourage investors to put new funds in residential construction.
Part of the problem is that there is no incentive for small capital holders to invest in real property, because the 1972 tax reform unduly favours large building owners. The latter are now in a better fiscal position than small landlords, whatever their trade or profession. In view especially of problems in the housing industry, the new income tax act provisions worsened the situation because until November last, they ignored the essential stimulating effect of small investors within the real estate industry.
To place the debate in context, I would like briefly to explain the causes and nature of the fiscal law reform introduced after the 1972 white paper. A number of taxpayers whose revenues would otherwise have reached a particularly severe taxing rate became owners. In so doing, they were able to reduce or cancel altogether their income tax liability from other revenues, by claiming depreciation on their property. Ideally, such initial generosity should be counterbalanced by lower depreciation deductions in subsequent years, or by recouping after a sale income tax lost due to exaggerated depreciation. But if the taxpayer buys other property, he can push back almost indefinitely the day when his total depreciation deductions will be lower than the mean figure. Moreover, as most buildings concerned are in the same category, a taxpayer who sells a building can escape liability on the proceeds of the sale by investing them in another building. Finally, if the taxpayer uses this procedure all his life, the payment of thusly deferred taxes will be indefinitely delayed. In the tax reform, the government took measures in order to plug these gaps. First, a taxpayer can no longer deduct from his other incomes a loss coming from the possession of an asset when this loss stems from renting the capital cost. Then, a distinct category of amortization has been created for each rental building worth up to $50,000. In other words, there will be a day of reckoning for the owner of each important building.
According to this system, the capital cost allowance is only a means of recognizing the wear on a building over its life expectancy. The government often takes the initiative of proposing incentives to meet particular economic and social requirements. So in the November 18, 1974 budget, a measure was taken to exclude from the limits of the capital cost allowance those multi-family dwellings whose construction began between November 18, 1974 and the end of 1975. This incentive has been introduced as an intentional exception to the proposed limit to help alleviate the scarcity of rental accommodation across Canada.
Yet, this scarcity has been aggravated in spite of the stimulus and I think that it would be appropriate to extend for a five year period the measure proposed in the last budget and scheduled to end at the end of 1975, that is, and this would seem preferable to me, to rescind the present clauses of the Income Tax Act prohibiting the deduction from employment revenues of losses incurred by the possession of a property when this loss is imputable to the capital cost allowance even if preventive action must be taken in order to avoid the abuses of previous years as much as possible by allowing, for instance, the deduction of up to the average annual income in Canada and beyond that, the loss being deferred to subsequent years and by adding a presumed disposal of the property after a set period from 10 to 20 years depending on the category of the property and by strictly readjusting the depreciated value of the property according to its appraised value at the time of disposal.
Mr. Speaker, we are deadly wrong if we think we will be able to deal with the housing problem through subsidized housing or controlled rent units. Those are only part of the solution to the housing problem. It is obvious that there is no proposal which could bring about a definite and easy solution to that problem, but helping small investors would be in my opinion one more step in the right direction.
I conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying that a country is built now. However, for the future our governments have been accused too often of acting like firemen who react at the last second. We have here a budget which aims in the long term to the welfare of future generations through the education of Canadians and the emulation between the federal government and private enterprise. In fact, the proposed measures did not even need the framework of a national budget to be implemented, but they would have suffered from the lack of impact and publicity given to them by the budget particularly as regards the necessity of restraint. Young people realize it and they will remember it when the time comes to elect a new government. This is mainly what frustrates the old dodderers opposite because the carpet has been sweeped from under their feet and that their balance being already precarious, they will need time to recover if they ever do.
Mr. Speaker, all we hear from the opposition since the beginning of this debate are ceaseless complaints from phoney experts in economics about the lack of leadership of the government. Yet, when we ask them for suggestions to help us do a fine job, the only thing we get out of them is a lot of stereotyped phrases as well as old and dusty recipes which could frighten even witches. In that regard,

July 4, 1975

I strongly advise the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) to put on his desk a human skull so that the Canadian population may be fully informed about the kind of cooking they have in mind for us should his party unfortunately come into power one day.


Mr. Leonard C. Jones (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, I found it interesting, as an independent member of parliament without party affiliation, to study the budget speech objectively and the representations made by members of the various parties in this House. In popular terms, the budget could probably be called an "unbudget". It is fuzzy. There is no fizz to it, no zip. It is pale; it is flat. When I spoke in the House on the November budget, I said in part, as reported on page 1699 of Hansard:
I trust that the members of the House will not push the panic button too soon or too late, as the case may be, for fear that instead of inflation, recession, slow growth and such other economic phrases, we hit rock bottom with a serious recession or depression, along with even more serious unemployment. We are just gliding at the moment. The trip will not be smooth or easy, but with less wind and proper navigation we should be able to land fairly smoothly within the next 10 or 12 months-that is, if the pilot, navigator and crew have steered the proper course-
It behooves all of us during this session to be patient with the minister and the government in their alleged efforts to "wrestle inflation to the ground". But it behooves the minister and the government to inform the House immediately of all the restraints and their results, both good and bad, and if it is necessary to change course at any time, immediately to advise the House. If his theories are wrong, the minister should admit it. Each and every one of us must continue not only to urge government restraint-that is, reduce government waste, duplication, bureaucratic bungling and empire building, red tape and inefficiency and, at the same time, provide adequate services-but we must urge and promote savings and less waste, not only in government at all levels but also at all levels of the private sector.
I spoke on the same theme in the throne speech debate last October. I said on October 4, 1974, as reported on page 138 of Hansard-.
Inflation can be beaten but it will take the wholehearted support and determination of this House, the federal government, the provincial and municipal governments, along with management and labour and all the sectors of our society to battle this disease. It has reached epidemic proportions-maybe some of us do not realize this as yet- and we cannot delay. Some of you may not be feeling the effects of it, but I suggest to you that the standard of living of many Canadians is poor. Regional disparity, transportation problems, housing, unemployment, interest rates and intergovernmental relations, as well as several other such matters, should be dealt with by the government. Red tape itself is inflated. It causes inflation as well as financial and mental stress.
What I said on those occasions still applies. Our nation has continued to drift on a sea of instability and insecurity in such a nonchalant, permissive and indifferent manner that it might be on the Sea of Tranquillity on the moon. I wish I could be confident that the proposals contained in the minister's speech are enough to extricate this nation from the mess in which it finds itself. There are crises- unemployment, inflation, housing crises, high interest rates, energy difficulties, government waste, and so on.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) stated a number of options. The minister and the government have placed themselves on the horns of several dilemmas. They are the authors of this nation's misfortunes, but the people are the victims of the terrible economic conditions. The budget proposals do not, in reality, appear to deal effectively with
The Budget-Mr. Jones
any of the crisis situations. On the contrary, they could well compound existing conditions.
I ask, what will be the real effect of the excise tax on gasoline? What will be the effect of increased heating oil prices this winter? How much will the government spend on administering and collecting the excise tax? Will the government use at least part of the money for mass urban transit? What will be the effect of continuous deficit financing? Since there is a minus growth factor in the economy, will the proposed incentives for business and employment really provide more jobs and, if so, how many? What benefits will LIP projects really provide? Are the proposed amendments to the UIC regulations practical and fair? Is the government discriminating against persons over 65 years old? Lastly, will the increased dollars proposed for housing be sufficient, with help from the private sector?
If it did nothing else, the minister's budget speech clearly indicated that the government has finally admitted that more than ordinary steps are necessary. The questions will always be there to be asked and only in the future will we see if the steps proposed are the correct ones. I suggest that the budget, so-called, may be referred to as a small "c" conservative budget. It is an austerity budget. It attempts to step away from the far left and is heading right of centre. In this regard perhaps the minister and the government finally realize that we can no longer pursue policies of a socialistic and permissive nature. Maybe we can now expect more responsible decisions on capital punishment, the penal and parole system and on allied matters concerning crime and criminals. Policemen and prison guards are entitled to the support of the Solicitor General and the cabinet; that is, they are entitled to better working conditions, to better protection.
The government should have shown restraint some time ago, and I should like to suggest how further huge sums of money can be saved. Government should endeavour to be as productive as possible, provide necessary services, not duplicate or provide unproductive or absolutely useless programs, and leave those things to private enterprise which private enterprise can do better and more efficiently. Government offices should not be a nursery; they must be useful, productive and their existence must be necessary. Government is business, big business, and not an asylum for the beneficiaries of political patronage. Programs which do little or nothing to increase the gross national product should be renewed and, if they are not necessary, deleted. Huge sums of money are directed to questionable programs. Ethereal programs of little or no use should be shelved. On the other hand, capital programs and projects which provide useful employment and long-term benefit should be accelerated in order to provide employment.
Here are some further specific suggestions for restraint and for saving additional moneys. I wish the Minister of Finance were in the House and listening. I could make a dozen or more suggestions. What are they? One, eliminate the existing system and policy of implementing bilingualism in the public service, halt language training, close down the office of the Commissioner of Official Languages and cut down all allied programs and projects. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and members of the cabinet

July 4, 1975
The Budget-Mr. Jones
should meet their provincial counterparts in the hope that approval in principle can be obtained for a national, nonseparate, uniform, integrated educational system so that all our young people can be treated fairly, regardless of ethnic background, when applying for positions and promotion in the public service and the private sector. Reinstate the merit system; it is more productive and creates greater industry and initiative on the part of employees.
Two, eliminate Information Canada. Three, eliminate CIDA management, some of its programs and globe-trotting. Four, reduce payments to the CBC, the National Film Board and other such groups. Five, reduce the Prime Minister's staff and expenses by at least 60 per cent. Six, reduce and/or cut out duplication, waste, overspending and inefficiencies in departments and agencies of the federal government in Ottawa which hold up capital projects across the nation. The empire building in Ottawa begins in the Prime Minister's own bureaucracy and goes right through the entire bureaucratic system.
Seven, reduce expensive and costly studies, studies of studies, consultants' fees and the substantial number of professionals and economists in various government departments. Eight, halt conversion to the metric system. Nine, eliminate the costly, expensive and luxurious lounge for MPs and senators in Ottawa and make more productive use of this space. Ten, repeal legislation requiring bilingual labelling, particularly for imports and exports. The present law hurts business. Eleven, eliminate federal sales tax on Canadian goods, which causes our goods to be non-competitive nationally and internationally. Twelve, reduce the tentacles of that octopus, government bureaucracy and red tape, occupying so much office space. It is disturbing to see how much money is spent on this in the Ottawa area. I just hate to see Ottawa going to Hull. That is a dozen items. I could go on and on and list other examples and suggestions. I just wonder if the Minister of Finance and his colleagues have the courage to follow these suggestions. Our citizens, the taxpayers, know about them.
I was not the least bit impressed by the list of capital items stated by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) as planned for the axe. It is obvious the government has lost control of its spending. Some of these deletions are for items which are essential and are of necessary, long-lasting benefit and will provide employment. In some cases the deletions will just accelerate inflation, increase unemployment, decrease the gross national product and fuel the various crisis situations. The rationale, if there is one, does not have a valid basis.
In so far as energy is concerned, government should be setting its sights on the use of solar energy, tidal power and perpetual motion, or combinations of them. Right now, heating of public buildings should be done by supplementing present heating systems with solar collector systems. They are inexpensive to make, cheap to instal and could save millions of dollars in heating costs and heating of domestic water.


Mr. Francis:: Oh, oh!


Leonard C. Jones: I would like the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) to know that there is one in my constituency. It is very effective. He should try one; it works. When one realizes that the sun and water are in abundance in this country, we are missing the boat by letting these sources of energy go untapped. Maybe this government just has not had time to see the wood for the trees. I suggest that oil is not the only source of energy; the sun and water are basic and can, and should, be used now without delay. Research carried out in the United States on solar energy could be very useful.
As for tidal power, the tides of the Bay of Fundy have been studied and restudied and all the delays are just putting off the inevitable. Start Fundy tidal power projects now. Each day's delay just means there is a source of energy going unused.


An hon. Member:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Leonard C. Jones: When I am through, you can ask a question. If the money that is being used to finance Petro-Canada were put into solar energy and Fundy tital power, it would be more productive and would be of long-lasting benefit. Certainly wells can go dry, but the sun is there and will stay there. The Bay of Fundy is still there and will stay there. They were put there for a purpose; let's make use of them.
Like many others, I am concerned that the government now intends partially to opt out of cost sharing of health delivery services. Many provinces are not in a position to pay increased costs. The result is that the provinces will have to impose a premium, or possibly we will be back to the situation where health delivery services will only be available to the very rich or the very poor. There is a question of federal integrity involved on this point, and it should be taken very seriously.
The matter of regional disparity is still an important problem in this vast land. I trust that government restraints will not cut into programs of regional economic expansion. Unemployment in the Atlantic region is still substantial and above the national average, and in some cases double the national average.
I would suggest that this is an appropriate time for the federal government to undertake several needed work projects in the Atlantic region and to assist municipalities to carry out necessary projects, rather than paying out social assistance and unemployment insurance benefits. Furthermore, regional wage disparities or differentials within the public service in the Atlantic region are most unfair and discriminatory. Many employees in the public service question this unfair treatment. Income tax rates are the same for all Canada. There should be equality of treatment of all employees.
I have a few other suggestions which I believe the Minister of Finance should consider. One, subsidize interest rates and help the housing industry with the help of the provinces and/or the municipalities, directly or indirectly. Two, amend the Income Tax Act to provide for deduction by home owners of mortgage interest and provincial and municipal taxes. Three, amend the Income Tax Act to exempt interest on municipal bonds from taxation. Four, re-establish the municipal loans and development

July 4, 1975

board. It worked a few years ago and I think it would still work.
If God had only given us the sense to plan the ways of man with certainty in so far as the operation of a government and a nation is concerned! I sincerely believe that all members of the House realize the economic conditions and the allied problems. It would have been far better for government long ago to have admitted the dire conditions and the terrible road ahead. But hindsight is always 20-20 vision. I also realize that no matter what way the opposition members vote on any of the matters arising from the subject, the government will have sufficient votes to carry the day. That is the numbers game in politics. The minister should take the budget back to the drafting table for amendments, having heard the suggestions and ideas from all sides of this House.
My personal view is that no matter what way the government moves, the conditions of the economy are now so fragile that they must proceed with caution. Government must be prepared to take some counsel and advice from all sides of the House and the public generally, and not set themselvtj on a pedestal. Pedestals are as fragile as the economy. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, we should thank our Good Lord that we are not in a worse position. This government and this nation need the help of each and every Canadian in putting his shoulder to the wheel, his nose to the grindstone and working now for a better Canada, an even better nation-and that includes the minister and his colleagues.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. 1 simply want to give notice that I intend to raise a question of privilege concerning remarks attributed to the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner), who is reported to have referred to Time and Reader's Digest as in collusion with the Tories. I wish to give notice to the Chair that at the first opportunity I intend to raise a question of privilege.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I will advise the Speaker accordingly.


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, never before, and probably never again, will I have occasion to have such an overwhelmingly partisan audience in the House. But this may not last more than two or three minutes as other members stream in.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A few of us were here.
The Budget-Mr. Andras


Robert Knight Andras: There was quality, if not quantity. I am pleased to take part in this debate and to take this opportunity to inform hon. members more fully of the major role the budget has afforded our manpower programs to alleviate and reduce unemployment. Obviously on members' minds will be the question of the Unemployment Insurance Act amendments, but I should like to give notice here and now that in the time allotted me today I shall not deal with those. I will be speaking in the debate on the amending bill when it is introduced, probably within the next few days.
Over the past year and a half, as we all know, Canada has experienced, in common with most of the rest of the western industrialized world, the combined and simultaneous problems of inflation, a decline in industrial growth and a very sharp increase in our rate of unemployment. These are triggered, in part, by problems stemming from the international adjustments which were made necessary on one very significant count, namely, the sharp increases in oil prices that many countries have suffered, which has resulted in a decline in exports, output and employment. Many of the underlying problems are very particular and, hopefully, transitory. Others are much more fundamental and perhaps represent to all of us longer term challenges which we must meet.
Against that worldwide background and the extremely sharp decline in the economy of our major trading partner, the United States, I think it is fair to say that Canada has done, and continues to do, relatively well. We cannot, and should not, insulate ourselves from the world, but it is clear that we have so far succeeded in coping with our externally caused problems in a manner that has been relatively effective. I need hardly remind hon. members that while our seasonally adjusted unemployment rate is extremely high, it is somewhat lower than that of the United States. The softening in the real growth of our economy has been much less than that in the United States; the benefits of the government's monetary, fiscal and manpower policies have shown up clearly.
We can take some comfort from our record so far, but there is clearly no room for complacency. Largely due to export softening, the first quarter of this year showed a decline of 1.4 per cent in real gross national product and, as a consequence, our unemployment rate has risen. Although all or most United States commentators and observers of the American economic scene have begun to pick out the early signs of recovery in the United States, I think it may be some time before increased economic activity there and in other countries is translated into an improvement or major increase in Canadian exports.
I should also state the warning, as I see it, that the turn-around in our distressingly high unemployment rates will probably lag behind the economic upturn that we anticipate, as many firms will have ample productive capacity with their existing staff to expand output in the short run without expanding their labour force. I do not think many of these firms will be likely to expand their labour force until they are convinced that the economic upturn will lead to sustained economic growth.
Another tough factor that we face is that, as we all know, in a recession such as we are now experiencing many employers are reducing their labour force. They

July 4, 1975
The Budget-Mr. Andras
shed, as it were, their least productive workers, and this means that after the upturn we shall inevitably be left with a larger than usual body or number of unemployed persons with special employment handicaps. As the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development has recently noted, these are precisely the circumstances in which selective manpower programs can make a major contribution. Direct job creation, training, placement, and mobility programs are a rapid and effective way of reducing unemployment levels without adding to particular demand pressures which might exacerbate inflation, about which we are also very concerned. These types of programs are effective in coping with the type of structural unemployment which will linger on after the upturn begins.
Let me examine the attitude toward Canada that has been taken by many countries and established externally, not by government spokesmen but by others who I think have been objective. Canada has for some years been one of the leading countries in the OECD so far as the utilization of manpower programs to combat unemployment is concerned. That, I believe, is one of the several reasons we have been able to cope rather better than some other countries with the difficult economic circumstances with which the world is faced.
Manpower programs are vital and important components of the effective management of a modern economy. They have the triple virtue of immediately taking people off the unemployment rolls, of producing needed skills and of better preparing our labour force for the upturn when their new skills will be needed. It is for these reasons that the government has assigned a prominent role in the budget to a strengthened manpower strategy for the next two years.
I think the members of the House are generally aware of the efforts we have been making over the past several years to revamp, overhaul, reorganize and improve our manpower programs and services so that we can effectively serve Canadians' needs and the Canadian economy. If I may review the situation for a moment, this year, totally aside from the special measures announced in the budget, our manpower program has been authorized to spend over $700 million. This includes $100 million for our Canada Manpower centres which, I am convinced, are staffed by 6,800 dedicated people many of whom I have had the opportunity of meeting personally in my travels over the last two years.
This amount also includes $480 million for manpower training which will provide full-time occupational training and upgrading for 265,000 Canadians this year, with a measured benefit cost return of $6 for every $1 invested in this program. There is $10 million for manpower mobility, $4.5 million for special agricultural manpower programs, and over $60 million for Opportunities for Youth and the carry-over costs of the 1974-75 Local Initiatives Program, as well as $20 million for special programs for disadvantaged workers. In addition to these manpower services, we are achieving improved co-ordination of manpower activities with federal and provincial economic and social strategies.
A few months ago I announced the introduction of the developmental phase of a community employment strate-

gy which, although clearly designed and aimed, if I may use that expression, for and at Canadians with chronic employment problems, will point the way to our general manpower strategies of the future. We expect to have about 25 developmental projects under way soon across Canada, covering selected metropolitan, rural and frontier areas, and in the case of Saskatchewan, covering the target population for the entire province. As hon. members know, the primary thrust of the community employment strategy is a concerted attack at the community level on the problems of those Canadians who have continuing and chronic difficulty in getting and keeping jobs, regardless of the state of the economy, whether it is in a boom period or in a recession.
In addition to a more rational application of all existing programs and resources, including those of the federal and provincial governments and those of the public and private sectors, these joint efforts will produce an employment strategy around which we shall build the additional training and job creation which may be required to meet the special needs of those people to whom I have referred and the special needs of the local labour market.
We are authorized, on the federal side of this partnership-and that indeed is what it is-to spend up to $50 million over the next three years on the community employment strategy, totally in addition to all the vast and very substantial resources we are already applying in these communities and to this group of people. So it is on that basis that we are going to build our additional manpower efforts over the next two years.
For this special effort required in the next 24 months, for which $450 million was allotted in the budget of June 23, we have examined many program possibilities, including both old and new programs in Canada and those of a number of other countries. We wanted programs which would not be inflationary, which could start quickly, which could provide the maximum job return for the dollar investment and which could be capable of phasing down as unemployment recedes.
Although, as I say, we examined the policies and programs of a number of countries which have special anticyclical employment progams, we were frankly unable to find any which met our needs precisely. In some cases the program generated little or no real incremental activity. Others we found too costly for the return. Others, we found, were far too slow to start and stop, or they required a degree of control over the labour market and the economy which is unacceptable in Canada. We decided that the programs which best meet our needs at this time are those already developed in our own country.
For those reasons we chose a restructured Local Initiatives Program, a federal labour-intensive program, expanded manpower training and a package of special programs for students next summer, including Opportunities for Youth and a small but significant improvement in our job matching and mobility activities. With these programs we expect to create 550,000 man-months of direct employment, train an additional 85,000 workers and provide special job finding services to countless thousands of other people.
July 4, 1975

I would like to take a moment to say a few words about each of these special measures. In regard to training, we will be spending an extra $70 million on occupational training over the next two years, much of which will be spent in contracts with Canadian employers to hire and train unemployed workers to prepare for the wave of new growth which is on the way-we know it is on the way- as well as to meet existing skill shortages. Occupational training is a major tool of the federal government to adapt labour supply to demand, both intermediate and longterm, and it is an increasingly effective one which I think has to be continually expanded over the next several years. Indeed, at times like this I suggest there is very great merit in using the unfortunately idle time now of the many unemployed workers to provide them with new or additional skills while they are otherwise not engaged. As I mentioned earlier, we have carried out what I hope is an objective and beneficial cost analysis of our training programs and it has revealed an economic return of $6 for every $1 invested.
At this time, the real cost of training is diminished when the workers are unemployed because they are going to receive income maintenance from some source anyway, and to use that time really represents a reduction in the over-all cost and provides better investment. We know that the earnings and employment record of our trainees improves substantially after training, even in areas of traditionally high unemployment. With our provincial partners-and co-operation has been improving-we now have sophisticated new instruments to match training to labour market needs, and the quality of training itself is improving steadily. There is no room here, again, for complacency but I am satisfied that it is improving. I think this is due in some part at least to a special training improvement fund of $5 million per year that we set up, devoted solely to experimental and developmental advances in training methodology.
I am pleased that our institutional training program is more and more balanced by and integrated with a sound in-plant industrial training program. I would point out, for the information of members, that this industrial on-the-job training program has been steadily built up from $6.4 million in 1970-71 to $36.7 million in 1975-76. Now, our special program authorized in the budget the other night will add $70 million over two years to our training budgets, with at least half of that going to industrial training. These funds will be devoted to training the unemployed and will be distributed across the country in accordance with the real needs, based primarily on the existence in those areas of high unemployment.
Hon. members know of the $450 million allocated the other night. The largest proportion of our special budget will be devoted to a new Local Initiatives Program which will, over the next two winters, be allotted $285 million, $150 million of which will be committed for the coming winter of 1975-76 and the remaining $135 million will be for the following winter. For the first time we have a long-term, 24-month horizon committed and announced well in advance, and I think we can do a much better job of planning on it.
While this plan is pretty well known to members of the House, I want to point out some important changes we
The Budget-Mr. Andras
will make in our continuing efforts to respond to the needs of communities, groups and individuals. First, and quite important-and I hope it will find favour with hon. members-we have adjusted the criteria of the program to facilitate its use by municipal governments to find innovative local projects in order to create new short-term jobs. The maximum funding level of projects sponsored by municipalities has been increased to $150,000, while the maximum for other projects-that is, from private sponsors-will be $100,000 this year. These increases are in recognition of the fact that we are faced with increasing costs. These programs will be extended this year, but not beyond their contract points. I want to make that clear. We are, planning to have a seven-month project approval instead of a six-month project approval to give a longer period of time in which to alleviate unemployment.
Again, all grants that we will approve are subject to screening in the usual way. Our grants to municipalities will be for labour and not for material or for capital works. They will be for labour because we want to get the maximum return for the unemployed.
Coupled with the increased over-all funding of LIP for the next two years, as well as the increased lead time for planning as of this year-because we are announcing this much earlier than usual-we should be allowing an increase of municipal participation and we will look for that. I want to emphasize, as well, that we are going to entertain, invite and screen, and in some cases approve, applications from private employers who sponsor projects. Such projects must meet the program criteria. They must be of community benefit and they cannot add to the company's production or profit. The project has to be outside the company's normal operation. We feel that where a corporation or business has a slack labour force, it does have the administrative capacity standing there idle but being maintained and we can put that talent to work for the community betterment and, of course, for the absorption of the unemployed on those community projects.
We believe that with adequate time for planning and preparation the initiative and expertise of the business community can make a major contribution to community betterment, and we look forward to the kind of response we receive from this sector of the economy.
We will be continuing the use of local advisory groups, organized on a constituency basis, to help us determine a community's priorities. I have gained the distinct impression that these have been very useful in making the Local Initiatives Program more relevant to the needs of Canadians.
I strongly urge members of parliament to co-operate in setting up such constituency advisory groups in every constituency throughout the country although, as was the case last year, this is not an arbitrary requirement. We will be leaving it to the decision of members of parliament, but I again urge them seriously to consider it. I want to state that all the types of applications I am talking about, municipal applications, private business applications and the usual privately-sponsored applications, will be subject to priorization by the advisory groups. There

July 4, 1975
The Budget-Mr. Andras
will not be preferred positions for any one of them, and the funds we allocate to the constituencies will have to include all those approved projects, so it will be up to the advisory groups, where formed-or, in their absence, my department in conjunction with members, whose views I will listen to-to make the decision concerning projects. I hope we will all pick the best projects regardless of the sectors in which they originate.
I want to make the point that we have about 25 developmental community employment strategy areas developed in Canada. We will be continuing with the second round of negotiations with the provinces to expand that program during the same period. Where a community employment strategy plan exists in a community or given area, then the development and priorization of LIP projects within that area will be integrated with the community employment strategy program, subject to the consultations to which I am committed in the sense of guaranteeing to the provincial governments that this is not a federal invasion in respect of the community employment strategy program and that we want to put our heads together and achieve more effective results.
The LIP projects will have to fit into that pattern. I think that is an important step in demonstrating the federal government's sincerity in respect of what I have been saying to the provinces about our commitment to the community employment strategy concept.
As usual, workers in LIP projects will be referred to those projects by Canada Manpower centres. However, I am directing our staff in those Manpower centres to take special care to ensure that only unemployed workers with little propect of employment are referred to the LIP projects, and in fact that workers who have worked on previous local initiative projects time after time will be given a lower priority of selection than the other people who need it more and who have faced severe unemployment problems. That will be my direction to the CMC field officers who will be making the referrals.
Finally, we expect a much earlier start on the projects than ever before. They may begin this year as early as November 1. The final date for application is September 12. Projects can be funded, as I say, seven months instead of six as in the past, but I want to give fair warning now that we will not countenance any extensions beyond the contract period, because this has caused trouble on previous occasions. I think we should make it clear, regardless of our party affiliations, in talking to people that it is for the contract period and that it cannot become a dependency situation, which really raises expectations only to have them dashed.
I might say that I have been apprised by some members of this House of their awareness of the level of international interest that has been shown in our direct job creation programs, including particularly the Local Initiatives Program. We have had inquiries from around the world. We have had visits from members of the House of Representatives in Washington, the Manpower Commission of Great Britain, and the governments of Mexico and Japan; they have come to us find out more about the Local Initiatives Program and approach. Autralia has already begun a program based directly on the Canadian Local Initiatives Program. I noted the following statement in a

recent paper prepared by the United Church of Canada in reponse to the working paper on social security:
-the experience of this country during the years of LIP has overwhelmingly affirmed that people will choose work at low wages ahead of social assistance. People want to work. They want to contribute in meaningful ways to their society. How else can we explain the popularity and success of LIP where remuneration to the head of the family has been frequently less than that available on welfare?
Mr. Speaker, since 1971 we have received 54,171 applications and have funded 19,082 projects, creating many thousands of jobs of great benefit to communities and to individuals. The initiative and imagination of project sponsors at the grassroots make the Local Initiatives Program a success. Community groups and political leaders have come together to deal with specific community needs. New services have been started all over this country which have enhanced the quality of life for many Canadians.
In an evaluation study of the program, half the projects surveyed were found to provide products and services for which no alternative existed in the communities involved. In fact, between 70 and 90 per cent of the projects involve were doing work that would not have been done without LIP. Perhaps the strongest indication of community support of LIP was the finding in the study that 62 per cent of the projects were part of the activities of a larger organization and that 38 per cent were receiving additional funds from other sources. So they had widespread community support. I believe that is a tangible expression of the willingness of communities to become involved in local initiative projects. I think that in times of changing expectations amongst workers, and as there is a growing demand for some sense of satisfaction from employment, it is valuable to note that researchers found that 87 per cent of the employees researched in a study were satisfied with the feeling of accomplishment given them by the Local Initiatives Program experience.
The range and types of LIP projects approved, including construction, information, social and health services, sports and recreation, improvement to lands and parks, research and cultural endeavours, have provided a range of employment opportunities far wider than any other type of job creation program. This could only have been achieved by inviting the participation of those most directly affected by unemployment, the unemployed themselves. Robert Moses describes the program by saying: "This is a program which gets the oats to the sparrows without going through the horse".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Knight Andras: Another pillar in our special $450 million allocation is the $25 million allocated to the federal labourintensive program which will be co-ordinated by my colleague, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien), and will consist of special labour-intensive projects operated by federal departments and agencies. It will use the management and administrative structures of the departments while hiring extra labour, again from among the unemployed.
The government has approved funding this far in advance and has made known the 1976 student summer
July 4, 1975

employment and activities program, including the Opportunities for Youth program. The mix of the 1976 program will be developed by an interdepartmental committee led by my department, but undoubtedly the largest component will be the OFY which has the same general characteristics and has enjoyed the same success as LIP.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the minister but the time allotted to him has expired, unless there is the consent of the House to his continuing.


Walter David Baker: There was a House order made at the suggestion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), which was agreed to by all parties in the House, at the time of the commencement of the debate, I understand.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, it was a House order, but I am on the list and I am prepared to speak for only 15 minutes and give the minister the other five.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. With regard to the point raised by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), the minister has already used up his 30 minutes, so he can only go beyond the 30 minutes by consent of the House. Does the House agree that the minister may complete his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Five minutes.


Robert Knight Andras: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and through you I thank hon. members for their courtesy.
The final component of our special program for the next two years is a $10 million strengthening of our job matching and mobility activities. In a period of relatively high unemployment it is essential that everything possible be done to improve the speed and effectiveness with which job matching is carried out. We have to convey information about available jobs to unemployed workers, and details about unemployed workers must be passed quickly to prospective or potential employers. So we are intensifying efforts to help workers move from high unemployment areas to areas where there are jobs through increased mobility grants.
We are determined that every effort should be made through improved job matching to take advantage of those jobs that exist now. It would be tragic if they were left behind and unfilled for very long. Although additional funds to be spent for this purpose are relatively modest when compared with funds to be devoted to manpower training, I think they are an extremely important part of the government's over-all strategy.
We will be supplementing existing techniques in Manpower centres by publishing newsletters at regular intervals, one containing details of available jobs locally, regionally and nationally, and the other outlining the experience and qualifications as well as the availability of workers. These will be distributed widely to employers, unions, welfare offices, community newspapers, etc.
The Budget-Mr. Andras
In addition, CMC staff will participate with individual employers in intensive cross-Canada recruiting campaigns. Staff assigned to this program will identify, in co-operation with the employers, areas of "shortage occupations" in key industries. When they are identified, staff will be assigned to the program to prepare appropriate advertisements and to work in liaison with their counterparts and the Unemployment Insurance Commission in each of the provinces and the territories to identify pockets of skilled, unemployed workers. We will search out people to match the jobs. Then, when these have been identified, staff will work with employers, and if necessary travel with them, in a national recruitment campaign.
When we do select the workers, we are quite prepared, and are enhancing our ability to do so, to provide mobility assistance through our department's manpower mobility program. Approximately $200,000 will be devoted to this special program of advertising, travel, telecommunications and recruiting. The manpower mobility program, which we had anticipated would provide grants of approximately $10 million this year, will be more extensively promoted to encourage workers to move to areas where there are jobs. Workers will be made aware of the financial assistance available to them if they are willing to move either temporarily or permanently to take a job. We are beefing that up by $2 million if it is necessary to increase our mobility flexibility.
The workload of our Manpower centres has increased. For example, in April of 1975 almost 77,000 more persons registered at CMCs than in April of the previous year. Unfortunately, that has resulted in some delays because of the burden on the staff, and it means that temporarily we have not been able to provide increased service. Out of the additional budget to which I have referred, we will be hiring 150 temporary employees to help bolster the staff and, under these extreme pressures, to improve service to both employers seeking staff and workers seeking jobs.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the extension of my time. I recognize the constraints under which we are operating here in terms of time. There is much more I would like to tell members of the House, but I will be supplying details of the programs in the next few days with regard to the distribution formula for constituencies and the like. In conclusion, may I say that I am not claiming that these measures will cure unemployment- obviously they will not over the next two years-but I can sincerely tell hon. members that we will do everything we can, with the support we have from the budget and, I hope, for members of the House, to alleviate the effects on family and community income of the unacceptably high unemployment that we will face in the next year.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin) rising on a point of order or on a question of privilege?


Léonel Beaudoin: Yes, Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege.
Would the Minister of Manpower and Immigration allow a question?

July 4, 1975
The Budget-Mr. Allard


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The unanimous consent of the House is required since the hon. member's time has already expired.
Is there unanimous consent for the hon. member for Richmond to direct a question to the minister?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is no consent. The hon. member for Rimouski.


Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say to the minister who has just spoken that I am quite optimistic and I hope that his fine words will be followed by good results.
It is difficult and probably useless to deal with a special point in the national budget and to appreciate it in relation to the whole national economy. I find it more convenient to consider the budget as a whole with its general policies and trends, to determine whether it will give the results expected by the people, because finally it is for the entire population that the ministers and members of this House pass and administer pieces of legislation and bring down budgets.
Now, when everybody have been complaining about inflation, unemployment poverty, low salaries or excessive income taxes for over 20 years, can it be said that this budget is effecting a better distribution of revenues, taxes and profits capitalized by the Canadian citizens?
That is the crux of the matter. Mr. Speaker, I have every reason to believe that we must not fight inflation, that we must not fight unemployment, that we must not do away with poverty. All those aims are negative, jarring, depressing. Unity of action demands that our efforts be oriented toward achieving a balanced national economy through balance between individuals, families and all Canadian citizens including the government of Canada. That is positive; single-mindedness of purpose, that is an exalting objective.
In my humble opinion, the measures announced in the budget are not the best means of facing up to the present economic situation. They will not do enough to ensure our economic recovery.
In this regard, I read, on June 25 last, in the newspaper Le Droit, the following comments made by Mr. Don Montgomery, secretary-treasurer of the Canadian Labour Congress. I quote:
The budget gives Canadians no reason to believe the government is making an effort to deal with inflation of higher unemployment.
And I agree with him. If we consider that we are living now in the most unsettled economic climate of the past 30 years, we readily recognize that the legislation proposed by the government is far from being adequate.
Mr. Speaker, we are certainly aware that inflation has been over the past few years the most pressing economic problem industrialized nations of the world have had to face. We are also aware that this phenomenon has been the subject of interminable and endless discussions and debates. To end up with what? Nothing but detrimental effects on the Canadian economy.

As a matter of fact, in the June 20, 1975 issue of the daily La Presse, Senator Maurice Lamontagne, a seasoned economist and former federal minister, was quoted as saying:
The economic forecasts of the federal government over the past 20 years proved constantly wrong; what is more, this government never had any true policy.
Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the government has been taking all sorts of steps for many years to reduce the level of inflation. Unfortunately, it has now come to realize somewhat readily that its efforts and restrictive measures will not spare us this disaster.
On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, we must admit that there are in the June 23 budget a number of very valid measures, including those concerning the monitoring of public expenses. For once indeed the government will try to restrict the growth of its expenditures. I seize the opportunity to congratulate the minister for his initiative and his expressed intention of cutting federal government spending by $1 billion during the present fiscal year.
With regard to housing, I was very pleased to hear the minister had allocated some $200 million more to the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, as well as larger grants for housing units financed by the private sector. But unfortunately, I realize it is far from being sufficient. Besides, Chamber of Commerce Chairman Sam Hughes confirmed it when he said that the supplementary $200 million for housing are not enough. Moreover, we find no aid whatever is provided in the budget for the great number of those who buy existing houses.
Mr. Speaker, if every Canadian is to be able to afford the minimum requirement in housing-a decent home under normal terms, I sincerely believe the Minister of Finance should have introduced measures with a view to reducing the very high interest rates and making capital more readily available to all citizens, since dwellings and houses are an essential part of human life. Indeed they are absolutely necessary to all Canadians, because we constantly have to fight the hazards and severity of winter. All Canadians must have a home of their own where they can live conveniently. There is no use hiding the fact: the present budgetary measures, which contain no particular incentive for bettering the Canadian economy, have their greatest effect on low-income citizens.
I think immediately of the new tax on petroleum products and its equivalents. This measure will undoubtedly contribute much to worsen inflation and it will affect mostly the small wage-earners who already do not have sufficient purchasing power. I believe that this measure is the most unfavourable one of the budget since it is the strictest and it affects all Canadians. In this regard, on June 25 last, in the newspaper Le Droit, we could read the following:
The gasoline price increase will have a psychological effect on people. The public will always remember that the Turner budget reduced the purchasing power. Higher gasoline prices will have the most serious effects on the worker who must often use his car to go to work.
Mr. Speaker, this measure places a heavy burden on all car drivers, especially those with an average income. The government is unjustly squeezing taxpayers who cannot afford this increase. The government could easily have obtained the $500 million it will take from these poor
July 4, 1975

people by taxing the large multinational companies to effect a fairer redistribution of our country's wealth.
Under the circumstances, the government is forcing car drivers to use public transportation. I find this very unfair since 85 per cent of Canadians use their car either to go to work or for business trips. Moreover, I believe that this increase could also result in considerable losses for vacation centres and business in general.
What is most regrettable is that the minister has provided no allocation to help people from 60 to 65 who are unemployed or unable to find work. Yet, those are the people who are but hardest by inflation. In agriculture, there is no measure aiming at correcting the present mess.
I sincerely think that one of the good means of slowing down inflation, and by the same occasion of alleviating the international food crisis, would have been to give increased help to Canadian farmers.
Since most of the time they are harassed by controls of all kinds and had to have a lot of courage to hold on to a farm, even though it offers a lot of possibilities, I consider the government must give farmers security and introduce immediate steps to correct the situation, either by being more flexible under the farm improvement loan program, or by government investment into research, or still by better financial terms that could allow under cultivated land to be improved. In fact, no concrete effort was made to help the farming community through financial incentives. That is basically the problem. It has a solution and the solution can come only from us in the Parliament of Canada. Why then continue again this year to introduce a budget that reduces the purchasing power of the population and increases the annual deficit of the government itself?
The poor will become poorer and further deny themselves. The government will go deeper into debt so large corporations and the directors and main shareholders will become even richer and accumulate more capital.
That direction which dates back many years must be changed. The decision rests with us. We are responsible for distributive justice, the natural resources that belong to everyone and the work of the adult and qualified population which deserves decent incomes.
If we do not take our responsibilities for a fairer distribution of incomes, who is going to take them for us? That is the only question we must answer here if we really want to curb inflation, unemployment and poverty and replace them with national economic balance between incomes, expenditures and profits between individuals and families.
There is no point in talking about anything else. This must be settled first, and then we can improve production and capitalization. But let us first give full satisfaction to consumers.
Mr. Speaker, if the government wish to plan a well-balanced long term policy, if they really wish to slow down inflation, they should undoubtedly implement the active and efficient measures which the Social Credit Party of Canada has been advocating for a number of years. When I talk about active measures, I am referring to the establishment of the guaranteed income system which would no doubt provide every Canadian citizen with a
The Budget-Mr. C. Smith
form of security. I also suggest that anyone who wishes to retire at 60 should be allowed to do so on an optional basis.
This would have the effect of providing a number of young people with jobs, since the lowering of retirement age would make way for many employment opportunities.
Mr. Speaker, the government should right away and once and for all implement highly commendable measures on the basis of our proposals. I was suggesting more or less the same things in 1973 and 1974 in my speeches which were put in the record on various dates, but I seem to be misunderstood. We should remove every obstacle and honestly face our responsibilities as ministers or members of Parliament. This fairly sums up the expectations of Canadian citizens who long for social justice, a united Canada and a balanced economy which would make the people happy. The people of Canada wish peace with order and order in life.


Cecil Morris Smith: Mr. Speaker, you will notice that I have written my remarks in red as I feel that this government is trying to draw the last ounce of blood from the consumer.
June 23 is a day I will long remember, and I am sure millions of Canadians will not forget it easily. The first reason I will remember June 23 is not that it was my birthday but it was the day of the disaster budget which spelled doom for people living in the northern parts of Canada where the cost of living is now completely out of control. It gave me little comfort, and certainly it gave no comfort to the people of the Churchill constituency, to hear of the ten cents per gallon excise tax. When the minister spoke of $2 per gallon gas in Great Britain he should have had some of the facts straight about Canada. He should at least have known that the price of gas in some northern parts of Canada, especially the Churchill constituency, is well over $2 per gallon at the present time. That does not include the tax that went into effect on June 24; that price was already in place in some of the northern communities. A further 10 or 15 cents per gallon excise tax will be imposed when deliveries are received next winter.
The cost of living is high in the north; in fact, it has reached the point where it is almost impossible to encourage people to come north to fill the jobs that are available. When I speak of this two bucks a gallon gas and what it is doing to the north and the people there who are trying to make ends meet, I am sure this government did not give them any thought. Many of our northern towns and cities have no public transit system and people are forced to use their cars or boats for transportation. This government appears to make its policy around that great corridor from Montreal to Windsor, and it could not care less about the rest of Canada-especially the north where courageous men and women are trying to develop a little more of this great country of ours.
This government is not working with the people of Canada, Mr. Speaker; it is working against the consumer who is out trying to earn an honest living. In the north there is no downhill; this budget has made the going so tough that it is an uphill grind all the way.

July 4, 1975
The Budget-Mr. C. Smith
Mr. Speaker, I come now to one of the most disastrous areas of this budget, and that is the additional tax on heating fuel.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Cecil Morris Smith: In northern Canada, where consumers are forced to heat their homes for 914 or 10 months of the year, this government has accomplished one thing at least-it has wrestled the consumer to the ground.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Cecil Morris Smith: It would appear that this government is not interested in the development of northern Canada and the people who live there. This is reflected in the additional $200 million which was made available for housing. Many of the northern communities have such critical housing shortages that people are living in tents. Will any of this $200 million reach the northern part of Canada? We will never see a cent-it will all be used up in some of the urban centres. I have spoken several times on the development of log homes in some areas of northern Manitoba and northern Canada as a means of relieving the housing shortage. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Buchanan) agrees that it would be one way of meeting some of the problems, but this government has not seriously looked at the development of this type of housing for the north.
There are other aspects of the budget that I should like to comment on, but time does not permit me to do so. One thing I should mention, though, is that many of the northern mining communities have almost reached their limit of existence. Metals are being marketed for half the cost of production. How much longer can that go on? I would suggest a year and a half or two years at the outside.
I was happy with some parts of the budget, however. I was happy to see that some $70 million will be added for training in industry and educational institutions. I hope that a substantial portion of these funds will be used to initiate meaningful training for our native people in the north. Many are now unemployed and are willing to go to work, but they need training. The training programs at the present time are outdated and do not meet the needs of our native and northern people.
The budget has shown that additional funds will be made available through local initiative programs. I notice this is now called Local Initiative Programs Operations and I wonder if it will be another abbreviated-title program called LIPO. I welcome this proposal, provided the funds are directed to projects that will be of long-term benefit to the communities in which they are established. Last year one community asked if they could use some of their approved LIP grant to complete a housing program that had been started during the summer and was not completed because of lack of funds. Permission was refused because the program did not meet the criteria for the LIP grant. I have never heard of a more ridiculous situation than people who do not have a roof over their heads being denied permission to spend money that has been approved for the community to put roofs on houses. I would suggest the community should have more authority and control over these funds.

Transportation in the north has been struck another blow due to the reduction of capital expenditures. This will mean that work will stop on northern transportation facilities, including airstrips. Cutbacks have already started. Another blow has been struck, and I say it is a blow below the belt. As Canada was celebrating Canada Day on July 1, many people in the Churchill riding had nothing to celebrate because on that day the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) cancelled all schedule II and III licences of air carriers into at least 15 of the northern airstrips in the vast riding of Churchill.
To add insult to injury, Madam Speaker, the budget imposed an additional 3 per cent tax on air transportation in Canada and to the United States. This iss being imposed upon people who have no other means of transportation from their communities. When he came up with this little gem, the minister never gave a thought to those people. This is a complete disaster. It is a double blow aimed at people who live in northern Canada, especially northern Manitoba.
I could think of many things the government could do to show restraint. Let me mention one of them. It could postpone the metric conversion program for a couple of years. This would not affect too many people, and would save millions of dollars. Madam Speaker, I hope the minister will consider my remarks.


Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, it is with some sadness that I rise to participate in the debate on the budget. I am sad because the Government of Canada has refused to show able, decisive leadership, and because under the present Liberal government it appears that the leadership we do have is attempting to destroy the country, or at least cripple it by steering the ship of state on to the rocks.
I am particularly distressed because, over-all, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) introduced, on June 23, some very retrogressive tax measures which will cost the average working person some $300 per year out of his or her "after tax" income, if you consider the increase in automotive fuel costs, heating fuel costs, increased unemployment insurance premiums and so on. Surely by taking that much out of a taxpayer's after tax income the government is not only fuelling but encouraging inflation, by inviting another round of increased wage demands. The government has been creating money and spending it foolishly over the last few years. Now, in the midst of a recession, the chickens have come home to roost.
I find, Madam Speaker, that I must condemn the government for putting the burden of its past errors and ineptitude on the shoulders of the working man and the consuming public. To use a bad phrase for a bad budget, the Minister of Finance's budget must be termed "a gas".
The Minister of Finance's portfolio has never been popular, the reason being usually that the Minister of Finance must show guts and leadership. Frequently he must introduce unpopular measures and hold in check his free-spending cabinet colleagues in order to keep the economy ticking smoothly. So far the Minister of Finance has retained a large measure of popularity. He wants to bol-
July 4, 1975

ster his position as heir apparent to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). That he wants to succeed the Prime Minister in office has never been doubted. To this end, remaining popular is all-important to the minister. I have come to the conclusion in the last few months, regretfully, that our Minister of Finance has put his own popularity, his own ambitions, ahead of the well being of Canada.
In the three and a half years since the Minister of Finance assumed his office we have had five budgets, an unheard of number in such a small time span. In the 40 months since the Minister of Finance took office inflation has risen from an annual rate of 4.2 per cent to a rate of about 12 per cent; government spending increased by 99.5 per cent; the money supply increased by 45.7 per cent; government revenues from personal income tax increased by over 90 per cent; and unemployment increased, with about 200,000 extra people becoming unemployed. In those 40 months lack of leadership and mismanagement of our economy caused the Consumer Price Index to increase by 32.6 per cent. This inflation triggered excessive wage and salary demands and led, in turn, to labour unrest. There is so much labour unrest in Canada that we are in the unenviable position of having lost more working days through strikes than any western industrialized nation, except Italy.
Really, I don't give a hoot for the minister, personally, or for the government. But it is sad to see that they have made the whole country pay heavily for their errors and omissions.
When the minister took office some 40 months ago, it was said that Canada's living standard was the second highest in the world. Now we are considered to have the sixth highest standard of living. Now the chickens have come home to roost.


An hon. Member:: Which are the other five countries?


Paul Wyatt Dick: This budget is excessively cruel to the average working Canadian, but it only tinkers with inflation and unemployment.


An hon. Member:: Which are the other five countries?


Paul Wyatt Dick: Would the hon. member opposite be so kind as to shut his mouth until I have finished? He may ask his question then.
In the last 40 months the Minister of Finance brought down four budgets, besides the one we are considering. Those budgets all dealt with themes. The theme of the 1972 budget was that of controlling prices. What happened? The theme of the 1973 budget was that of reducing inflation. What happened? The theme of the May, 1974, budget was that of increasing the supply of goods and services to combat inflation. What happened? The theme of the November, 1974, budget was that of increasing productivity, to keep inflation down and combat rising unemployment. Not one of those budgets fulfilled its expressed intentions. Not one accomplished what it said it would accomplish. They did not live up to their self-proclaimed, glowing expectations.
What do we have in the budget of June 23, 1975? Its theme must be that of government self-restraint. Using a certain amount of double talk, a bit of the old sleight of
The Budget-Mr. Dick
hand and a fair bit of deceit, the Minister of Finance said he would try to cut government expenditures by $1 billion. If the average Canadian arranged his financial affairs in the way the minister said on Monday, June 23, the government is to arrange this country's financial affairs, that little old average Canadian would be charged with fraud or false pretences. Actually, while the minister spoke I could sense that he knew that what he was saying just did not add up to the full truth.
For the first time in modern Canadian history a minister of finance when bringing down a budget failed to give us any projections. He failed to predict the growth, or retraction, of the Canadian economy, the rate of inflation next year, how many housing starts there would be, or what the unemployment rate would be. I suspect he failed to predict these things because such predictions would tend to show what a mess this Liberal government has got us into.
The only thing he predicted-he had to, because in essence the budget must show how many dollars are coming in and how many are going out-was the biggest deficit in our history, some $5.3 billion.
Let me talk about the theme of this budget, restraint in government spending. Let us consider that proposed $1 billion cut. The figures set out on page 15 of the budget booklet add up to $880 million, not $1 billion, and those figures are so fuzzy as to be unreal. What is meant by the statement that $100 million is to be cut from the expenditures of the Departments of Transport, Defence, Public Works, Environment and others? Which are the others? How much is to be cut from each department, and where? How can you cut Department of Transport spending and keep your election commitments to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on transportation? It's a bit of a mess, isn't it? And which are "the others" mentioned in that paragraph which speaks about cutting $250 million? And isn't it nice to cut $350 million from the spending of some four Crown corporations which have not even been incorporated by law, proclaimed, or otherwise set up, and cannot even receive the funds? I see a nice little bit of deception there. The government has not cut a thing out of the estimates; at best it has postponed expenditures.
Madam Speaker, I say this to the minister through you, of course: if you really wanted to cut spending, why not hack away at that $1 billion paid annually for outside consultant fees-or would that mess up the Liberal party's pork barrel? We should remember that our public service is one of the best in the world; so why do the Liberals forget it? Why not prune government printing expenses? I do not need every government document in five living full colours. And why not cut out Beryl Plumptre, Information Canada, and helicopter flights by the Prime Minister? Those things add up and would be a lot more honest. It can hardly be called government restraint when last November the minister said federal expenditures would go up 15.7 per cent, and now he says that in fact we are going to restrain our federal expenditures to an increase of 16.8 per cent. That is an increase, John-boy, not restraint.
In fact, on reading pages 13, 14 and 15 in the minister's nicely bound budget speech, I had to pinch myself in order

July 4, 1975
The Budget-Mr. Dick
to make sure that I was not in dreamland. The words are impressive, they cling together well. However, on those pages the government did not take a steadfast intransigent stand to even cut that illusory $1 billion.
It states, and I quote:
Our target of cuts this fiscal year is $1 billion.
The word is "target" not "will", and the government has never hit one of its "targets" yet. This Minister of Finance has said he is aiming at a target. He does not commit himself and the government to cutting $1 billion. Therefore, we see that there is a bit of sleight-of-hand at work in the reference to that so-called $1 billion.
Let me say a few words about fuel costs and taxes thereon. The total cost of increasing the well-head cost per barrel and the ten cents excise tax per gallon will probably work out to somewhere between 15 and 18 cents per gallon of gas, probably closer to the 18 cents than the 15 cents. This increase, along with the increase in natural gas for heating fuel, will probably cause the Consumer Price Index, or cost of living, to rise almost 2 per cent in the next 12 months. That is only one commodity. Is that what you call curbing inflation? The ten cents a gallon excise tax will generate, the minister says, some $350 million, but he does not say how much it will cost to administer. Administration of the rebates under the program will eat up a healthy portion. While the government keeps the money, individuals, companies and small independent businessmen will have to borrow money at 11 to 13 per cent interest until they get their rebates back-another cost factor to add to inflation.
It would be unparliamentary for me to say the Minister of Finance lied or deliberately misled the House in saying that these measures would help conserve gasoline consumption, so I won't say that. However, I can say that the minister by sleight-of-hand did deceive the House in making us believe that energy conservation was a high priority in his mind, when on page 32 of the minister's nicely bound budget speech, the third paragraph commences:
The increased cost of gasoline resulting from these measures shall encourage motorists to make their driving habits more efficient in terms of saving gasoline.
Later, after a lot of mumble jumble about conservation of fuels, he adds:
Both improved driving practices-can make significant contributions to needed fuel conservation.
At the next question period on June 25 he admitted that he had taken these steps without making any estimation of any fuel conservation which would result, and he admitted as reported at page 7043 of Hansard:
The primary purpose of the tax is to pay for a single oil price in Canada.
In other words, the tax is to raise revenue, not a cent of which will go to the producing provinces, the oil companies, or to help find new sources of oil. I should point out that the Minister of Finance had the effrontery to add:
The increased cost of gasoline will also encourage use of public transportation.
A few pages earlier, he said he is going to cut part of this $1 billion from the Department of Transport, and he completely ignored in this budget speech the Liberal party's

multi-million dollar pledge in the last election of assistance for mass transit.
Every worker in medium sized cities, towns, villages, and in the countryside and elsewhere who has to motor to work will be paying this extra 15 or so cents a gallon, not only while on his way to or from work but when generally driving around. I hope they remember who put this extra cost on their budget. Perhaps we should all have a bumper sticker on our car to the effect "Buy a Liberal gallon of gas, only 15 cents more".
I would point out that I received a resolution from the Municipality of the Township of North Elmsley which reads as follows:
Whereas a budget was introduced by the finance minister for Canada on June 24, 1975;
And whereas included in the said budget was provision for an immediate additional excise tax of ten cents upon each gallon of auto gasoline sold in Canada, supposedly designed to encourage the use by Canadians of mass transit systems;
And whereas residents of rural municipalities in Canada are unable to avail themselves of mass transit systems, and as a result, the budget is extremely discriminatory against rural residents,
Be it resolved that the council of the township of North Elmsley write immediately to the finance minister for Canada to register violent objection to the said budget.
These added fuel costs are directly inflationary and will cost jobs, and cause hardship to the average working Canadian. These costs discriminate against those in areas other than the large metropolitan centres.
When debate arises on amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act I will have more to say, but briefly may I protest the government's decision to let itself off the hook by changing the 4 per cent benchmark to one of an eight year floating average which will mitigate the government's responsibility and lessen its financial stake in trying to improve our sad unemployment figures. It has been estimated that the government's decision to change this act in the way it has proposed will cost every working man an increase in premiums from a low of $48 per year to an average high of $89 per year per worker. This is a direct tax on the working man and on the company or small business with whom he is employed. It is unwarranted and is a dereliction of the government's responsibility.
I do not disagree with the government's decision to force an extended penalty on those who quit work or refuse employment, but if the government wants to clean up the mess in unemployment insurance which it itself created, it should start by having a full public inquiry so that unions, employers, people unemployed, and generally the public at large can have some input. I suggest that as part of this the government might reconsider requiring people to work for 12 or 16 weeks before they can make a claim rather than the present unsatisfactory eight week period. At the same time, it could improve the legislation by straightening out the first and second phases of an initial claim. This re-instated second phase so many weeks after an initial claim leads to too many problems and is in the main discriminatory.
I am most concerned about the inadequate stimulus to the housing sector in this budget. The amount the government has re-directed toward housing is not enough considering the plight of thousands of inadequately housed Canadians and the state of this industry. Instead of drop-
July 4, 1975

ping the 5 per cent tax on insulation materials, which will probably amount to approximately a $25 saving per house, the minister should have taken off all federal taxes on building materials. His budget will probably result in the bidding up of the housing which is presently available and, because the government is going to have to borrow $5.3 billion to cover its deficit, the budget will probably force up mortgage rates on the limited capital markets available in this country.
Most people want lower interest rates, and my party's suggestion in the last election of allowing people to deduct the interest paid on a mortgage over 8 per cent, to a maximum of $1,000, from taxable income would be a better way to stimulate the housing industry than any of the suggestions the minister has made in his budget.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Wyatt Dick: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I have pointed out a few of the problems that this country faces because of this budget, the deception in which the budget was conceived, and the failure of the Minister of Finance in his previous budgets. I have talked briefly about the so-called government restraints, the taxes on gasoline and other fuels, and the unfair tax on the working man, companies, and small businessmen through the changing of the Unemployment Insurance Act as proposed. I have dealt briefly with housing, and would have liked to have talked about the government's copping out of medicare and forcing the burden for payment on to the provinces. Hopefully another occasion will give me an opportunity to talk about the government's intent toward our hospitalization and medicare plan.
If there are failures, the failures are of the very things about which the Minister of Finance has boasted in his budget he will do. The failures are that the government has not, in fact, cut any government spending; the government has not set an example, and has not shown any real restraint. Madam Speaker, the government says it was seeking a consensus. I hope the government remembers that it cannot find consensus when it spends millions of dollars of taxpayers' money trying to knock the very consensus it is seeking. May I say, finally, that I am very regretful that the government has used so much ad hocery in setting up so many temporary, so-called job creation programs. The money, I believe, could have been used in a more beneficial and lasting way in so many other areas.


Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Madam Speaker, I see little point in dealing with the remarks made by the previous speaker. They have been answered many times before by members on this side, as well as answered very competently by others who have spoken in this budget debate.
My first words on the budget are to repeat in this House the congratulations which I expressed to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) on Monday evening, June 23. I voiced my approval of his approach to the serious problems facing us and my support for the measures which are being introduced.
The Budget-Mr. Herbert
Much publicity has been given to the increased prices for gasoline, natural gas, and heating oil. When the price equalization policy was introduced, our imports and exports of oil were in approximate balance. Now, as imports have increased while exports have decreased, the oil export tax deficit has gone to some $400 to $600 million. Without the $1.50 increase to $8 a barrel, the deficit would have approached $1 billion per annum. Clearly this was an unacceptable situation. Also it was apparent that prebudget gas and oil prices were not discouraging consumption.
I have posed the question to my constituents, and I do so to every consumer in the province of Quebec: is there any justification for a government subsidy, paid by every taxpayer, that encourages rather than discourages the use of imported fuel, fuel for which we pay dearly with our Canadian dollars? Is it not more logical to seek means by which we can keep our own dollars in our own province, in our own country? Changing our habits to decrease our consumption of foreign fuels would also help our balance of payments, which has deteriorated due to the increased cost of imports and the decrease in our exports.
Let me suggest how almost everyone in Quebec can assist. Is it logical that we should continue to heat our homes with costly imported fuel when we have an ample supply of a renewable resource in our own province? Most of my constituents were subsidized last winter in home heating oil to the extent of from $100 to $150. For my own home I estimate the subsidy to have been in the order of $250. Would it not make more sense to encourage conversion to electric heating? What is the logic in having my fellow taxpayers contribute $250 to subsidize my home heating so that I can send my dollars to Venezuela and the Arab countries?
I am sure my own constituents will appreciate my next point. A high voltage electrical line is to cross the beautiful countries of Vaudreuil and Soulanges to export surplus electricity to the United States. At the new oil price of $8 a barrel, it is not more expensive to heat by electricity than by imported oil-and it should not be forgotten that at the $8 price the subsidy is still approximately 12 cents per gallon.
I sincerely hope that the removal of the federal tax on insulation materials will encourage Quebeckers to help their province and their country by converting to electric heating. There has been opposition expressed to the imposition of the 10 cents a gallon excise tax on gasoline for the private automobile. Let me reiterate here that this tax will not affect farmers, business, construction projects, or commercial transportation. Is it not entirely logical that the consumers of gasoline pay according to the amount they use? Do not the majority of car drivers have a choice in reducing their consumption? Even with the additional 10 cents a gallon excise tax, the price is still below the imported cost.
I see no logic whatsoever in subsidizing the private car driver when it is for the purchase of imported oil. As I have advised my constituents who live in the western regions of the City of Montreal, most private car drivers are paying three or four times as much to drive to Montreal each day as compared with public transportation costs, even with the increased fares imposed by the

July 4, 1975
The Budget-Mr. Herbert
Canadian Pacific Railway. Greater use of public transportation might reduce losses and encourage improved service. If there is to be a subsidy paid by the taxpayer to the commuter, then it should be for public transportation.
I would like to refer briefly to housing. Despite cuts in almost every ministry, the Department of Urban Affairs has been allocated another $200 million to assist home building; that is another $200 million to be available for use before the end of this calendar year. These moneys will be added to the $1 billion that has already been committed this year to aid limited dividend projects, new home buyers, and non-profit housing.
Critics of the housing policies of the government should not forget the provincial responsibilities in the field of construction. It is the provincial governments that permit questionable hiring practices and limited apprenticeship training programs that lead to greater inefficiencies and higher costs. It is the provincial governments which, through their control over land usage, can stop speculation, retard or encourage development, and assist municipalities through servicing, if they so wish. As of this moment, whilst the federal government has already committed 80 per cent of this year's funds for housing, the provinces have only taken up a little over 50 per cent of the moneys available to them.
In my own constituency of Vaudreuil much local publicity was given to a provincial grant of three quarters of a million dollars for sanitary trunk collector sewers. In the municipality of Notre-Dame de l'lle Perrot, no publicity was given to the assistance of the federal ministry of urban affairs which provided loans totalling $1.2 million, with a forgiveness feature of $300,000. I mention this specific case, not because it is important to stress the relative participation of our three levels of government, but to illustrate that three levels of government are directly involved and are therefore jointly responsible for the number of housing starts in the country.
Whilst there has been a slowdown in housing construction on the west island of Montreal, one cannot fail to see the large numbers of houses being built today. The credit for this rests almost entirely with the imaginative mayors and councillors of these towns and municipalities who, by proper land planning and zoning, have provided servicing to lots that can be purchased at reasonable price levels. The tremendous growth in recent years in the town of Kirkland is an excellent illustration. The newly-announced multimillion dollar residential development on tie Bizard is another.
I am going to make a brief reference to the new local initiatives program referred to in the budget. I have suggested on previous occasions that these moneys were being used as a sort of stop-gap approach. At the same time I have been promoting a renewal of the very successful capital winter works program. We are now to see the best features of these two programs combined. There will also be an additional benefit for municipalities in my constituency. Under the capital winter works program the province of Quebec had established a $50,000 minimum or floor. Many of the municipalities that could not participate because of the minimum program size will be able to apply for assistance under the new local initiatives program.

Before I conclude, Madam Speaker, I want to make a couple of suggestions, neither of which will result in the spending of more money. On the contrary, the implementation of my recommendations could result in an increase in efficiency in the two areas to which I will refer, and probably in a cost saving without in any way diminishing federal government programs.
My first suggestion deals with the present approach to our export trade. A constituent of mine in Pierrefonds wrote me recently to express his disappointment with remarks I made in this House on May 28. The House was in committee of the whole studying the estimates of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Members were restricted to a time limit of 15 minutes, and I chose to use my time allocation to start to discuss the complex involvement in our export effort of nine ministries and over 20 Crown or proprietary corporations. It is my intention to expand on this subject at some future date.
Today I will limit myself to stating that I am now fully convinced that interdepartmental rivalries result in duplicated effort or, what is undoubtedly worse, an inadequate effort in selling this country's products, services, and potential in foreign markets. Maybe the answer is a minister responsible for all exports. At least the present complex machinery should be reviewed and restructured.
My second suggestion is directed to the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Drury) and deals with the many research programs of the several departments that have a research involvement.
My studies in the last couple of years have clearly identified the inefficiencies that result from the divided responsibilities so carefully guarded by the different departments. Does it make any sense, for example, that medical research should be divided between the Department of National Health and Welfare, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, the National Research Council, scores of private groups, and even our genial Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan)?
I understand that one of the main objectives of the Ministry of Science and Technology is the supervision and co-ordination of our research effort. I suggest that this objective be given high priority treatment.
I started my remarks by recording my congratulations to the Minister of Finance. When times are difficult, a budget has to be unpopular. I am proud to be associated with a government party that has had the guts to introduce this budget at this time and I support, without reservation, the approach of the budget and all the measures included therein.


Jack Marshall: Madam Speaker, since this is the last day of the budget debate it is certainly obvious that the ground has been well covered by my colleagues on both sides of the House, and particularly by those on this side in respect of its many weaknesses. I have really tried to find something good to say about the budget but this has been a very difficult task, a very difficult one.
I guess we can give the minister some credit for one or two items in the budget. The first is in respect of the job
July 4, 1975

creation programs on which the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) elaborated for so long today. These programs will be of real advantage to my province of Newfoundland, particularly as the minister indicated that $450 million will be spent on job creating plans and that the new local initiatives program, involving $285 million, will be carried out on a 2-year basis with, perhaps even more important, great emphasis being placed on municipal works and projects. This is something I have been advocating ever since LIP started, but I qualify this by stating it should really be carried out on a 5-year basis.
Even though there has been much criticism from all parts of the country of LIP since it started, it has been of immense value to the rural parts and smaller communities in my province. I can safely say that many of the citizens in my district can be proud of the projects they have completed, as would the minister himself if he would look at some of them.
Many projects have been carried out, such as the construction of wharfs and breakwaters for fishermen, community, recreational and medical centres for local citizens, as well as water and sewage systems, all of which I suggest were constructed at far less cost than had they been carried out under government contract. At the same time they created employment for the local people and fulfilled the objectives of the citizens using their own initiative.
However, too many projects have been left uncompleted, causing needless waste of funds. This is because of a lack of control, a lack of guidance and counselling, a lack of co-ordination between various departments of government, and a lack of ensuring that particular community councils or any form of local government were included in the planning stages, thus leaving them in utter frustration and discouragement.
For example, literally dozens of fish stores, which are so vital to the execution of the fishing industry in many smaller communities in Newfoundland and the Atlantic region, were constructed and are now left unused because the people were not aware of the quality control measures introduced by the Department of the Environment. As a result, provincial governments are now burdened with the responsibility of finding the necessary dollars to cover the cost of installing the required measures.
Water and sewage systems were installed in various sections of a community in conflict with municipal and provincial planning where vast sums of funding were allocated for engineering planning of an over-all water and sewer system for the community, thus causing a waste of funds and a duplication of effort. It would have been so simple to co-ordinate the planning for the project with the involvement of the three levels of government concerned.
I have found over the years in which LIP has existed that the greatest benefit can be derived from grassroot level community planning, still achieving the local initiative aspect and still allowing private groups or organizations to participate, but not independently. They could participate by inserting another step before the project is vetted by the federal-provincial team that vets projects, allowing the local government to assess the project from a planning point of view on behalf of the community as a whole.
The Budget-Mr. Marshall
By planning the program on a 5-year basis the local governments could submit their priority needs from an economic, resource, and public service aspect. Over that period of time most local needs could be fulfilled and, more important, could be carried out again by the local citizens, thus instilling in them the pride and fulfillment of building up their own communities and creating employment. Certainly this should be true of the thousands of rural communities and smaller municipalities across Canada.
I should also like to suggest to the government that the Local Initiatives Program is being carried out by the wrong department. It is true that the Department of Manpower and Immigration should be involved, but only from an employment and training aspect. I suggest that the program should be carried out by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion which is now so heavily involved in infrastructure funding and in rural and economic development. That department can do almost anything for the various regions under the general development agreement concept.
The Department of Regional Economic Expansion could do a better job of co-ordinating the needs of Canada. There was no need either to break down the job-creating funding as announced by the minister. In this regard I would pose several questions. Why separate the $70 million to training in industry and in educational institutions when the Minister of Manpower and Immigration has so many programs already in existence, so that no one knows how to get through the jungle to decide which is for what? Why separate another $25 million to finance labour-intensive federal projects where unemployment is most severe when the funding is still allocated on the basis of population and the size of the region?
While I am on this particular matter, let me ask why projects are carried out in the winter months? I suggest this is because someone within the department has said that unemployment is higher in the winter time. They do not have the commonsense to realize that the unemployment rate in some regions is just as high in the summer. If the projects could be carried out during the summer months in those areas, more value could be derived for the dollars spent, for obvious reasons.
Why separate another $10 million to be devoted to existing job placement and mobility programs? People would not have to move under mobility programs if jobs could be provided in their own localities. The manpower training programs represent a series of duplications and triplications, as well as confusion. I say with no embarrassment that the adult occupational program has done much for the uneducated and the unemployable, but what better basis of training and placement could be provided than by on-the-job training through the many and varied projects that could be carried out in the interest and for the development of rural communities across Canada? With a little ingenuity this would provide training methods in a practical way while the work was being carried out under the guidance of trained instructors.
So I say we have enough programs under the Department of Manpower. We have enough programs such as the

The Budget-Mr. Marshall
outreach programs, the job creation programs, the community employment strategies, the stepping stone programs which I noted the other day as a new one, and many others.
The 600,000 or 700,000 unemployed in Canada want jobs. Contrary to the thinking that too many of our citizens are taking advantage of our welfare and unemployment programs, these same people are begging for jobs which cannot be provided. I say with all sincerity that if the minister wants to practice restraint and at the same time create jobs, and still at the same time provide for the needs of our nation, then he should review the situation along the lines that I have suggested, and I am sure Canada would be better off.
I would like to say further that I am not at all sure the minister is moving in the right direction in restraining $100 million in capital expenditures of public works, environment, and other departments, because this is in direct conflict with what he is trying to accomplish in his job creation program; but in the interest of agreeing that we cannot have it both ways I am willing to go along with it with the exception of public works and environment because this relates to me that the fishermen in the Atlantic region will lose out on the provision of small craft harbours and other fishing facilities, which will deter and postpone again their ability to compete, taking advantage of the fishing industry, which would provide a boost to our economy and increase their ability to earn a livelihood.
I have to agree with the minister when he is restraining the spending required to create the Federal Business Development Bank, which to my mind is a waste of money. The present Industrial Development Bank is merely being given a new name, when all that was necessary was to expand the terms of reference of the Industrial Development Bank to provide counselling and management services, which is really all that is being done. Further, it is almost an exact duplication of the various federal provincial development loan corporations whose terms of reference are almost the same. Certainly, however, he could have gone a little further in reviewing the large bureaucracy which has been built up in the various loan programs, which does nothing more than confuse Canadians who are trying to take advantage of the programs.
I hesitate to mention the number of these programs, but my last count showed somewhere in the vicinity of 28 loan programs all directed on a hodge-podge basis to Canadians whether they be farmers, fishermen, or small businessmen. Those could all be amalgamated into one obvious responsibility under the minister's department.
I am pleased to note that the minister is placing a general limitation on consultant's fees and travel by public servants. It would be interesting to see the bill for the many thousands of public servants who are flitting around the country accomplishing nothing in most cases other than to show a presence, which is the job of the member of parliament. I am disappointed to note that no reference was made to evaluating the cost of Information Canada, which is in direct conflict with the 28 or so information services branches of each individual department of government, and is a waste of many millions of dollars. Certainly the minister would be better served if he were to examine, through the Auditor-General's

department, an evaluation of the objectives being served through the wanton, ridiculous spending that is going on because of lack of ability by ministers to control and examine the spending by their departments through no fault of their own, but because they are victims of the system which has long been out of control.
Much mention has been made of the increased price for gasoline and fuel oil. Here again I fail to see how the minister will effect a return of $350 million from this source, when rather what really he is doing is hurting the majority of taxpayers who will be affected, and chasing away tourist dollars, not to mention the nightmare he will face in trying to administer the program he suggests to relieve certain individuals or groups for whom he proposes to soften the blow. What he is really doing is hurting again the very Canadian who keeps being hit with inflationary costs, the middle and low income earners because they happen to be unfortunate enough to be in the majority. There is not much need to repeat the logical reasons given by the many who refer to this measure as a saving; but again it will be interesting to have revealed next year, when we examine the net figures, if the figure of $350 million will be realized.
The minister revealed also with pride the allocation of the funding of $200 million to bring housing starts to the rate needed in the long run to meet the housing needs of Canadians. While I admit certainly this will help to an extent in the Assisted Home Ownership Program, the limited dividend rental projects, and other non-profit programs, he is missing a great opportunity to assist hundreds of thousands of Canadians and relieve or postpone the need for housing starts which his colleague, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs and Housing (Mr. Danson), cannot meet, about which he is rightfully disturbed, and at the same time help the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) in his direction of effort to conserve fuel both on a federal and provincial basis.
I refer again, as I have many times before, to the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance program, the Neighbourhood Improvement Program and the Rural and Native Housing Program, and even home improvement loans, which are designed to upgrade the many hundreds of thousands of homes across Canada that are substandard in quality and which are deteriorating to a substandard state because owners cannot afford to maintain them to decent standards due to inflationary costs of building materials and which, for the purposes of this particular exercise, could be upgraded to a longer life and thus save millions of gallons of fuel oil when brought up to a reasonable standard.
Under the RRAP program the minister could do so much by directing the funding toward allowing Canadians under the forgiveness factors of the program, to insulate properly their homes, as well as provide adequate heating and electrical needs. Unfortunately I did not have the time to research the number of homes in Canada that fall within this category, but I am sure that the minister could obtain the figures from Statistics Canada, from CMHC, or from the Canada Council on Social Development which has pointed out to the government the need to upgrade the homes of those citizens earning up to $11,000, under this program, which would effect a saving of literally millions
July 4, 1975

of gallons of heating oil to the particular consumers falling within this category.
I ask the minister to consider using the example of my province where many thousands of homes fall within this category, and ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) how much is expended in the cost-sharing program with the province of Newfoundland because of the need each year from November to May to provide additional funds to welfare recipients so that they can pay the increased cost of fuel oil, during the harsh winters, to heat their substandard housing.
I ask him to consult with his colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, to direct the team of bureaucrats whom he has hired to teach Canadians ways to conserve fuel, if they have even thought of this aspect of conservation. I ask the minister to find out how many thousands of citizens there are who cannot afford to provide insulation for their homes because of cost-not only those who are on welfare but also those who fall in the low and fixed income brackets. I would ask him to find out how many thousands of homes falling within this category could be brought up to reasonable standards to relieve the pressure on the Minister of Housing in his dilemma, until he can catch up to the need for housing for all Canadians.
I ask the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) why such a program was not extended to the many thousands of veterans on War Veterans Allowances, the disability pensioners, or the widows of those veterans who are left alone on fixed pensions, to provide them with the same relief available under the National Housing Act but not directed on the priority basis which he should follow?
The minister gave a little nibble when he announced that the 5 per cent sales tax on insulation materials would be removed, affecting all purchases of insulating materials such as double pane glass, storm windows, and storm doors. But he has completely missed the point because he could have been of so much greater assistance by expanding the residential rehabilitation assistance program to allow those in greatest need to be able to afford the insulation material, the double pane glass windows, the storm windows and the storm doors. I can only ask him to take a closer look at this program which would be of so much benefit to so many Canadians who are hard pressed by inflation. All that is being saved as a result of the removal of the tax would be about $25 or $30.
In the interest of saving time I should like to speak on the decrease in the medical care cost-sharing program with the provinces, but I am sure the minister will face much battling on this score because of the pressure that will be brought on the provinces.
There are also many other items that one can discuss in the budget, but I only hope the minister will see the light and soften the blow to those Canadians who are suffering under inflation before the legislation which will put these measures into effect comes before the House.


Mrs. Simma Holt (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, I am proud to serve on the same side of the House with Canada's present Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner).


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
The Budget-Mrs. Holt


Simma Holt: During his three years in this portfolio he took important steps to spare Canadians the impact of the international economic crisis that has so shaken our long time friends and neighbours, the United States, Britain, the still free nations of Europe, and our major trading partner, Japan. Compared to the hyper-inflation which they have been experiencing, we seem untouched by the vice of inflation and recession. Comparatively speaking, Canada has weathered these troubled times so far with less pain and discomfort, thanks to our Minister of Finance.
Economic, political, and philosophical problems which were impossible to foresee have been forced on all of us by unsophisticated nations which suddenly achieved wealth of a magnitude and type never before seen in this world. At the same time moving in on the surviving free democratic societies like predators are two large communist powers.
This is strong language to describe the international vultures, picking off the bones of toppling freedom around the world. In essence, the primitive political masses are tools for the totalitarian power brokers. In these times, times of fear and uncertainty, the government has succeeded in cushioning the impact and assuring Canadians minimum suffering in health, welfare, housing, and energy in times of crisis. Remember that it is a time of economic crisis.
The Minister of Finance's newest budget is realistic action that surely must bring a sense of relief to Canadians who want strength and leadership. Canadians are not stupid people; they know that economically we are balanced on a precipice which needs shoring up. The protracted uncertainty and fear must certainly be eased in this nation, knowing we have leadership and strength to bring us out of this.
Surely most Canadians knew this good, excessively rich life could not last. It was over abundance and over indulgence. The dollar bill alone too long has been the measure of the quality of life. It is and has been the true worship of Mammon, without respect for human values. We were of course content to live above our means, living the hedonist life of joy now. Do not worry about tomorrow, was the prevalent motto. The poor have been surrounded by what in other times would be considered luxuries of those born with the silver spoon; the middle class in what was the bounty of the excessively rich; the rich becoming millionaires, and the millionaires becoming multimillionaires. Our society is said to have more millionaires today than ever before.
It is necessary for me to trace current history in order to make several points that are of importance at this time. First, my reason for favouring and even extending cutbacks in government spending-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Simma Holt: There were cut-backs but you never noticed because you were not listening.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Simma Holt: We are contemplating your next negative words.
7310

July 4, 1975
The Budget-Mrs. Holt
Second, I wish to correct misleading statements made in the House which suggest that inflation was unilaterally created.
Perhaps the most sobering event in the life of all people of the industrial society is the shift of power that has come with the contrived 1974 international energy crisis. Small nations, dominated and controlled by a few people, established cartels to control the life blood of industry and economy as well as the world's money. At least 40 countries, lacking self-sufficiency through resources, were left destitute. A handful of resource-rich nations controlled the world destiny by selfish use of the most decisive instrument of contemporary power, namely, oil.
They established a boycott, using oil to manipulate the world powers against the small state of Israel. Large industrial nations, including the United States, Japan, and the European states, were among their victims. Oil prices quadrupled, and the Group of 13, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, familiarly called OPEC, virtually took control of the money and the economy of the world in months, if not weeks.
In the post budgetary reaction, or second guessing, to increased prices of domestic gas and oil, those who shed printer's ink or politically advantageous tears were either immature, incapable of adult analysis of the world situation, or too blind or unwilling to see what was looming on the economic horizon of this nation.
Surely any thinking person knows that in this global village, caught by global inflation, we cannot resolve the problem started by excessive prices of the irreplaceable commodity, oil. No nation alone, unilaterally, can beat the tidal wave of inflation set off primarily by petro-dollars and the insatiable monopoly greed. The oil producing nations received $1 a barrel at the start of this decade, $3.44 by the end of 1973, $10 a year later, and now $12.
There are intelligent people on the other side of the House. I do not like to go to extremes and say they are overly endowed.


Some hon. Members:: Thanks!


Simma Holt: Unfortunately they are so wedded to their own negativism, their political posturing, their simplistic formula solutions to complex world problems, that they cannot see, or do not care to see, or choose not to be impeded by the fact that Canada is caught in the complex dichotomy of inflation with recession. Canada's finance minister, recognizing the risks-


An hon. Member:: Caused by the Liberals.


Simma Holt: This is simple economy, and if you cannot see it, God help you.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: God will have to, the Liberals cannot.


Simma Holt: Canada's finance minister, recognizing the risks facing Canada originally, established a single fixed national price for crude oil at $6.50. But there was obviously no way to ensure exploration or to slow Canada's continued reckless use, even waste, of oil that was cheap,

half the international price at that time. It is still comparatively cheap at $8 compared to the $12 of OPEC.
It is essential that we take preventive action, such as the Minister of Finance has undertaken to preserve our future. It must be done now while the people of Canada are still able to buy, while this government can still afford to support public needs and indeed public demands for support and services such as housing, health and, in effect, a guaranteed income for all. We must move; we cannot wait. We owe it to the next generation.
There are those trying to tell the public that the housing aspect of the budget is tokenism. That is an absolutely irresponsible and hurtful statement to the people of Canada. Certainly social need always has and always will move faster than the solutions. But $200 million in additional allocation for housing in the next 5 months along with what is already happening is significant and important. These things are being done before this country gets to the state of hyper-inflation and deep recession being experienced in the United States, Britain, and the other countries.
Let us hope this budget will prevent hyper-inflation devastating Canada as it has elsewhere. We can still assure the elderly and the working poor of what is in effect a guaranteed income and give an assurance that housing, medical and pharmaceutical needs are met. This government started all this virtually guaranteed income.


An hon. Member:: Surely you don't believe that?


Simma Holt: What did you do? You had your chance. Where are those who were supposed to start it?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: I would like to remind the hon. member that she is supposed to address the Chair and not the opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Simma Holt: I am sorry, Madam Speaker. I have not been here 30 years to become accustomed to the rules.
To those who pretend, and who would like to mislead the people of Canada by suggesting that the economic problems were created by the government in isolation, I say they are doing a terrible disservice to the people of Canada. People are worried enough. That kind of political game is cheap and cruel. It aggravates fear and a psychic depression more serious and disturbing than the current recession.
So wedded are those in the opposition to their unrealistic and simplistic formula cure-wage and price controls, which Canadians rejected last summer-that they could not even be mature enough to provide positive analysis. One would think their leader could at least have had the depth and social maturity to try to be analytical rather than merely critical, but it is so much easier to destroy than to build.


An hon. Member:: That is what you people did. That is why you do not have a consensus. Remember that one?
July 4, 1975


Simma Holt: One of the most cruel of the attacks has been on medical care, in order to obtain political brownie points. The opposition created unnecessary fear among those who are sick and elderly in this nation, fear that when the elderly, the poor, and the disabled need care they will not receive it. It is a rather sick game, a kind of ring around the poor, the old and the disabled. They have really exploited this for political gain.


An hon. Member:: You are unreal.


Simma Holt: Surely they knew as far back as early 1973 that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) established what he called a thrust fund, $604 million, to stimulate a search by the provinces for more economic alternatives to the excessive cost of hospitals and doctors. Hospitals and doctors account for 75 per cent of the spiralling cost of medicare. It is natural that if money is doled out freely, it will be spent just as freely, and perhaps irresponsibly. It is a case of easy come, easy go for the provinces. The doctors themselves who cared wanted alternatives, although their association has a vested interest in making money and preventing the development of these alternatives.
I welcome the cutbacks in government spending and the strength exemplified in them. It is rather amusing to hear the Conservatives and socialists say that $1 billion in cutbacks is little.


An hon. Member:: He hasn't cut anything. Read your estimates.


Simma Holt: I would personally like to see other cutbacks, which I will discuss later. In some areas I hope there will be ways of providing supplements for those who need ways to cope with the increasing cost for home heating, and perhaps adjustments for those very few people in isolated areas where there are neither car pools nor public transit as alternatives to cars to get to work. But most of these people have cushioned themselves with salary increases which can cover this 10 cents cost increase. It is obvious that the 10 cents gas increase will be a small sacrifice compared to the possibility of living in darkness and cold, without fuel for cars and homes, in the 1980's, because we were so wasteful and careless with our resources today. We have used our non-renewable resources as though the next generation does not matter. We have lived the hedonist life too long, a life of waste and greed, doing our own thing with little regard for those who will inherit our world.


An hon. Member:: Ten cents will not make the difference.


Simma Holt: The affairs of the world do affect all of us who live in it and rely on industrialized society. Obviously, since oil and petroleum products provide the energy which keep industries going throughout the world, quadrupling prices will send costs of production skyrocketing, and this will hit every home which must live off the industrial output. That means Canadians are caught up in it with the Americans, the British, the Japanese, and all the others. As Canadians, we believed we would always be rich, that we would always work and that we could always earn.
The Budget-Mrs. Holt
In the west we believed that there would be human progress and material growth indefinitely. This hope crashed around us when the wealth of the world shifted and the industrial nations in North America, Europe, and Japan became dependent on the oil rich countries of the Middle East. In 1974 old powers, old alliances, and old allies declined, and we saw the rise of new ones. The greatest and swiftest transfer of wealth in all history occurred in 1974. The OPEC countries earned $112 billion from the rest of the world. They could not spend it all, and they ran up payments surpluses of $60 billion. The fragile structure of the international financial system cracked under the strain, and hon. members opposite expect Canada to survive all this without feeling it.
In 1974 Saudi Arabia alone earned $28.9 billion by selling nearly one fifth of all the oil consumed by non Communist countries. It is well known that that country, controlled and practically owned by less than a dozen princes, had a surplus of $60 billion in 1974. According to the Economist of London, they will take $164 million more each day, and $6.8 million more each hour than they currently spend.
According to the Economist, at this rate of accumulation OPEC money can buy out all companies on the major world stock exchanges in 15.6 years; all companies on the New York stock exchange in 9.2 years; all central banks' gold, at $170 per ounce, in 3.2 years; all U.S. direct investments abroad in 1.8 years; all companies quoted on the stock exchanges in Britain, France and West Germany in 1.7 years; all IBM stock in 143 days; all Exxon stock in 79 days; the Rockefeller family wealth in six days; and 14 per cent of Germany's Daimler-Benz in two days of petro-dol-lars, which, in fact, Kuwait did in November, although for that little country it represented 15 days of oil earnings.
Those across this chamber and even a small segment of the media, which should know better, dare to suggest that Canadians could solve the problem unilaterally as though they live alone on earth and free of the economic stresses of every other country in the world. What ignorance and what adolescent thinking! Compare Canada's oil reserve, nine billion barrels for a population of 22 million, or the United States reserve, 35.3 billion barrels for a population of 211 million, with the reserves of the OPEC countries: Saudi Arabia, 132 billion barrels for a population of eight million people, almost a third of Canada's population; Iran, 60 billion barrels for 32 million people; little Kuwait, 64 billion barrels for a population of 880 thousand, which is smaller than most of our cities; Iraq, 31.5 billion barrels for a population of 10 million; United Arab Emirates, 24 billion barrels for a population of 210 thousand; Qatar, 6.5 billion barrels for a population of 115 thousand; and Nigeria, 15 billion barrels for 79 million people. Speaking of Nigeria, oil made Nigeria not only Black Africa's wealthiest nation with $9.2 billion in earnings with a 15 billion barrel reserve, but now it is one of the world's strongest political forces.
It is obvious that this transfer of riches will not only slow down or stop the rising living standard of many other people of the world, and no doubt our own, but it has sparked the Third World nations into economic restlessness, revolution, and an expectation of power equal to their petro dollars.
29576-49%

July 4, 1975
The Budget-Mr. Jelinek
Within the structure of the U.N. a block of Arab, African, Latin American and Communist countries locked themselves together into a new majority, which we politely call the Third World, to push through resolutions, starting at first as a gang-up on a little country called Israel. Now it is moving to isolate and alienate those of us who are not Communist. If there is a cutback, I would hope that it will be in the United Nations. I feel very strongly that it is now controlled by the small, powerful, and rich nations which equate wealth with right.
Despite Canada's sentimental attachment to the United Nations it is no longer the organization for international cohesion and peace to which Canada was a signatory 30 years ago. Rather, it is divisive and destructive, perverted from its intended tradition of peace and justice unfortunately again by that great mark of success, money. The little nations with populations smaller than the city of Ottawa, some still primitive, politically-sociologically unsophisticated, with neither commitment nor investment in it, have manipulated it-and its agencies and conventions-to their own ends. They are dedicated to hate and, unfortunately, political retribution and violence.
In paying to the United Nations, we sustain a huge international bureaucracy that in little or no way serves Canadian taxpayers. It, no doubt, contains even more waste and redundancy than even the bureaucracy of our own federal, provincial, and civic governments.
It is significant that we participate in this, even though it allowed the strangulation and death of nations. This organization accepted to its bosom an armed man who wants the life of the people who inhabit and enriched the Middle East through a democratic and innovative life style. This international organization of peace and justice accepted boycotts of one of its members to please the Third World nations. It is out of this that our inflation has grown, but we have been in a better position to survive it.
I think it is important that the 62 million, or more, given to the United Nations be cut off.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but her time has expired.


Otto John Jelinek: Madam Speaker, I do not want to repeat statistically the inadequacies that exist in this latest budget as they have been dealt with in detail by numerous members in the past week. I would, however, like to add my support to the one sentence description of the budget by a Globe and Mail editorial, which summed it up as follows: "It is a budget without courage and sometimes with cruelty."
I could add, however, that in many cases it is a budget of contradictions as well. Let me state a few examples. According to the budget the Unemployment Insurance Commission regulations are to be tightened. The fact is that the cost of the UIC will increase. According to the budget there will be $200 million in aid for housing. The fact is that housing starts will drop considerably, according to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson). According to the budget there will be restrictions within the civil service. The fact is the civil service will increase by some 11,000 individuals. According to the

budget there will be restraint in government spending. The fact is that government spending and lending will be increased by almost $4 billion to more than $31 billion, and a cash deficit is projected at about $5 billion, up from $1.5 billion.
The government has been pressing for the formation of Petro-Can in order to keep the cost of gas and oil down to a realistic level. The fact is that not only is there an imposition of a ten cents a gallon gasoline tax, but natural gas prices will rise by more than 24 per cent this winter, and home oil heating by more than 13 per cent.
In short, instead of repeating all the statistics let me quote a paragraph written by Hugh Windsor of the Globe and Mail the day after the budget was brought down. He said:
If you add $2 billion and take away $1 billion, if you increase your spending forecasts but talk about spending cuts and if you increase your forecast but decrease your percentage increase, aren't you running twice as fast to get to the same place?
This is precisely what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) has suggested that we as Canadians accept.
Regardless of which side of the House you sit on or what your beliefs are, the facts speak for themselves. Since 1972, when the minister became Minister of Finance, government spending on a budgetary basis has increased by 99.5 per cent. The money supply has risen by 45.7 per cent, and the cost of living has increased by 32.6 per cent. Canadian taxpayers' personal income taxes have increased government revenue by a whopping 90.4 per cent, and unemployment has risen from 558,000 to 715,000.
These are but a few of the facts and figures which indicate to us just how enormously the government is feeding fuel to inflation. Inflation has reached unprecedented levels in the history of this country, and inflation by all indications is going to continue to rise and affect every Canadian from coast to coast. It seems strange that the federal budget, with inflation in the minds of all, made no attempt in fact to deal with the now all too familiar phrase used during the Liberal election campaign when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said that he would "wrestle inflation to the ground". Well, if the Prime Minister was serious, if he really did take on this job to fight inflation, then he is losing a one-sided battle. But I have my doubts as to the seriousness of his campaign promise.
In any case, it is believed by many, and certainly I include myself, that the main cause of domestic inflation is the problem of strikes and walkouts, and I would like to dwell on that subject for a moment if I may. I do not believe there is anything hurting our economy more than the loss of working man days or hours that we are experiencing.
According to the government's own statistics, Canada is only second to Italy, in the industrialized world, as far as lost productivity is concerned relating to strikes and walkouts, and it is getting worse. At the rate that strikes have been taking place in the last 24 months, this country could collapse totally, economically speaking. As it is, we are already on our knees, for at no time in history have we faced the problem of importing as much percentagewise in contrast to our export market. Why all these strikes and walkouts? I believe that the majority of Canadians are fed up with the increasing inconvenience and economic
July 4, 1975

impairment to the individual and to the community alike, caused by walkouts, be they legal or illegal.
As a matter of fact a recent national poll compiled by the Canadian Institute of Public Opinion indicates that a majority of Canadians would like to see strikes prohibited in essential services. It is incredible to note the latest federal labour statistics which show that in the first four months of 1975, as a result of strikes, a record 1,936,540 man days were lost, and that over the full year of 1974 nearly ten million working days were lost because of work stoppages, with no apparent improvement in sight.
Just imagine what this does to the already high inflationary spiral, to have this amount of productivity lost as a result of strikes. To show the federal government's contribution to these work stoppages, we need only note that 20 per cent of all the strikes occurred under federal jurisdiction which accounts for less than 10 per cent of the national work force. We have to keep in mind at the same time that two thirds of Canadian taxpayers do not belong to any union and therefore are not protected by the permissiveness of governments relating to strikes and walkouts. Is it any wonder that the majority of these taxpayers oppose any or all walkouts and strikes, be they legal or illegal?
To this end I took the initiative to introduce in this House two separate bills dealing with the subjects of strikes and walkouts. My first bill, Bill C-386, is intended to amend the industrial relations part of the Canada Labour Code and to provide that, where a strike or lockout is against the national or public interest, the government may appoint an industrial inquiry commission to make a final and binding settlement, subject to government variation and adoption.
Today I had the opportunity to introduce another bill dealing with this subject, which deals specifically with the fragmentation of union power within the public service sectors of our economy, drastically affecting not only our trade deficit but indeed our ever-increasing cost of living. The purpose of this bill is to require union groups in a single public service sector to bargain with the Treasury Board simultaneously, and to negotiate contracts which would run for three years and expire at the same time. This would assure the taxpaying public that each essential public service sector would be strike free, except for the possibility of a walkout every three years.
Unfortunately these bills that I refer to briefly, are my own bills. I say unfortunately, because we all know what happens to the majority of private member's bills.
But where is the government with its legislation to fight inflation? Where is a budget that truly deals with inflationary problems? How can the government be so permissive as to lay down the laws of the land and then not adhere to them? This is the case, and has been the case as far as illegal strikes are concerned. This is the case, and has been the case with our immigration policy. This is the case, and has been the case withh regard to capital punishment legislation, and who knows what else?
On one hand the government brings in legislation which becomes law by an act of parliament, be it on the labour scene, on immigration, or law and order. And on the other hand the same government has the gall and audacity to
The Budget-Mr. Jelinek
turn around and not adhere to the laws which it itself laid down. But where is this permissiveness coming from, and indeed what pressures, known or unknown, are put on our governments to act in this manner? Where are the pressure and initiative coming from for these walkouts and strikes which everyone knows hurt the economy of this country and the over all well being of all Canadians? Why are we hurting ourselves by constantly threatening our own economic existence from within?
Before I give the answer, which could be realistic and harsh, let me read part of the report of the Royal Commission on Security. The commission reported in 1969. The report was commissioned by former prime minister Lester Pearson, was submitted in 1969 to our present Prime Minister, and he, in 1969, promised that an early debate would take place on the report.
Section 15 reads:
Although it is true that we face a more complicated and fragmented Communist world than we did at the time of Gouzenko's defection nearly twenty-five years ago, none of the evidence we have heard suggests to us that recent developments have led to any significant changes in the adversary relationship that continues to exist between the Communist powers and the west in terms of intelligence and subversive operations and security defences. Canada remains the target of subversive or potentially subversive activities, attempts at infiltration and penetration, and espionage operations conducted by Communist countries; and, in addition, Canada can be used as a base for operations against other countries, and especially against the United States. We realize of course that the present fragmentation of the Communist world is such that there is no certainty that the intelligence policies of all these countries constitute a monolithic whole. We are not concerned however with detailed political analysis, and in the context of the problems we are considering we think the methods and objectives of these countries are sufficiently similar to justify our using the admittedly simplistic terms "Communism" and "Communist".
The reason I bother to quote from the report-I will come back to it shortly-is that, without question, as it has been established that we are justified in using the expressions "Communist" or "Communism", communists are partially to blame for the ever-increasing labour problems plaguing our economy, strikes in particular. And let us not be so naive as not to realize that Communists can use the institutions of a democratic society such as ours to overthrow it and seize total power.
Without question our society has become increasingly more vulnerable to Communist subversion, mainly because leaders and communicators whose duty it is to show us the dangers so often fail to do so for fear of being branded as "McCarthyite fanatics" or "professional anticommunists". Sad to say, this intellectual pacificism has affected British trade union leaders whose predecessors took a forthright, courageous stand against Communists on the factory floor and at the executive level. The same is happening in Canada.
Speaking as one who was born behind the Iron Curtain when there was no Iron Curtain, and as one who came to Canada for the sake of opportunity and freedom, I suggest very seriously that communists are constantly examining techniques for bringing down a country. They want to use the same techniques which brought about the communist coup in Czechoslovakia in 1948, for example. You may laugh this statement off, of course. You may say that

July 4, 1975
The Budget-Mr. Jelinek
Prague is far away, that the coup happened long ago and that things are different here. Do not be so sure. Revolutionaries are always trying to repeat the last revolution, just as generals try to fight earlier battles. What happened in Czechoslovakia and other communist dominated countries is a classic example of how a communist movement which has already managed to win a dominant place in the government and trade unions by peaceful means can use its power to eliminate all potential rivals and grab total power.
As we know, these lessons were applied recently by the Marxist government of Chile, and are now being applied in Italy and Portugal. These examples are a model for the Marxist left even in countries like ours, countries we have considered as being immune from revolutionary upheavals but which are being weakened by apathy and incomprehension. Let us not be so naive as not to heed the words of Jan Kozak, member of the Secretariat of the Communist party of Czechoslovakia. He stated that these powers, as he calls them-meaning communists-are using parliament itself for the transfer of all power into the hands of the working class. In Marxist jargon this means that there is a transfer of power to the bureaucracy of the new totalitarian state. He goes on to say that every Marxist, everyone who has read Lenin, understands that power in a society is not something to be wrangled over in every election. Power is to be found at every level of society, in trade unions and other organized pressure groups, in the control of the media and the economy, in school rooms and lecture halls. Politicians must realize this.
We, as politicians, cannot cling to the belief that rational debate in parliament and the cabinet room is enough. For, if we do, we shall find that control of the economy, control of the media, and control of the streets will pass to those who mean to destroy us. More often than not it will be the communists who want to destroy our nation.
It is even more important to know how communism can convert trade unions and new forms of workers' committees into revolutionary tools. The Communist party of Great Britain, to take an immediate example, has a membership of a mere 30,000 and is not represented in the House of Commons; but it has profited from undemocratic election procedures in trade unions and the apathy of the silent majority, and won control of fully one tenth of all key positions in major unions. The extension of the closed shop in industry and the press will help to accelerate the slide into socialist collectivism which could; in the end, result in a society identical in most respects to societies of eastern Europe. Obviously, that same slow take-over of power is taking place in this country right under our noses.
Free western countries are living in a period more dangerous than any we have witnessed since the end of the second world war. The communist world is on the march again. We are learning that although the cold war may seem like something which existed in distant history, it is a living reality to the men of the Kremlin. Detente has proved to be a one-way exchange. It means, for example, that the west endorses the status quo in eastern Europe, that Canada supplies grains to the Russians and, most recently, the granting of huge credits, with the blessing of our administration, at rates of interest only half as great

as those we must pay for our borrowings on the world market. One should also mention what has been done with regard to Cuba and other socialist countries. Detente does not mean that there is any shift in the basic aims of the Soviet bloc. It does not even mean economic concessions of real value to the western world. Certainly it does not mean any diminution in Soviet espionage and industrial subversion.
The truth of my remarks should be apparent to those who follow the comings and goings of western trade union leaders. Any genuine trade unionist in the west who has his eyes half open should be fully aware that men like Mr. Shelepin, the head of the Soviet labour scene, or Mr. Karol Hoffman, the Czech labour boss, are not trade union leaders at all, and should not be dealt with as such. They are personnel managers, responsible, in the words of the Hungarian union leader, for enforcing "work discipline and the planned distribution of labour", and for underpinning the powers of factory bosses who exercise an autocratic authority which would be envied by any western industrialist.
There is no right to strike in eastern Europe; there is no right to collective bargaining; there is no right for union members to elect their officials, who tend to be party hacks or secret policemen. People who try to behave like genuine trade unionists very simply receive the short end of the stick-a good example is the thousands of Czech trade union leaders and officials who lost their jobs after the Soviet invasion in 1968. Yet western trade union leaders have been turning up by the score to be wined and dined by agents of the police state masquerading as their eastern equivalents.
I mention this not merely because here is an example of the betrayal of social democratic principles by a number of western trade union leaders, but because the Communist world now looks on labour agitation as a prime instrument for destroying democratic societies. The Soviet ideologue, Professor Banglay, put this plainly in an article in the Moscow trade union paper Trud. He wrote on January 9, 1975, that, "we are waging the ideological struggle jointly with the working class in the capitalist countries". He went on to say that although Communists are ready to enter into tactical alliances with social democratic forces, "no one will compel us to compromise on questions of belief and world outlook."
In other words, the ideological battle is being fought exclusively on this side of the Iron Curtain. The communists will accept compromise in order to weaken our societies but will not allow us to interfere with the running of their own. So long as they can find western trade unionists who are prepared to hail known KGB agents as comrades, they are doing very nicely indeed. The pinnacle of success comes when they can find a western leader, such as our Prime Minister. Not only did he meet with KGB agents he invited one, Alexander Gresko, to his offices, to have his picture taken. Gresko was a Russian spy. He was deported from Great Britain in 1971 on grounds that he was a high level Russian espionage agent.
That the Prime Minister should become so friendly with a Russian spy as to have his picture taken with him for publicity reasons is beyond comprehension. Similarly I cannot understand why Canada should appear to be on
July 4, 1975

more friendly terms with communist countries and satellites than with our traditional friends and allies. I am specifically referring to the United States and to the unfortunate alienation developing between our two countries.
We can no longer subscribe to the view that it can't happen here. It can. Therefore we must be awake to the dangers and take the necessary precautions. The minor examples of subversion which the average citizen in a peaceable country like Canada sees in the course of his daily life are merely first steps along the way. I am talking of the Marxist shop steward who encourages wildcat strikes, of the municipal librarian who refuses to buy right-wing books, and of the left-wing teacher who distributes in a history class propaganda leaflets on Viet Nam. All these are examples. This, and much more, is already happening in this country.
The role of the individual is to inform himself of the strategy behind these casual manifestations and to register his protest while there is still time. It is to press politicians to take the necessary steps to curb communist infiltration, to guarantee a free press and a democratic form of education in which children will not find their moral and political values subverted, and above all to impose democratic election procedures for the trade union leadership. For example we need only to look at the SIU procedures.
The time has come to put pressure on governments to look at this matter in a serious nature. I will refer briefly once again to the Report of the Royal Commission on Security which was submitted to the Trudeau government in 1969, and I quote:
The communist powers conduct espionage and subversive operations through officials of communist missions, through so called "illegal residents" (persons unassociated with official representation and living here illegally, probably under false identities), through members of the communist parties in Canada, both overt and underground, through communist sympathizers of various kinds, and through those who can be compromised, blackmailed or subverted. The communist intelligence services are supported by large resources, and their techniques are modern, sophisticated and effective.
Apart from their use of communist adherents and sympathizers in Canada, it is particularly important to an understanding of security procedures to realize that there is abundant evidence that the communist powers, in their search for agents, are prepared to make use of compromise, character weakness and duress. By these means they exploit contacts amongst members of the Canadian public service at home and abroad, industrial workers and executives, members of emigre and ethnic groups, university faculty members and students and those who travel between Canada and communist countries. The communists have repeatedly demonstrated their ability to recruit support by playing on all types of human weakness or difficulty.


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


Otto John Jelinek: Would it be possible to have one more minute to complete?


Some hon. Members:: Order!


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: This can only be done with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?
The Budget-Mr. Robinson


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Otto John Jelinek: Could I ask for unanimous consent for one minute more?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: There is not unanimous consent. The hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore.


Mr. Robinson:: Madam Speaker, I would agree to let the hon. member have one minute more since he happens to be my member of parliament.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is it agreed that the hon. member shall have time to finish his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Otto John Jelinek: Thank you very much. Madam Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please! There is no agreement.


William Kenneth Robinson: Madam Speaker, I apologize to my friend. I was trying to help him out. Apparently there was not consent. The time is short, so I will be very short.
After following the great amount of speculation leading up to the budget and the debate which has followed its introduction, it is obvious to me that there is no combination of measures which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) could have brought in which would have completely solved the problem of stagflation in this country to everyone's satisfaction.
No doubt, one could design a budget which in the short term would have been received more favourably. However, a budget is not, or should not be considered as a popularity contest. As the finance minister said on June 23, a budget is both an economic and human document. It sets out the economic goals and aims of the country, and outlines the government's policies by which it hopes to achieve those goals.
Those critics who have been shouting that this budget fails to wipe out unemployment and inflation are correct. It does not, but no budget can be conceived which would be successful in that goal. Indeed any such budget which established such an aim would not only be doomed to failure but would be unrealistic, irresponsible, and downright misleading, if not dishonest. The central aim of the budget proposed by the government was clearly stated, although after listening to and reading speeches from certain members of the opposition, this point seems to have been missed by them. That aim is to prepare the Canadian economy for a resumption of economic growth without inflation. I believe this aim and the policies outlined to achieve it reflect the realistic and responsible manner in which the Minister of Finance has performed his very difficult task.
I have mentioned that the budget has not exactly been greeted with great joy from all quarters. After all, no one who owns a car will enjoy paying 15 cents more for a gallon of gas. The billion dollar cutback in government

July 4, 1975
The Budget-Mr. Robinson
expenditures will be unwelcome for others. Those in the public service will object to the reduction in the public service growth and the tougher government salary negotiating position. Nevertheless the difficult economic position which we are presently experiencing demands such measures.
I have found it difficult to comprehend how some members have attacked the budget because of these unpopular measures on the one hand, and on the other hand have demanded that the governmet do more than it has already done.
Out of one side of their mouths they cry for less government spending, and out of the other side they list an almost endless number of areas where the government should be doing more, and that means spending more. They say there should be more control of government spending, but object violently to proposals such as those regarding hospital insurance and medicare which would give the government greater control of the cash, and limit increased expenditure.
Probably no aspect of the budget has created more controversy than the 15 cents jump in the cost of gasoline. However, throughout the debate on the subject there has been a couple of fundamental points, so as far as I am aware, on which there has been agreement. The first is our one price system for oil, and the second is the realization that the price of oil must rise eventually.
While everyone agrees as to the necessity, indeed the obligation, to subsidize eastern Canada which is dependent on imported oil, the problem, stated by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald), is that no one wants to pay for it. Well, it simply has to be paid for. The question is how? If we are to depend upon general revenues to pay for the subsidization of imported oil, this means in fact all taxpayers are paying regardless of their consumption.
One member of the opposition claimed that 10 cents a gallon excise tax on gasoline will place the tax burden squarely on the back of the poor working man. I would agree that that would be true if the poor working man in this country owned two cars, a snowmobile, and a motor boat or two. I do not know about his constituency, but in my constituency the poor do not possess such luxuries. I believe it is obvious that if one can afford the purchase cost of various personal gas consuming vehicles it must be assumed that person can afford the operating cost.
As for the question of the eventual increase in the price of oil, it is simply a question of opting for moderate increase now or a larger and more drastic increase in the future. We must accept the fact there we are importing more oil at the international price than we are exporting. No longer can we depend on the export oil tax revenues to pay for imported crude, or at least for the difference between the domestic and imported price. The longer we delay raising the price of oil, the greater deficit we incur with regard to the oil compensation fund. Ultimately, we will have to pay the price.
I was glad to see that the only reduction in defence spending was $10 million from capital. I feel that defence is an area that is too often forgotten, and in my further comments during this budget debate I intend to concen-

trate primarily on one aspect of our defence policy which, in my opinion, has received all too little attention in past discussion. It is an area in which I have been personally involved for a number of years, that is, the reserve force of the Canadian armed forces. I also hope, if time permits, to say a few words concerning the Canadian cadets movement. It should be noted that both these groups have in the past number of years suffered from a steady reduction in their strength. It was not until just recently that these trends have begun to be reversed. However, before I go into that, permit me to give a brief outline of our reserves.
The reserve component of the Canadian forces consists of officers and men who are enrolled for other than continuing full-time military service except when called out on active service. The sub-components of the reserve force are: first, the primary reserve which I shall for the most part be concentrating upon and whose members generally serve in formed units which are grouped as naval, militia, air and communication reserve units; second, the supplementary list whose members are unpaid but have had previous military training and could be recalled to service in an emergency; third, the cadet instructors list, consisting of commissioned officers whose primary duty is the supervision, administration and training of cadets; fourth, the Canadian rangers, consisting of volunteers who hold themselves in readiness for service in our sparsely-settled, northern, coastal and isolated areas.
The primary reserve at the end of the Second World War was a very large organization. Militia strength alone in 1947 was 47,500. However, by 1973 this figure dropped to less than 14,000, and I understand that today it is at 14,383. Similar though not quite so drastic declines took place in the naval and air reserves.
What are the factors which contributed to this decline? One consideration must be the number of major reorganizations in the reserves during this period of time. This organizational turbulence led to instability, force reductions, and variations in roles and tasks.
Another factor that has adversely affected our reserve force in recent years, and perhaps it is the most important factor, was the "forces-in-being" concept. This stemmed from the polarized international politics of the cold war era, where the defence emphasis was on fighting, with little warning, an all-out nuclear war. After taking such a position it is easy to see how our force planners concluded that the reserve force could play only a limited part in such a concept. As a result it received little priority in planning. Pay raises were few and insignificant, regular force support staff was steadily eroded, and virtually no equipment was purchased for their use.
However, international conditions have changed. There has been a decline in the emphasis on nuclear war, while at the same time increased importance has been placed on improving both conventional capabilities and the national mobilization base. This lessened the stress on regular forces-in-being. In Canada, the white paper on defence drew attention to new priorities.
During the same period, while our military roles and missions have broadened, the regular force has been steadily reduced in strength. More and more we are reduc-
July 4, 1975

ing to levels of capability that offer more of a cadre or nucleus for expansion rather than "forces-in-being". Thus it is obvious that as the regular force declines in strength the reserve force must grow if we are to create the kind of trained manpower needed to meet our operational and administrative commitments.
I suggest the increase should be at least 10 per cent a year to a paid ceiling of 22,000. This, of course, is a great deal less than the 47,500 of 1947, but would go a long way toward creating the reserves I feel are necessary in our country at this time.
The white paper gave the role of the reserves as being "to support the regular force". It was stated that it was the government's intention to maintain the component at its current authorized size and to continue to depend upon it for an appropriate share of the manpower needs of the Canadian forces. It was noted that the reserve force had been designated as part of the "forces-in-being" and therefore the composition had to be adjusted from time to time to keep pace with changes in over-all force manpower and that it could not be considered in isolation from the regular force.
This is extremely important for it means acceptance of the concept of the reserve force as an integral part of the "forces-in-being" while rejecting the idea that the reserves should exist solely as a mobilization base as we have known in the past. In the light of the fact that the regular force has been reduced in total strength and altered substantially in composition and organizational structure, while at the same time there has been increased attention focused on the requirement for military activity in safeguarding of sovereignty, independence, and in the '[DOT]ealiza-tion of national aims, a manpower gap has been created which the reserve forces should be in a position to fill.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order.


William Kenneth Robinson: Of course, there are many tasks-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order. Would the hon. member resume his seat?


Mitchell William Sharp: Madam Speaker, we have had some conversations, and there are so many members anxious to participate in the debate that we were wondering whether Your Honour could turn a blind eye until the clock reaches five minutes to five, at which time we will proceed to put all the motions.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is it agreed that we continue until five minutes to five?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stan Darling: Madam Speaker, it is certainly a privilege to have the opportunity of saying a few words on the budget, but before I go into detail on the provisions of the budget that cause me a tremendous amount of concern I should like to tell the Finance Minister (Mr. Turner) that we would consider lending him the services of our esteemed economic critic. It seems that the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) remembers more of what the Minister of Finance
The Budget-Mr. Darling
has said in the past about the Canadian economy that the Finance Minister himself remembers.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. The hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson) is rising on a point of order.


William Kenneth Robinson: Madam Speaker, I am wondering why I was cut off in the middle of my speech and another hon. member allowed to have the floor. I had not spoken for very long.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Because it was agreed that, according to section (8) of Standing Order 60, speeches were to be ended by 4.45 p.m.


William Kenneth Robinson: Then perhaps the House could be advised why the hon. member who now has the floor is allowed to speak after 4.45 p.m.?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The hon. member may conclude his remarks only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent to allow the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore to complete his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: There is no agreement. The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka.


Stan Darling: Thank you, Madam Speaker. When speaking on the budget and the cuts in expenditure of various departments, I hope there will be additional funds for the Solicitor General's Department in view of a news flash that I have just received, which states that a hostage was being held at knife-point in the British Columbia Penitentiary as of about an hour ago by an inmate, Robert Garry Hume. He is reported to be holding a barber as a hostage. Let us hope that this incident turns out better than the previous one.
If I may now resume my remarks on the budget, when I consider the statements the Minister of Finance has made from time to time about the economy, I am reminded of the doctor who told his patient that he wasn't really too fat, he was just too short for the weight he was carrying. He would be perfectly alright, the doctor said, if he were just seven feet tall. The Finance Minister has made some every excellent appraisals of the economy, but he simply has them turned around backwards.
As the member for York-Simcoe pointed out so ably, the minister brings in an expansionist budget at a time when he considers the economy is expanding, and a cooling-off budget when he considers that the economy is receding. Well, Madam Speaker, it has been demonstrated all too clearly in the last few days that this budget missed the mark on all counts. It seems to be intended solely as an instrument to raise still more revenue for a government that is spending money like it is going out of style, while at the same time pleading with us to believe that it is really practising restraint. If I practised the government's brand of restraint in my own business or in my household,
7318

July 4, 1975
The Budget-Mr. Darling
it would only be a short time before I would be on the street.
I am amazed and appalled, Madam Speaker, that the economic experts on the government payroll have not learned anything from the lessons learned by other countries that have tried socialism, such as Sweden. When any country or individual sets out to prove that people can get by without working, they always make sure that there are enough people who are working and paying heavy taxes so that they can support their outlandish theories. We are well on the way to the point at which those Canadians who choose to work will be paying the same rate of taxes as the Swedes, or possibly even more. As efficient as they are in managing their country, the Swedes find themselves in a dilemma of their own making as they try to stretch their welfare dollars. We in Canada are much worse off because we have a government which is welfare oriented and at the same time shockingly inefficient.
It has been pointed out time and again that our main problem in Canada today is that the government is wasteful, inefficient, and completely out of touch with the people. I can remember vividly that the Liberal Party did not ask for a mandate in 1972, nor in 1974, to destroy the work ethic in Canada and turn our country into a welfare state. And I know just as surely that the Liberal Party was not given such a mandate by the Canadian voters.
The government across the floor has demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that what it really is interested in is power, and it has also demonstrated that it is prepared to do anything that it considers necessary to keep and to increase that power. Up to now it seems to have been successful in buying votes with its heavy spending and its promises of more and more handouts. Now-and this budget is conclusive proof-it is scurrying about trying to find more money for what Premier Davis calls the federal government's voracious appetite for revenue. It could be that even those spendthrifts across the floor are becoming alarmed about the prospect of the gross national debt climbing to the level of our annual gross national product.
And now, Madam Speaker, if I still have an audience, or at least a quorum to speak to, I would like to get into the matter of the tax on gasoline. I think that it has already been pointed out with regard to this scandalous tax grab on gasoline that the federal government is moving into the traditional domain of the provinces, namely, the area of taxation that provides revenue for building and maintaining provincial roads and highways. It is the old principle of raising the cost of roads from those who use them.
My main concern here is that the federal government is raising the tax on gasoline not for the purpose of building better roads, or to build new roads, but simply to swell the coffers of general revenue. It is obvious to everyone in this House, and indeed to people throughout the country by now, that the federal government is running out of new sources of revenue and is putting an even bigger bite on the old ones. I have said over and over again, and I repeat it now for what it is worth, we simply have to stop spending money that we do not have; we must stop talking about restraints in federal spending and start exercising

restraints. We cannot talk ourselves out of the economic problems in which we find ourselves, and we cannot spend our way out of them.
What we are actually doing today, with the present government's spending practices, is saddling future generations of Canadians with a debt that is very likely to strangle them. How would any of you here in this House today like to have your children start out in life with a debt of $2,000, $3,000 or $5,000 to pay off without anything to show for that debt? That is what we are doing when we keep escalating public spending and adding billions of dollars annually to the national debt.
Last year I fought the bill that sought to raise the tax on boats and motors by 10 per cent, and I thought then I had made some headway when the Minister of Finance removed the tax on boats but left it on motors. It seems as though we have been on a merry-go-round and we are now back at the same point again. Now we have a 10-cents, and later a 15-cents, increase in gasoline facing the tourist operators, on top of the 10 per cent tax on boats. It would seem-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. It being 4.55 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt these proceedings and forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House. The question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion (Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton)) agreed to on division.


WAYS AND MEANS
John Napier Turner: That a ways and means motion to amend the Income Tax Act laid upon the table Monday, June 23, 1975, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton) thereupon moved that Bill C-65, to amend the statute law relating to income tax, (No. 2), be read the first time.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

John Napier Turner: That a ways and means motion to amend the Excise Tax Act laid upon the table Monday, June 23, 1975, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton) thereupon moved that Bill C-66, to amend the Excise Tax Act, be read the first time.
July 4, 1975
[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

John Napier Turner: That a ways and means motion to amend the customs tariff, (No. 3) laid upon the table Monday, June 23, 1975, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton) thereupon moved that Bill C-67, to amend the Customs Tariff, (No. 3) be read the first time.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Customs Tariff
Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, I rise briefly on a point of order. Even though it was not possible for you to see me during the debate, I should like once again to wish the occupants of the Chair, those at the Table, our staff and all hon. members a happy weekend, another long one, compliments of the New Democratic Party.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: It being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until Tuesday, July 8, at 11 o'clock a.m., pursuant to special order made Friday, June 27, 1975.
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Special Order.
29576-50/4

Tuesday, July 8, 1975